pitchfork is dumb (#34985859340293849494 in a series.)

what effect do you guys think P4k's font choice has on the indie community?

well for one thing it put a lotta serif-loving graphic design kids outta work

font-family:"Lucida Grande",Arial,Verdana

what a disaster for Times New Roman

;_;

kinda sad this thread is turning into Rolling Quibbling Over Every Word and Number Published by Pitchfork 2010 tbh. liked it better when it was just intermittents wtf's.

quibbling about pitchfork is like yawning about architecture

I realize the ratings are pretty much trivial, and I'm not bashing either record (enjoy both), but how does this *really* make any sense?? I think there have been other cases of maybe Baroness, Converge or someone too un-Pfork-y scoring in the 8.5 realm and not making Best New Music... what gives?

― I just wish he hadn't adopted the "ilxor" moniker (ilxor), Wednesday, March 10, 2010 12:57 PM (2 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

this is probably the most embarrassing post on a message board where people often use florid prose to describe bouts with crossdressing and giving handjobs to their british roomates

don't associate us with the vile acts of l0u1s jagg3r

too obvious but i still lol'd

this is probably the most embarrassing post on a message board where people often use florid prose to describe bouts with crossdressing and giving handjobs to their british roomates come to laugh at other people on the Internet while taking a break from the thankless, underpaid, overwhelmingly stressful "job" of "brainstorming" over their next 140-character-or-less "critical" "album" "review"

that only describes like 5 people on this site

I didn't know Whiney's ego was that big...

talking about pitchfork album scores is ilx taboo for a good reason, ilxor. i'm sure there is a 1000+ post thread on stereogum about it you can consult if you really need to flesh this out. it's pretty obvious on an instinctive common sense level that individual album scores are submitted by their respective reviewers and BNM is like, staff picks or editor's favourites. i don't understand what is controversial or worth discussing about it.

HI DERE

http://trolldollsfanlisting.webs.com/Wizard_troll_doll-low_res.jpg

I realize it's not really worth discussing, now it's just fun to watch people get all worked up about Pfork and people talking about Pfork and it just becomes spectacular. Not my intention when I first posted above but hey...

ok so youre saying you caught shit for your post but it's cool because you stumbled into trolling?

So is Whiney the comic book guy of this website?

ok so youre saying you caught shit for your post but it's cool because you stumbled into trolling?

tbh I don't see how that position makes him any different from over half of the regular posters here

calling you retarded =/= getting worked up about pfork

xp that may be true, i didn't know it worked like that! maybe i should say dumber shit here.

just do what i do kid

- I realize the ratings are pretty much trivial, and I'm not bashing either record (enjoy both), but how does this *really* make any sense?? I think there have been other cases of maybe Baroness, Converge or someone too un-Pfork-y scoring in the 8.5 realm and not making Best New Music... what gives?

- I'm not mad, just pointing out the disconnect between ratings and BNM tags.

Well of course they're disconnected: they're two different things. If everything above an 8.x was automatically BNM, what would the point of BNM be? It wouldn't tell you anything at all.

I mean, I would type out a whole lengthy explanation, but a lot of this has been said by n/a. My understanding as a (minor) contributor is that you should think of it this way: ratings represent close attention to individual records by individual critics. BNM represents the site's staff looking over everything and picking out a set of records that they can solidly recommend to the audience as a whole as being notable and great. It's like a "featured" rack. A "maybe start by directing your attention here" pointer. A "we don't expect you to read every single review, so here's the stuff we're pretty confident you might find rewarding" shortlist.

I mean, if a stranger who'd never heard any of your records asked you to pick out 10 albums you'd recommend listening to, would they really be the same as the records you'd rate highest when talking about each one individually? It certainly wouldn't be for me.

I would type out a whole lengthy explanation, but

I'm on the Internet today.

Expressing curiosity about how Pitchfork works isn't always equal to getting worked up about it. Getting worked up about someone supposedly getting worked up about Pitchfork seems way more pointless though many do that to ironically prove they are somehow cooler/above it?

wait aren't you getting worked up about someone getting worked up about someone supposedly getting worked up about pitchfork

this is all going to end like "Event Horizon" where Satan makes us all eat our own eyes, isn't it

this would be the thread for it

fwiw dude got multiple sincere answers; but ask a q abt p4k and you better expect a bunch of b- zings imo

http://img714.imageshack.us/img714/8770/crisisoninfiniteearths.jpg

I mean, if a stranger who'd never heard any of your records asked you to pick out 10 albums you'd recommend listening to, would they really be the same as the records you'd rate highest when talking about each one individually?

Really good way to characterize things, imo.

Thx nabisco!

Ah but I am not worked up, otherwise good point! Just my observation.

ok so youre saying you caught shit for your post but it's cool because you stumbled into trolling?

Yeah, pretty much.

tbh I don't see how that position makes him any different from over half of the regular posters here

And, yeah, pretty much.

if anyone cares, this blog had a pretty interesting and comprehensive study on why there is sometimes a .1 difference between Best New Music and otherwise

hi dere's zing was an A-, not a B-

the thing about that question nabisco asks is that between the ages of 13 and 27, I am pretty sure my answer would have been "yes, absolutely"

Ah but I am not worked up, otherwise good point! Just my observation.

whoa man no need to get worked up

I realize the ratings are pretty much trivial, and I'm not bashing either record (enjoy both), but how does this *really* make any sense?? I think there have been other cases of maybe Baroness, Converge or someone too un-Pfork-y scoring in the 8.5 realm and not making Best New Music... what gives?

u shld b set on fire

the thing about that question nabisco asks is that between the ages of 13 and 27, I am pretty sure my answer would have been "yes, absolutely"

1. The Cure "Goth Beach Party"
2. Depeche Mode "We're Dead in the Graveyard"
3. Bach "Bach is Fucking Awesome in B Minor"
4. The Cure "Sadness is Contageous"
5. Blink 182 "Take Off Your Pants and Jack It"
6. Prince "holyshitiamsoloingwiththisguitariloveU2much"
7. U2 "Zooropa"
8. Insane Clown Posse "ISP 4: The Faygo Years"
9. Dreamboat Gorilla "Songs from Nantucket"
10. Jewel "Songs in the Key of Teddybears"

Hi Lamp. Howya doin.

iatee, just calm down! Alright?!!?!?!!? GAHHHH!!!

wtf Que

you know I would never in a million years rep for Dreamboat Gorilla

u shld b set on fire

Speaking of fire... the new High on Fire album got an 8.0 but no Best New Music?!?!!!?! OMG WTF DIE P4RK DIEEEEEEEE

http://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/13966-snakes-for-the-divine/

who is better ilxor or kshighway

i give 1 an 8.2 the other an 8.4 but only one is a best new poster

just kidding theyre both terrible

http://www.seattleweekly.com/2005-03-16/news/double-zing-ceremony/

just kidding theyre both terrible

― Lamp

i lol'd

1.2

guys