i think what you meant to say, kelpolaris, is: what the H!?
― some dude, Friday, July 1, 2011 10:21 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark
:D
― dirty deathdrone boys (J0rdan S.), Saturday, 2 July 2011 04:20 (twelve years ago) link
"that whole videogame thing" is an entirely different publication that Pitchfork occasionally reprints on their site. Kill Screen Magazine is a quarterly print journal and regularly updated website co-founded by longstanding Pitchfork contributor and professional video game critic Chris Dahlen. The two parties have a deal where select Kill Screen content is republished on Pitchfork's site. It's not like Schreiber and Co. one day said "hey let's all of us review video games!"
― GM, Saturday, 2 July 2011 06:21 (twelve years ago) link
i thought it was funny how one of their stock questions they did when interviewing artists used to be "what video games do you play" and every response was "i don't play video games"
― little mushroom person (abanana), Saturday, 2 July 2011 09:58 (twelve years ago) link
ian cohen is v familiar with comedy fwiw
― *rolls eyez on me* (D-40), Saturday, 2 July 2011 16:12 (twelve years ago) link
the comedy world etc
But while free mixtapes can boost the profile of a rapper at any level without earning a legit dime, comedy records are at best peripheral income streams for their headliners and useless for most everyone else.
is only live comedy cool now or what is the deal
― my Sonicare toothbrush (difficult listening hour), Saturday, 2 July 2011 16:19 (twelve years ago) link
He probably means as opposed to DVDs
― Number None, Saturday, 2 July 2011 16:27 (twelve years ago) link
oh ok.
― my Sonicare toothbrush (difficult listening hour), Saturday, 2 July 2011 16:38 (twelve years ago) link
Electronic Dream is pretty, but it's pretty like the morning sun twinkling off of a dangling machete blade-- you don't want to fuck with it.
http://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/15566-electronic-dream/
― thistle supporter (mcoll), Wednesday, 6 July 2011 18:03 (twelve years ago) link
classic breihan
― just sayin, Wednesday, 6 July 2011 21:12 (twelve years ago) link
this might sound a little vain, but i'm currently caretaking my parents house in mexico for the summer and have been doing so for the past 5-7 (seasonally, obv). so i'd like to say i have a fair amount of experience with machetes, as i usually spend the first couple hours after my flight thwacking down grasses to get to our property (which is essentially in the jungle).
anyway, what i came here to say is: machetes don't glint. they hardly glean. what light they do reflect is only by accident. when you buy them, they essentially look "dirty" from the moment you buy them- they're not kitchen knives here. it gets especially bad when you have brain reside mucked on em. that's just disgusting.
― kelpolaris, Wednesday, 6 July 2011 22:10 (twelve years ago) link
But what else could he have used? I mean, everyone knows the dangling machete in the morning sun metaphor already, so
― Z S, Wednesday, 6 July 2011 22:34 (twelve years ago) link
I might be overstaying my welcome in this thread, but I don't know - glint of the rising sun upon a katana before you're getting your head lopped off? Glint of the guillotine during a morning execution? I can't tell if I'm doing better or worse here. It's just an awkward thing to say in the first place.
― kelpolaris, Thursday, 7 July 2011 01:53 (twelve years ago) link
im just saying theres so many more sharp (and shiny!) things in the world than a machete. machetes aren't really the epitome of either, they're just fuckin big.
― kelpolaris, Thursday, 7 July 2011 01:54 (twelve years ago) link
there's a reason Cannibal Corpse wrote "Fucked With A Knife" and not "Fucked With A Machete" guys -- you don't want to fuck with it
― some dude, Thursday, 7 July 2011 01:58 (twelve years ago) link
if any album ever deserved a vicious takedown it's Big Sean, what the hell was that wishy washy soft hands review
― some dude, Saturday, 9 July 2011 13:44 (twelve years ago) link
I think that sentence is actually saying that you don't want to fuck with the reflected sunlight.
― grey tambourine (wk), Saturday, 9 July 2011 18:29 (twelve years ago) link
because it can give you skin cancer
― grey tambourine (wk), Saturday, 9 July 2011 18:30 (twelve years ago) link
when your dangling machete reflects it back under your umbrella
http://music.newcity.com/2011/07/14/did-pitchfork-kill-the-rock-critic-the-changing-landscape-of-music-journalism/
― Gatsby was a success, in the end, wasn't he? (D-40), Friday, 15 July 2011 01:03 (twelve years ago) link
sw00ds' remarks:
I’m not really the person to comment on this, given just how infrequently over the years I’ve visited Pitchfork. (I know there are people all over the web who wear comments like that as if they’re a badge of honour or something, but truthfully, I’ve just never felt a kinship with the place or with the bands and genres they are in general known to cover, never really cared for their overall presentation or feel or design enough to even bother delving much into the writing; I’m also not in an endless quest for new music, and haven’t been for over 20 years.) Still, the central thrust of this piece — Pitchfork has been much more successful at promoting the Pitchfork brand than at promoting any individual writers — seems accurate enough. The question is, does it matter? It matters to Jim DeRogatis, who is quoted here while jumping up and down proclaiming that music “is not entertainment” and therefore deserves better (isn’t it? does it?). But does Pitchfork‘s readership care about what Jim DeRogatis cares about? Should they? (If so, why?) Do Pitchfork readers really give a shit about finding “the modern-day Creem“? (Do any of us really need more of that, right now?) Why were no DeRogatis-like experts from Pitchfork‘s actual demographic tracked down for commentary?
Overriding all of this, however, is my growing irritation at the word “curator,” which shows up twice here (it was one reason I also couldn’t resist mocking that Creem story from a couple days ago). When did this stupid notion — of rock critics as “curators” — take root and what can we do to kill it, preferably sooner rather than later?
― The Edge of Gloryhole (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 15 July 2011 01:22 (twelve years ago) link
PF is maybe less personality/writer-driven than it used to be but i don't see how it's a huge break from the past -- it's annoying when people say "Pitchfork says" instead of a writer's name or even just "a Pitchfork writer says" but i think it was that way more often than not with Rolling Stone too
― some dude, Friday, 15 July 2011 01:31 (twelve years ago) link
how old is this kid? he talks about interviewing kot for a story "for school" last year, and he's telling us about the heyday of rs, creem, and the voice?
― death to ilx, long live the frogbs (strongo hulkington's ghost dad), Friday, 15 July 2011 01:36 (twelve years ago) link
google book search has brought the magazines of yesterday to the youth of TODAY
― some dude, Friday, 15 July 2011 01:39 (twelve years ago) link
unless he's some kinda rodney dangerfield oldest-living-freshman this kinda strikes me as parroting dero's line outright, whatever the validity of the argument. if he's in his 20s i'm not sure i'd even trust him to talk about the heyday of, like, spin.
― death to ilx, long live the frogbs (strongo hulkington's ghost dad), Friday, 15 July 2011 01:39 (twelve years ago) link
he's the kind of college student who cares what dero thinks, i think it goes without saying we've found a very special kind of useless here
― some dude, Friday, 15 July 2011 01:44 (twelve years ago) link
(“It’s also revealing that they don’t allow comments,” DeRogatis notes)
― Gatsby was a success, in the end, wasn't he? (D-40), Friday, 15 July 2011 01:45 (twelve years ago) link
Every time I think I'm being too hard on DeRo he delivers a solid gold idiotism.
― The Edge of Gloryhole (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 15 July 2011 01:46 (twelve years ago) link
call me a company man and a fascist all you want but as long as the comments stay away its pitchfork pitchfork uber alles
― death to ilx, long live the frogbs (strongo hulkington's ghost dad), Friday, 15 July 2011 01:47 (twelve years ago) link
i think pitchfork should allow comments for one day just to show everyone how awful it would be
― some dude, Friday, 15 July 2011 01:47 (twelve years ago) link
I mean that remark is on the level of Jonah Goldberg saying it's "revealing" how Hitler was vegetarian and lots of liberals are.
― The Edge of Gloryhole (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 15 July 2011 01:47 (twelve years ago) link
It's pretty "revealing" how pitchfork has never published dero's scribblings and now here he is attacking them
― lizard tails, a self-regenerating food source for survival (wk), Friday, 15 July 2011 01:50 (twelve years ago) link
It's internet culture generally rather than Pitchfork specifically that discourages "name" writers emerging. There are too many voices talking about everything for particular voices to carry as far as the DeRogatis and others would like.
Have any big name writers emerged over the past 10 years (I mean people recognised as such, rather than deserving candidates like Tom Ewing - who incidentally writes for the big bad P)? I don't think that lack can be blamed on Pitchfork.
― Tim F, Friday, 15 July 2011 02:09 (twelve years ago) link
i think most of the 'big' voices these days, good or bad, are people who write for one site/blog where all the traffic is from people who specifically want to read that one writer -- in that sense anything with as many writers as Pitchfork is going to seem 'faceless' by comparison
― some dude, Friday, 15 July 2011 02:28 (twelve years ago) link
but i mean most critics are simply not gonna be a Lester Bangs cult of personality for better or worse, mostly for better imo
― some dude, Friday, 15 July 2011 02:30 (twelve years ago) link
yeah i mean this could just me subconsciously covering my own blanding out as a writer but i'll take 2011 "faceless" (lol) pitchfork over a return to the days of one act plays and open letters to cotton mather every time.
― death to ilx, long live the frogbs (strongo hulkington's ghost dad), Friday, 15 July 2011 02:34 (twelve years ago) link
open letters to cotton mather every time.
et tu Malkmus
― The Edge of Gloryhole (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 15 July 2011 02:35 (twelve years ago) link
i think it's hard to say that pitchfork -- arguably the only major music outlet in the world (aside from maybe... nyt?) that actually fosters music criticism -- is killing the 'rock critic'
― J0rdan S., Friday, 15 July 2011 02:35 (twelve years ago) link
also, it's like... so easy to trace why consumers now care less about what one person has to say about something that to pin it on one entity displays a real lack of awareness
― J0rdan S., Friday, 15 July 2011 02:36 (twelve years ago) link
btw this dude is in grad school
― J0rdan S., Friday, 15 July 2011 02:39 (twelve years ago) link
also who the fuck hangs on roger ebert's every word
― J0rdan S., Friday, 15 July 2011 02:40 (twelve years ago) link
a fellow Chicagoan with logorrhea.
― The Edge of Gloryhole (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 15 July 2011 02:43 (twelve years ago) link
Agreed, but can anyone in the former group even be defined as "big" apart from people who made a name for themselves in the 90s at the very latest?
― Tim F, Friday, 15 July 2011 02:53 (twelve years ago) link
the fact that writers aren't as famous as they used to be isn't exactly unique to music crit, not sure what the point of even focusing on that is
― some dude, Friday, 15 July 2011 02:56 (twelve years ago) link
― some dude, Thursday, July 14, 2011 9:44 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
bam
― call all destroyer, Friday, 15 July 2011 03:06 (twelve years ago) link
what a bunch of self-serious nonsense
I think it's weird to somehow expect the publication to make the writers big or famous. It's going to take some pretty extraordinary writing to make the reader give a shit about the byline, and I think that's probably always been the case.
― lizard tails, a self-regenerating food source for survival (wk), Friday, 15 July 2011 03:07 (twelve years ago) link
Not sure if this is addressed to me or to the writer - if to me then i agree? but i'm saying the article fails even to recognise that it's a general truth even just in respect of music crit.
― Tim F, Friday, 15 July 2011 03:14 (twelve years ago) link
i was responding to you -- if you were asking that question on behalf of the writer or in a devil's advocate way i couldn't tell. in any event what i was saying about identity/personality-driven music blogs doesn't really have to do with whether those people are famous in any real sense.
― some dude, Friday, 15 July 2011 03:19 (twelve years ago) link
Well then I agree.
My point is the same as yours I think - which is that the internet just does not facilitate big name music writers, and people who've been able to hold onto their reps in that environment are mostly relics from a prior medium. Even one-person websites can't really achieve this except in respect of very small fanbases with whom the writer often has a social (or at least social networking) connection. The link between the individual voice and the mass audience is broken in this and many other contexts I think.
Interestly, policital punditry is one area where I think the opposite has occured - a relative drop in publication brand power and concomitant rise in name recognition.
― Tim F, Friday, 15 July 2011 03:28 (twelve years ago) link