pitchfork is dumb (#34985859340293849494 in a series.)

wtf?

O_o wtf indeed

yeah that's really weird. i wonder if it's a mistake?

Dumb broads can't score out of ten for shit.

yeah, I'm sure it's a mistake

don't have time to read it right now or ever but 5.7 is actually about right for that album imo

It ends with the phrase "that rarest of remix albums: the kind might play start to finish, and more than once" -- I don't pretend to know Jess's process, obviously, but if he happened to feel like this was a good instance of a not-very-essential type of project, it might make sense to use a 5.7 (which should ideally mean "better than average record").

It reads 7.5 when I click on the link above. I guess they changed it?

haha alternately slight dyslexic moment

Ok, that makes sense...

Brief derail to ask a question about the album, for those who've heard it: is it full tracks or did Get Physical/Koze go ahead and make it a mix album, like the early press release suggested? Because the latter is clearly an awful idea, and the Pfork review makes no mention of it, which leaves me hopeful.

full trax

From today's Red Red Meat review:

if you can picture a scrubby patch of weeds and in it a clump of gauze, possibly soiled, twitching in the breeze, and the disconnected image of decay stirs something in you, you're on your way to falling in love with Red Red Meat.

if ya'll haven't seen it, i love the new updates on musical Twitterers.
http://pitchfork.com/news/tag/Echo%20Chamber/

i kinda like that description tbh xp

as far as pitchfork is dumb goes, this month's "puritan blister" is up there:

I’d vowed that 2009 would, at least initially, be a year of pure pop escapism, especially after how pointedly/limitingly I used music as a sort of tourniquet/palliative for 2008's psychic wounds. But just two weeks into the new year, a family friend killed himself while arguing with his fiancee. Those of us by whom he is survived are, understandably, agonizing over the subjective prescriptions we could have offered him: religiosity, Successories, credit lines, lasagna, advice, etc. But as ridiculous as it may sound, even by Puritan Blister standards, I am tortured that, as I sat beside him during Christmas dinner, or on New Year's Eve, I didn't recruit him into the cult of Kanye West's latest album, because it might have saved his life, or at least gotten him through the season.

i'm not the type to get offended by things (and this isn't an exeception) but i can imagine someone getting hilariously angry at the writer of the column after reading this. like maybe the fiancee of the guy who offed himself. "oh right, all he need was to have heard 808s and heartbreak a few more times."

http://pitchfork.com/features/puritan-blister/7587-puritan-blister-42/

Yeah, that's . . . not well thought-out.

It resonates with me, actually.

WOW

ilxor is so clearly a sock

I'm sure it was written with good intentions, but using your friend's tragic story as a framing device to write about the new Kanye West album seems inappropriate (to me, at least). Especially given how serious the situation apparently was: "K---- shot himself in the head, in front of his intended, who'd been re-contacting an ex and who was threatening to leave him."

in today's Prince review written by the guy who started this thread, he refers to himself as 31 a paragraph after implying a birthdate that would make him 29

His rise to success, beginning with 1979's Prince, pretty much mirrored my pre-adolescent development as a music fan.

You think this implies that Jess was born in 1979? That seems like a big leap.

lol they edited it. when i read it, it said something like "Prince's first album, released only a few months after I was born..."

That's true, though. Jess was born Feb. 21, 1978. For You was released in October 1978.

lol jaymc

good review btw

^^ (xp)

they've def edited it in the past hour, though. not a big deal really tho imo, and it was a pretty good review

yeah not a big deal at all, just wanted to clown jess in his own thread for old times sake

I'm sure it was written with good intentions, but using your friend's tragic story as a framing device to write about the new Kanye West album seems inappropriate
Yeah, and claiming that listening to a record could have saved this poor guy's life is just boneheaded and minimizes the tragedy.

PB is usually my favorite read on pitchfork but the last couple have been questionable.

that article is terrible

How to let K----‘s death be about K----, and avoid letting it serve as an excuse to lube up the gorge of self-trivia? I mean, pop's escape has nothing to offer if one can't weather the phrase "I just died in your arms tonight"! I feel suddenly mean about an unsympathetic post-mortem review of an Elliott Smith disc that I typed for (cheap irony alert) No Depression.

http://pitchfork.com/news/35087-lil-waynes-latest-amazing-mixtape-cover/

if lil wayne bootleg mixtape covers are "news" then 77 is like the new york times

http://www.ilxor.com/ILX/ThreadSelectedControllerServlet?boardid=77&threadid=66238

Album-covers-as-"news" is a part of EVERY successful music site tho. As pretty much the first sign that an album is ready, you instantly become one the first google hits as it nears release date. These days, music writing is all internet math, and that's true for every website, not just pfork

even the jaded snarkballs at idolator do it

well imo "reporting" on the "release" of the decemberists' new album cover is one thing, but doing the same for a bootleg mixtape as if there aren't 495898 hilarious photoshopped mixtape covers every day is another

i kno im getting pedantic but it's not like its a "lil wayne mixtape" -- if in 10 mins i rounded up leaked cam'ron tracks and made a zip and then photoshopped his face over billy mays's body and put jim jones' face in a juicer, i wouldn't expect pfork to "report" on it

as if cam'ron was releasing a new mixtape with a hilarious cam'ron sanctioned cover

slow news day i guess \o_O/ + it is a funny cover

that cover is sick!

dude, yahoo and cnn fill their quotas with a stable of wacky "news," why would a music website be any different?

They could just hype up a worthless band or two and use their "output" as filler quota material and then dump them a year later when there's actually news on bands people like to report.

Just sayin'.

"Do purple pontiffs leave paisley piles in the Minnesota woods?"

i miss jess being around

no sarge you do have a point, wtf is the point in putting up a bulletin about an "amazing" garden variety mixtape cover that has nothing to do w/ the artist's official output

i know they throw 10s at reissues all the time but putting them in "best new music" is a little nutty. been thinking for a long time they should just create a special reissues section apart from the new album reviews.

yeah it's not included in the BNM section though, it's just given the tag next to the review. which is a little confusing

btw starting threads about batshit pitchfork reviews is so 2002

ok pitchfork is dumb: none of your old links work anymore

lol @ JT Ramsay

Let's just admit it: "JT Ramsay" was a pseudonym Jaymc wrote under

If you don't believe me, note that JT RAMSAY is an easy anagram for "SMART JAY"

in the tradition of Pfork anagrams: I always thought Sam Ubl was a fake name because it's an anagram of "Albums."

Nice dude, tho.