Today they bnm'ed Wadada Leo Smith & Vijay Iyer and Charles Bradley's new Black Sabbath cover. Are they changing away from indie-hype as well?
― Frederik B, Wednesday, 23 March 2016 18:52 (ten years ago)
Nah, they just looooove Vijay Iyer. They've been polishing his knob for well over a decade.
Historicity
Accelerando
Solo
Tragicomic
In What Language? (with Mike Ladd)
― the top man in the language department (誤訳侮辱), Wednesday, 23 March 2016 19:15 (ten years ago)
A Charles Bradley cover that was originally released in 2013, and then later re-released late last year in promotion of his upcoming album now gets "Best New Music"? Better late than never, I guess.
― MarkoP, Wednesday, 23 March 2016 19:22 (ten years ago)
Charles Bradley's retro soul is standard fare for indie fans as well
― curmudgeon, Wednesday, 23 March 2016 19:24 (ten years ago)
kinda feel like indie is not a thing anymore, like it doesn't exist
― Οὖτις, Wednesday, 23 March 2016 19:25 (ten years ago)
lol, sorry to rail on this one more time but now they have to do a quasi-news item to explain that they've named something a best new track:
http://i.imgur.com/Xtt1aa1.jpg
― Karl Malone, Wednesday, 23 March 2016 20:16 (ten years ago)
"there's got to be a better way"
― Karl Malone, Wednesday, 23 March 2016 20:18 (ten years ago)
Because it's a "big deal" duh!
― Evan, Wednesday, 23 March 2016 20:23 (ten years ago)
lol at Charles Bradley's Cover of Black Sabbath's "Changes" is Named Best New Track. Too bad the Senate will never vote to confirm dudes.
― Blowout Coombes (President Keyes), Wednesday, 23 March 2016 20:37 (ten years ago)
Would find it really funny if this "news" gets reported by another Music website, given that a lot of them just seem to report on the same stories.
― MarkoP, Wednesday, 23 March 2016 20:47 (ten years ago)
Aggrefork blog BNMNOW.com begins to outperform the hub site; buys conde nast and vows to become the new home for meta-millenial men
― ulysses, Wednesday, 23 March 2016 20:54 (ten years ago)
baaaaha, i thought it was just a one off mistake but it looks like it's a thing
http://i.imgur.com/8LTm4l7.jpg
― Karl Malone, Wednesday, 23 March 2016 21:17 (ten years ago)
Pleeeeease let a band called Track release a really good song with Track in the title, so it can be named best new track, given the best new track tag, and also the tracks tag
― Karl Malone, Wednesday, 23 March 2016 21:18 (ten years ago)
i don't ask for much
― Karl Malone, Wednesday, 23 March 2016 21:19 (ten years ago)
they'll be reviewing the reviews next
― Number None, Wednesday, 23 March 2016 23:40 (ten years ago)
Charles Bradley's Cover of Black Sabbath's "Changes" is Named Best New Track, And That's Okay
― denies the existence of dark matter (difficult listening hour), Wednesday, 23 March 2016 23:46 (ten years ago)
is the blessed impossible day upon us
is ilm seceding from pitchfork
― Laertiades (imago), Wednesday, 23 March 2016 23:58 (ten years ago)
every site looks like pitchfork now. blame facebook. (kind of not kidding.)
― maura, Thursday, 24 March 2016 13:55 (ten years ago)
I usually just blame Apple.
― MarkoP, Thursday, 24 March 2016 14:35 (ten years ago)
surprised (okay, very slightly) that ratings below 5 are hardly used if this index is correct:http://www.albumoftheyear.org/ratings/1-pitchfork-highest-rated/2016/10
― niels, Tuesday, 29 March 2016 11:46 (ten years ago)
btw redesign has introduced abstracts for all reviews, thx p4k!
I'd be like "hey good point we should probably include those summaries in the actual reviews as introductory paragraphs in boldface or smth like they do in the papers"― niels, Tuesday, February 9, 2016 2:31 PM (1 month ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
― niels, Tuesday, February 9, 2016 2:31 PM (1 month ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
― niels, Tuesday, 29 March 2016 11:49 (ten years ago)
x-post Not too surprising, as p4k tends to only review the sorts of albums they are predisposed to like (as opposed to Spin or RS reviewing Dave Matthews records and such)
― Blowout Coombes (President Keyes), Tuesday, 29 March 2016 12:02 (ten years ago)
yeah, that does make a lot of sense too - guess it's kind of old school to position yourself through disliking (even if any reader will get the implicit dislike in ignoring a popular artist entirely)
― niels, Tuesday, 29 March 2016 12:12 (ten years ago)
Bad reviews/ratings seem really scarce in the whole world of music publications, not just P4K.
― moans and feedback (Dinsdale), Tuesday, 29 March 2016 12:13 (ten years ago)
That's because everything's awesome now. Right?
― Wimmels, Tuesday, 29 March 2016 12:52 (ten years ago)
its that buyers guide/curatorial/RIYL thing that the internet has brought about. equal parts Amazon and insane rock list-makers. discarding/ignoring the bad stuff (or what people think is bad stuff) and focusing on whatever your niche is. makes sense with so much stuff out there. people don't want to read a ton of bad reviews they want itunes/spotify playlist choices.
― scott seward, Tuesday, 29 March 2016 14:15 (ten years ago)
there need to be more "worst songs/albums of the year" lists.
and then just for fairness there should also be like "the 20 most bleh middle of the road songs/albums of the year that were approximately a 5 out of 10"
― billstevejim, Tuesday, 29 March 2016 17:17 (ten years ago)
You would think more publications would be down to review Twenty One Pilots since it can be kinda fun to write bad reviews.
― billstevejim, Tuesday, 29 March 2016 17:18 (ten years ago)
where is the pitchfork version of this book?http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51WGnJIEHQL._SX314_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg
― billstevejim, Tuesday, 29 March 2016 17:22 (ten years ago)
i feel like in film or lit or many other mediums, getting one star or zero stars or whatever is common because there's a sense of like, this movie was botched so badly on some fundamental level that there's no audience that would think highly of it, whereas with music, i dunno, i think there's a greater sense of, we're only writing about it because somebody does like it, it holds some value for some audience, or there are good songs but as a whole it's not great.
back IN MY DAY most of my PF reviews were under 5/10, but that was when they would make people review any old garbage from the promo pile.
― some dude, Tuesday, 29 March 2016 17:22 (ten years ago)
i've often thought that there's a niche (likely online) for eviscerating and ONLY eviscerating reviews; don't get why whiney isn't doing that
― i believe that (s)he is sincere (forksclovetofu), Tuesday, 29 March 2016 17:29 (ten years ago)
i think you kind of have to wait for bad records to come to you for it to not seem forced, if you're just doing a performative IT STINKS schtick it doesn't really have the same effect
every month i write about my 10 favorite albums that came out that month and one 'worst' record, and there've been ties when the 'worst' review will get more attention than the others, although i don't go scorched earth every time, sometimes i'm just genuinely disappointed in a record i was looking forward to.
― some dude, Tuesday, 29 March 2016 17:42 (ten years ago)
If only Pitchfork would tackle the upcoming Lukas Graham album.
― MarkoP, Tuesday, 29 March 2016 17:44 (ten years ago)
I remember when an ilxor wrote a semi-negative review on p4k and Genius annotated it to explain to her how wrong she was
― Blowout Coombes (President Keyes), Tuesday, 29 March 2016 18:09 (ten years ago)
she went against THE BUZZ and that's unconscionable. similar fits were pitched about their Lil Yachty review.
― some dude, Tuesday, 29 March 2016 18:21 (ten years ago)
me and maura pitched a book like that after our F2K posts did monster traffic in 2009
http://www.villagevoice.com/music/f2k-the-50-worst-songs-of-the-00s-6629282
No one wanted it.
― Whiney G. Weingarten, Tuesday, 29 March 2016 18:24 (ten years ago)
lol somehow I missed that there's an actual artist going by "Lil Yachty" and I was trying to figure out if that was a reference to something else
― μpright mammal (mh), Tuesday, 29 March 2016 18:39 (ten years ago)
Is this about Wet?
― MarkoP, Tuesday, 29 March 2016 18:50 (ten years ago)
come to think of it, i haven't read a good/funny negative review in a long time.
― scott seward, Tuesday, 29 March 2016 18:51 (ten years ago)
I mean there's a charlie puth review. anything is possible
― HYPERLINK TO RAP GENIUS (BradNelson), Tuesday, 29 March 2016 18:53 (ten years ago)
I just learned that I went to high school with two of the writers of 7 Years.
― Frederik B, Tuesday, 29 March 2016 18:58 (ten years ago)
@billstevejim have you seen this
http://www.amazon.com/Worst-Rock-Roll-Records-Time/dp/0806512318
i bought it for less than 3 at a waldenbooks when i was 16, and it probably changed my life.
― maura, Tuesday, 29 March 2016 19:14 (ten years ago)
also guys don't you know that negativity is out unless you're talking about out-of-context photos of people in embarrassing situations
― maura, Tuesday, 29 March 2016 19:15 (ten years ago)
is this the point where i say that I think "Seven Years" is very poignant and the right kind of saccharine sentimentality for me to unreservedly enjoy
― i like to trump and i am crazy (DJP), Tuesday, 29 March 2016 19:23 (ten years ago)
a data-journalist should graph the evolution of the distribution of pitchfork scores to test the 'no more negative reviews' hypothesis
the end of negativity is possibly an undesirable side effect of the positive development of too much music. at one point Scott Plagenhof was on some ilx thread saying 'we genuinely prefer to review an album we like over one we don't', and as the # of albums increases if they stick to that principle the % of neg reviews should decrease (assuming music as a whole doesn't get worse). so they don't go out of their way to shit on a random indie album as much anymore (or only Ian Cohen does). but i feel like they still have some degree of integrity and if a notable album sucks they'll give it a nice salty review
― flopson, Tuesday, 29 March 2016 19:30 (ten years ago)
I think Cohen has stepped away from that role.
― The burrito of ennui (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 29 March 2016 19:32 (ten years ago)
I was going to mention a negative review in The Wire from a few years ago but, frankly, their house style makes negative reviews pretty boring
dry british academic voice meets salty dialogue isn't very biting
― μpright mammal (mh), Tuesday, 29 March 2016 19:56 (ten years ago)
that thing Lex wrote about Future Brown last year was a good 'ah, they just don't write negative music criticism like this anymore' moment
― flopson, Tuesday, 29 March 2016 19:59 (ten years ago)
wapo can be pretty negi at times.
― dc, Tuesday, 29 March 2016 20:02 (ten years ago)
If I want reviews that don't flow with the current of pop (sub)culture opinion, I wade through RYM, and various music-themed message boards/genre-specific sites. There's a lot of bad writing at these places, and I'm sure plenty of the contributors would love the exposure somewhere like Pfork would give them. However, there are also people just writing because they love the music, or they know so much about it, good or bad, they can't keep it down. Opinions about music, art, film -- hell, ANYTHING -- carry the most weight to me when people don't have anything to gain by giving them out. Business, by definition, don't fit that criteria.
― Dominique, Tuesday, 29 March 2016 20:04 (ten years ago)