pitchfork is dumb (#34985859340293849494 in a series.)

Probably already on the schedule.

Surprised that reissue hasn't happened already.

they could just lift the beginning and end from their interpol 10th anniversary review and change the dates

In retrospect, 2001 may have been the very year that we stopped talking about how music sounds, and started talking about what other music it sounds like. "The Strokes sound like the Velvet Underground" was one of the first critical observations to turn into a full-fledged meme.

speaking of that i was at Amoeba yesterday afternoon and Julian Casablancas was wandering around being filmed, probably for a "What's In Your Bag?" segment. i passed by him twice and didn't recognize him at first. he's still holding onto that dirtbag style 100%.

The overwhelming majority of p4k’s content is about contemporary music. While RS may not have published a bunch of “hey this album turned 20 today” articles, they did spend the late 80s putting Jimi Hendrix, Pink Floyd, George Harrison, Grateful Dead etc on their cover and publishing Best of lists mostly full of 60s albums.

Pitchfork's unofficial canon is always being added to, it takes a lot for RS to add an artist to theirs. It's not every year that you get a Foo Fighters.

Is This Is is great. also a better psychedelic record than the BOC one

xpost
I only remember the covers w/Springsteen, Axl, R.E.M. (etc.), but sounds like you know your stuff. (The Dead were still an active band in the late ’80s, of course.) I have an old issue w/Brian Wilson on the cover, but he was releasing an album at the time.

love this one https://images.wolfgangsvault.com/rolling-stone-issue-381/magazine/memorabilia/RS381-MZ.jpg

remember how Johnny Depp used Keith Richards as an inspiration for Pirates of the Caribbean?

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/fa/65/5d/fa655dec02d6d40a9ea37c16f6c2ef8d.jpg
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/36/76/97/3676970ac3b4eb0e8a55c1b22df08df2.jpg

(George Harrison & Pink Floyd were still active artists, too! I’m not objecting to Pfork running Malkmus interviews or whatever.)

Boards of Canada are about as active as they've ever been...

The piece isn’t about the band and its current activities.

I stridently demand that the music press remain focused on its historic function of spotlighting new product being released / promoted (even if by older artists); or else music fandom begins to feel like a depressing nostalgia vortex.

I don't know, man. RS put the Who on the cover in 1989. They didn't even have a new album out. They were just doing a nostalgia tour. Even the '89 issue with Jon Bon Jovi on the cover features an In the studio with the Beatles story.

Nothing wrong with that stuff--it was just servicing the core passionate boomer male audience.

I'll probably enjoy it if I read it but the pitchfork/Simon Reynolds/Boards of Canada trifecta is like seeing a new television show with a cast that's all people from familiar dramas of yesteryear

haha

On a different note, I like this series where artists talk about records that were meaningful to them at different stages of life, how they discovered them, etc.: https://pitchfork.com/features/5-10-15-20/david-byrne-on-the-music-that-made-him/

I assumed David Byrne was somehow born into "world music" (or would at least want to give the impression that it's always been in his blood) -- it's interesting to know that he got into it mid-career, just by picking up cool-looking records, hanging out in salsa clubs, etc.

lol i love a pedal geek fite broke out

THE HAND PAINTED HERMANEUTIC LABS ORANGE-O-MATIC SPIRALPHAZENEBULIZER IS THE NEW PUNK ROCK

last year every issue of RS had some bit about the 50th anniversary, it was a banner at the top of every issue

Anyone else notice the summaries popping up on (some) artists' pages?

https://pitchfork.com/artists/2173-jay-z/

i loved the 1998 list; imo it's great to go `deep' on the near-past as things become just-out-of-the-rear-view mirror, at the vanishing point of retro horizon. it was interesting for me, personally, as someone who came of age musically just a couple years later; a lot of the albums on that list i was introduced to by friends' older siblings and will always have, for me, the mythic status that confers. also it's crazy that 98 is considered 'maybe the decade's worst year for music' there's so many classic albums on that list

actually my favourite thing about Late Fork is the older gen of critics doing revisionist reviews of classics, the Sunday Review series has been really excellent

a stretch

Police say one woman, the suspected shooter, is dead following YouTube shooting. Four people have been hospitalized https://t.co/xHr1bnlaJI pic.twitter.com/AKN2y8NHdc

— Pitchfork (@pitchfork) April 3, 2018

xpost
What are the 1998 albums you consider classic? I'm genuinely curious...

They should do 1988 IMO - that was a killer year for albums!

arab strap, gang starr, aquemini, american water, black star, hello nasty, refused, big pun, atcq, 400 degreez, dmx are all classics to me!

I agree on "American Water" for sure (and also "Super AE" and "Accelerator" for me).

I also highly rate that year’s Liz Phair album (which didn’t make the list).

decent record but i never thought of it as psychedelic when i could go to Spiritualized or Beck or the Flaming Lips or Cornelius. tbh i find that album a bit monotone and dull.

― Hazy Maze Cave (Adam Bruneau), Tuesday, April 3, 2018 11:10 AM (six hours ago)

I dunno. I think it's extremely psychedelic. MHTRTC suggests and (IME) complements psychedelic experience. All those soft yet vivid kaleidoscope patterns shifting and repeating in elastic time, devoid of meaning but dense with implication, charming as they are inexplicably threatening, the whole ghosted through with the echoes of human feelings that can no longer be understood. Good cop.

I mean, the ability to perceive repetition (or, in fact, anything) as "monotone and dull" tends to fade as the chemicals kick in.

Their Q1 top 100 is like 90% garbage.

So this site where the most active threads right now are about wonderwall and the smashing pumpkins is complaining that pitchfork is being too nostalgic?

Ilxors are just gushing over smashing pumpkins and oasis constantly.

I was watching Alex Gibneys documentary on Rolling Stone a short while back, and it was striking how soon that magazine turned into a boomer nostalgia project. Basically, by punk, they pretty much gave up.

I’m sitting here looking at an issue from 1987 that calls R.E.M. “America’s Best Rock & Roll Band”!

(Also, the issue that I thought had Brian Wilson on the cover actually has Tom Cruise on the cover, ha ha)

they loved the nu-jangle in the 80s. kinda like how they like stuff like wilco now. they always gave lots of ink to roots rock. joe ely and ry cooder could always count on a pat on the back.

Calling music has the right the most psychedelic album reeks of wanting to establish a new canon for millennial trash

when i used to do acid pretty much every album i listened to was the most psychedelic album ever made.

I mean the audience not the record which is very good

i mean acid is good that way.

Lol Scott

ha yes, 18 yr-old me on acid, confused about why John Wesley Harding wasn't supposed to be a proper psychedelic record

more like john owsley harding amirite

ha

i remember tripping and sitting by the speakers listening to a college radio new age show once and i was like omg, this stuff is more insane than anything i have in my record collection.

it was so geometric.

"there are seven levels"

xxxxpost
R.E.M. were at their LEAST rootsy/jangly in ’87! Obv. RS wasn’t putting Live Skull on the cover. But that particular tagline was a Big Fuckin’ Deal.

Anyway, I never argued ’80s RS was MaximumRockNRoll... just that I don’t remember it being as backward-looking at Pfork is at the moment.

Ilxors are just gushing over smashing pumpkins and oasis constantly.

― Evan, Wednesday, April 4, 2018 5:09 AM (four hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

new board description

But MaximumRockNRoll would be extremely backward looking in 87... I don't think it's particularly backward-looking of Pfork to have done one 20 year poll and one retrospective. They do five record reviews a day!

i've watched pub covers bands on acid that have been the most out there thing i'd ever heard

xpost I guess what I'm saying is I want twice as many articles on what Will Headrest is posting on Twitter! :P

Part of my "problem" may be that I'm looking for Pitchfork to be something that it's not. It's the only music site I visit daily, out of habit I guess, but I've never found a site that replicates what others offered years ago (daily music news / reviews across multiple genres). Maybe that old model wasn't sustainable, as part of Pfork's success is clearly its specific focus/p.o.v./"brand."