pitchfork is dumb (#34985859340293849494 in a series.)

Transformation to celebrity gossip supermarket checkout line tabloid almost complete

― Paul Ponzi, Tuesday, February 12, 2019 9:19 AM (thirty-eight minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

are you a triggercut sock or is triggercut a sock of you

In which a Pitchfork writer pretends to be surprised at enjoying an awards show that feeds off the social media response fueled image-first, music-second celebrity culture that they’ve been bought into for years now.

― triggercut, Monday, February 11, 2019 6:26 PM (yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

for what it's worth I actually was surprised, and I'm sorry if I wrote anything wrong, I have been operating on one hour of sleep

I could pretend to not be surprised, if that would make you feel better

like, this is a show that has historically been fairly bad, where the overwhelming critical/audience/viewership consensus has been that they have been bad and have steadily grown worse, where the lead-up to the ceremony itself was full of negative news stories and distracting feuds, where many anticipated performers either pulled out or refused to attend, and also where I stayed up until 5 a.m. to write about it (hence the one hour of sleep) on a Sunday night when I had work (late to) and a real analysis quiz (probably flunked) the following Monday. it would be very surprising if I expected to enjoy it.

I read the piece and thought it was really good

idk if you need to justify yourself to someone who read the headline and nothing further

katherine, I enjoyed your piece, which was witty about a not necessarily wit-sparking topic.

Brad and fgti otm and morrisp otm too. This thread is pitiable.

I think some posters expect individual writers to adhere to some Voice of Pitchfork continuity like they're writing for a comic book or something

wow yes

personally I don't expect perfect coherency btwn writers or whatever but the lyrics thing does bug me

I liked that Katherine's article took a concept that I (and I'm guessing, several other music obsessives) never quite knew how to elucidate - how the current-generation consensus is slowly replacing the current version of past-generation consensus - and made it understandable.

I have thoughts about the "the lyrics are bad, here's why" method of a takedown review, but I can't really summarize them in a way that I find is effective. But here goes. It's almost as if it's a proxy for larger acknowledgments of changing tastes, aging, exhaustion, lack of interest in 2nd- and 3rd-stages of musician's career arcs. It's a maguffin, pinning a holistic dislike of A Band That We May Have Once Liked Or At Least Tolerated on "lyrical missteps". It kind of puts the critic in a position of being "not an asshole, just being objective"-- a contrast from say Jeremy Larson's takedown of Greta Von Fleet, where he was unabashedly and entertainingly being a massive dick. I find the "the lyrics are bad, here's why" approach to a takedown to leave me feeling a little lied to, myself-- "you liked HEALTH at one point and there's no difference between this and their early stuff except we're all older and the world has changed". But it's an understandable direction to take, preferable for the critic's own clean conscience to throw a band under a bus based on "objective complaints about the lyrics" than a piece about how "athletic music made by men about ennui is only a sustainable band-model until age 25. Grow up, HEALTH; we did."

oooh good take. that makes sense. personally I'd much prefer an honest "this sounded cool to us/me once but it's a rote old shtick now" to "this industrial act needs to step its lyric game up"

(also belatedly I apologize for whatever I did to make myself persona non grata enough to be added to a text filter, but)

Maybe it wasn’t your fault and “champiness” was being a dick

It kind of puts the critic in a position of being "not an asshole, just being objective"

I always have this feeling when reading lyrical takedowns, too.

Maybe it wasn’t your fault and “champiness” was being a dick

― Trϵϵship, Tuesday, February 12, 2019 4:15 PM (three minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

apparently it's automatic, which suggests that it wasn't what they were doing

apologies also for being vague, I don't know what exactly it was, but whatever it was is something I am genuinely sorry for

Sorry to indirectly have made Katherine feel bad through my post - I can attest that I typed her name normally, was surprised by the filter, and taken aback by how it altered the tone of what was meant to be a very innocuous remark, hence my multiple follow-up posts attempting to mitigate that.

kat: that's just googleproofing; nobody did it out of spite. was it something you requested done at some point? otherwise not sure why it's there and i'm sure a mod will remove if you'd like.

I just only see it applied to people that people hate

Doesn’t it happen to john darnielle?

everyone loves l0u1s jagg3r

Lol guess not. Mod can you remove that?

and nitsuh abebe

Mod

And the washington redskins

mod

I just assumed all the ilxors with hollywood stars got googleproofed

mod, also ban Treeship

DUMPLINGS!

kat: it's generally done on request or if there's an issue with someone being harrassed; it's also rarely done as comedy modding though i really doubt that's the case for you.
is it something you'd like removed? Maybe just ask here:
Mod request

Can someone googleproof whiney from seeing my posts?

I just only see it applied to people that people hate

whaaaat no! you're good, katherine. don't think that

if I had to guess that substitution got locked in after a period last year when you were worried about people linking your identity across several vocations/sites

I think some posters expect individual writers to adhere to some Voice of Pitchfork continuity like they're writing for a comic book or something

I remember emailing pitchfork editorial years ago after a site redesign asking them to make it easier to see all reviews by a given writer because I had a handful I liked and wanted to see what releases they were into!

I get how publications develop a voice over time but the idea that every review and article is some sort of house product kind of takes the interesting bit out of reading.

lol @ whiney

Her voice, when she sings, is usually so low that the words sit just below comprehension

The vibe is wet, sucking mud, freezing toes, a faint mildew smell in the air. The heavy overlay of tape hiss gives it a dismal, gray feel, like a damp chill that has penetrated our clothes.

The piece is spare and uncluttered to the point of stasis; listening to it, I felt sometimes as if I were watching a single-celled organism trying and failing to replicate itself.

Making hard distinctions between Grouper records feels a bit like ranking and classifying heavy sighs

8.3

I don't think any of those points are intended as negatives per se.

Yeah, I've never been a Grouper fan because her aesthetic doesn't do much for me, but a lot of people like it!

Her voice, when she sings, is usually so low that the words sit just below comprehension

The vibe is wet, sucking mud, freezing toes, a faint mildew smell in the air. The heavy overlay of tape hiss gives it a dismal, gray feel, like a damp chill that has penetrated our clothes.

The piece is spare and uncluttered to the point of stasis; listening to it, I felt sometimes as if I were watching a single-celled organism trying and failing to replicate itself.

Making hard distinctions between Grouper records feels a bit like ranking and classifying heavy sighs

8.3

― Paul Ponzi, Thursday, February 14, 2019 2:28 PM (twenty-seven minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

setup... punchline.

tbh i do find it interesting that terms of insult and abuse can be revaluated as terms of praise in the context of different aesthetic regimes.

It's all about context isn't it? I don't see a single 'term of insult or abuse' in the p4k quote, the context being a Grouper album makes that p clear from the get go.

I've never heard a note of Grouper's music, but those first three sentences would make me want to check out whatever band was being described.

uptown, you really think that "gives it a dismal, gray feel" in most contexts would be considered laudatory?
i mean, this is nothing new, it's just funny to me that you can take a description that in a different time and place would be unequivocally negative and in this context it's the equivalent of a (sincere) chef's kiss.
i like grouper btw.

Not in most contexts no, but in Grouper's context mos def. Which was my point.

i'm not disagreeing with you!!

btw more bands should be named after species of fish.

like a prog-rock outfit named haddock

Surely some dumbbells have tried to be oh-so-clever by naming themselves after the humuhumunukunukuapua'a.

it's hard to get a dismal, grey feeling without it being boring! and grouper albums aren't, imo

now for some reason i'm reading the wiki entry on lustmord lol

redskins

damn hatcat is gone :(