pitchfork is dumb (#34985859340293849494 in a series.)

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 :(

I demand the return of hatcat

Huh, me too!

https://pitchfork.com/reviews/tracks/offset-red-room/

...

the takeoff album was pretty good...

fwiw i don't read 'dismal, gray" as pejorative. there's a lot of really good music that can be described like that. the review is decent but i think they kind of undersell how dominant the ambient bells (some sort of mallet with patented endless grouper reverb? or just bells? not sure) are. this bit is more spot-on than anything else: "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. The mood is there, a certain mystery and awe, but it dissipates as the bells chime on and the piece gathers no further momentum and takes no forked paths." i think a lot of that is true, and tbh i don't think this is a good grouper album for people to start with if they're not familiar with her work. that said, i have been listening to a lot of music that evokes a single-celled organism trying and failing to replicate itself (especially Satoshi Ashikawa's Still Way from 1982), so this is exactly what i want to hear from her right now.

this week a learned from pitchfork that films first started having scores in 1958

were they available as LPs before the fifties? Just curious.

I mean, I would argue that anything before Forbidden Planet (1956) really wouldn't be sufficiently "modern" sounding for a P4k list, but then they have two John Williams scores on there and it's like "forget it jake, it's chinatown, and I don't mean jerry goldsmith's soundtrack to chinatown"

Anyway, this list we did in 2013 mostly holds up with the exception of the dogshit redesign that ruined the readability of everything

https://www.spin.com/2013/02/best-movie-soundtracks-list-scores-alternative-music/

Is there really no Carpenter or Goblin on the P4K list? Kind of surprised considering how the revival of horror scores shows no sign of letting up.

Suspiria (1977) is on there, Halloween too. I'm glad that list correctly placed Under The Skin as high as it did, and a shout-out to Jackie too

Escape From New York and Halloween 3 are superior Carpys and Profondo Rosso is superior Goblin, but no one asked me

this week a learned from pitchfork that films first started having scores in 1958

― the scientology of mountains (rushomancy)

I was about to be shocked they didn't include the obvs hipster's choice of The Third Man, but it's #14. Very much the exception that proves the rule though

this week a learned from pitchfork that films first started having scores in 1958

― the scientology of mountains (rushomancy), Saturday, February 23, 2019 12:00 PM (one hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

no prokofiev no cred

hell, who needs korngold or steiner or shostakovich when you can have multiple scores by goddamn jonny greenwood?

Radiohead are aural porridge but Phantom Thread and You Were Never Really Here in the same year is a pretty strong argument

I mean
The Master is really the amazing one

bodysong is still one of my favorites of his