pitchfork is dumb (#34985859340293849494 in a series.)

Why would anyone want to get away from Shakira? What kind of business model is that?

xpost that was my initial thought about the Halsey review, but it turns out I was wrong

isn't Pitchfork supposed to be the place we go to get away from the likes of Shakira?

― does it look like i'm here (jon123), Monday, February 3, 2020 4:38 AM (one hour ago) bookmarkflaglink

it hasn't been that for at least a decade

Yeah, I know they've been at this for a long time, but that still doesn't make it any more palatable. There are a million other websites in the world where you can read about Shakira.

the reason the "pitchfork is dumb" thread will soon reach 16,000 posts is that it took way to long to grasp that a model allowing you to hide away from "the likes of" was a model that kept you dumb

it's still not great at thinking abt all the stuff it spent so long hiding away from

Yeah, I know they've been at this for a long time, but that still doesn't make it any more palatable. There are a million other websites in the world where you can read about Shakira.

― does it look like i'm here (jon123), Monday, February 3, 2020 7:00 AM (six minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

fwiw I agree with you, but luckily there are plenty of other places online to read about niche, non-mainstream music

the reason the "pitchfork is dumb" thread will soon reach 16,000 posts is that it took way to long to grasp that a model allowing you to hide away from "the likes of" was a model that kept you dumb

Believe me, I hear more than enough of Shakira in everyday life situations without wanting to.

nearly 15 years since this ship sailed, christ. not even certain why shakira’s your line in the sand, nor do i believe there are even thousands of websites on the rapidly shrinking internet on which to read critical writing about shakira

yes because if there's one thing we desperately need it's "critical writing" about pop stars

Brad OTM.

FWIW, I began to hang out on this message board 17 years ago because it featured smart people writing critically about pop music. So this seems like a weird place to air that complaint.

I honestly thought the piece on Shakira was good and informative. I didn't really need more paragraphs telling me what Whenever, Wherever sounds like, I kinda remember. But the context was illuminating.

For me it isn't the pivot to critical writing about mainstream pop music (and the corniest of indie rock) I find troubling as much as the exclusion and abandonment (which, if you're thinking in terms of niche genres like free jazz or black metal and taking into account Pfork's enduring influence on tastes, is basically erasure) of almost everything else

that's a bad sentence but you get my drift

afaict they review more jazz than ever

I said free jazz. I also didn't mean the 0.0002% of jazz (mostly coming from the London We Out Here scene and / or Kamasi adjacent) they've deemed worthy of coverage this year. Would be nice to see some coverage of people like Julia Hülsmann (and ECM artists in general), Mary Halvorson, John Zorn, Dave Rempis, Tomeka Reid, etc etc etc. There's a great new Bill Frisell album with Petra Haden they haven't bothered to review.

did those genres receive more coverage in the Golden Age of Pitchfork?

no

They still employ Andy Beta, who reviews stuff like that all the time

xp

Andy Beta and Phil Sherburne are two of the reasons I still occasionally check in.

Perhaps I’ve given the impression I care more than I do. I've long resigned myself to the fact that most of the music I listen to - techno / ambient / drone, some death metal, some jazz - is not really served by Pfork, so I don’t usually make a habit of visiting the site. But I think it's weird to just dismiss jon123's complaints, which to me are valid, even if some of us are tired of flogging this particular horse

Why?

Because once upon a time it provided a refuge from the corporate entertainment it now doggedly promotes?

I do believe that was the point jon123 was making. If I'm mistaken, I apologize.

yes it once upon a time approached the problem in a smug and a dumb way, hence 16000 posts dunking on it

because no one dunks on it now

I don't think it 'promotes' Shakira by talking about the album?

It got 7,6, hardly a rave

xxp

1. "Once upon a time" was a long time ago. (Seriously, P4k started reviewing pop songs in 2003.) The site has evolved, thankfully. And not just about the genres it covers; the criticism is also sharper and more thoughtful, and it's less of a boys club.

2. Writing about an artist != pr2omoting them.

needs to be said--laundry service is a good album. they didn't deliver a fawning retrospective of the j. lo self-titled album for a reason.

People who whine about "corporate music" just because it's corporate music don't actually like music; they like being special and use obscure music to make up for not having a personality.

I didn't really need more paragraphs telling me what Whenever, Wherever sounds like, I kinda remember.

And I remember the conversations around Shakira’s skin & hair color in relation to her crossover success; as well as ppl making fun of her name and “breasts are small and humble” lyric, etc. I’m not sure why we need all those points dutifully rehashed; I’d rather have read something fresh & illuminating about the actual album. But whatever

It kinda felt like — “Shakira’s in the Super Bowl, but let’s not forgot these Problematic Aspects around her initial success in the U.S. (And btw, 7.6)”

"I" is not "we" though. There are a lot of Pitchfork readers who may not remember that discourse—including those who weren't alive for it.

yeah p4k's target readership was probably in daycare when the album came out tho

I don't remember that discourse, because when the album came out I was a 22-year-old snob who wasn't paying attention to pop music.

Fair enuff!

I'm with morrisp on this one. That didn't feel like an album review to me so much as a cultural essay with just enough mention of the album to include it in the album reviews section of the site. The context was interesting for the first half, but it kinda felt like that review was basically all context.

It's not that I disagree, but that is what the Sunday Reviews are, and I don't get why that is so horrifying.

Yeah, like I said last night, I think the Sunday Review generally takes a different approach and perspective than the daily new reviews do. But perhaps the score at the top leads people to think of it along the same lines. Maybe they should get rid of it?

Then how would they retroactively award a 10.0 to an album they wouldn't have touched 15 years ago?

Magazines do it all the time?

e.g. Rolling Stone.

The Sunday Review is one of the best things they do imo.

People who whine about "corporate music" just because it's corporate music don't actually like music; they like being special and use obscure music to make up for not having a personality.

This is true on occasion, but sometimes people whine about 'corporate music' because it takes up so much space that there is precious little room left for other varieties of music. If you're committed to diversity, it's an obstacle.

Cosign that Sunday reviews are the best thing on the site now. I’m not trying to go out of my way to read abt Shakira in 2020 but if pfork is going to chase super bowl clicks I’d rather it be in this form than anything else.

(Fwiw I’ve heard Laundry Service front to back maybe 200 times when an officemate used to play it on repeat, and developed have a visceral nails-on-a-chalkboard reaction to it, and that piece got me to read about it for 10 minutes without having painful flashbacks, so a pretty good piece imho.)

^ That would be an interesting detail for a retrospective review!

i like dont love the review but i definitely think it wouldnt be getting this much wary over-reading if it wasnt reflecting a political shift in coverage vis a vis a pop star

i love the idea that we hear about shakira all the time though, lmao, this was definitely a retro play more than anything ... the last time i remember ppl talking about shakira in public was circa she wolf about a decade ago?

Um... We literally discussed Shakira today over lunch at my office, and I doubt we were the only ones...

ah ooooo

i think a Sunday review covering Shakira and her cultural importance from the perspective of Isabelia Herrera is i mean like a vast improvement over the old Pitchfork days of Brent D analyzing Bobby Digital w/a " Think: "Stan Lee presents... Da Muthaf*&%in' Ghetto!" " esp considering yes the sunday reviews are not a "review" (despite the scor)e as much as it is a more in-depth pondering of its overall history and context.