pitchfork is dumb (#34985859340293849494 in a series.)

I can’t defend the Wagner reference, but on some oblique level I sort of got the four seasons/blue album comparison. They are both melodic and catchy, and disproportionately well-known and iconic relative to other comparable works. Now that I type it out it’s pretty flimsy but it did make sense in my head somehow

iirc The Four Seasons wasn't a popular work until the 20th century

The Blue Album also didn't achieve popularity until the 20th century

Makes you think

you know, Vivaldi only made music for 4 seasons

Rivers Cuomo made albums for 7 different colors

including PINKerton

Alfred—enjoyed your Rush review! I think this sentence is missing a word (“rather”?):

Rush experimented with a slight skank on Permanent Waves’ “The Spirit of Radio,” which might explain why it became an actual hit in reggae-drenched England than in an America that went through the trouble of keeping Black disco-tinged acts off the air.

Thanks! I'll take a look.

The mag's first Rush review!

Nice piece!

thank you

Yeah that was great and thanks for the new dn

Is the bonus live album any better/different than Exit Stage Left?

Good review, Alfred!

Meanwhile, P4k won’t touch the new Primus

Pitchfork putting Rush in the limelight is definitely a sign of changing times.

I know nothing about Rush, really, but this was a great review (that even made me a little curious).

an America that went through the trouble of keeping Black disco-tinged acts off the air.

Would like to learn more about this. I thought it was all MTV’s fault.

Not dumb at all: todays great Busta Rhymes review.

I've been nurturing a Busta Rhymes obsession for a month or two; it's kinda horrifying to me that he's not routinely discussed as one of the greatest rappers ever.

Six years since her last studio album, the veteran singer-songwriter and slide guitarist with a collection of robust professional rock that may inspire deep dives into her back catalog.

I'm just struggling to know if this is a sentence.

maybe missing the word "returns" before "with"?

It could be a sentence... if she is doing the diving and her collection of rock may inspire deep

alpine static is correct, otherwise that is a bad sentence

It's fixed btw.

hey, I've no control over subheads

https://pitchfork.com/news/t-bone-burnett-reveals-new-analog-reproduction-technology/

This article gets the name of its subject ("Ionic Originals") wrong four times ("Iconic Originals").

https://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/kirk-hammett-portals/

Back then, Metallica found itself at a crossroads, struggling with interband tension...

Pretty sure that should be intra, not inter.

They were feuding with Barenaked Ladies.

Help me understand the point of this reporting: https://pitchfork.com/news/beyonce-2022-oscars-performance-was-taped-a-week-before-airing/

Through a Freedom of Information Act request filed with the City of Compton

??

“Pitchfork has contacted Beyoncé’s representatives for comment.”

Comment on what?

Right??

It has the air of "we're really onto something here!" about it, but I can't imagine anyone caring.

It feels like something because it has great clickbait keywords. People are probably already using it on Twitter to harvest engagement.

The news item didn't get into this, but it relates to an existing controversy about this year's Oscars telecast, regarding award presentations that were pre-recorded but inserted into the show as though they were live. So it's noteworthy that that happened not just with awards presentations but with a musical performance, too.

People who care about the Oscars care.

If it was previously acknowledged that the performance had been pre-taped, why does the timeframe matter?

It feels like a total college newspaper piece

with offsite performances like that unless the performer is holding up a copy of that days newspaper i assume its not live, i'm surprised anyone would be surprised by that

pitchfork will have to wait -- i have my own question in with their representatives and am eagerly awaiting their reply

In a community survey conducted by the production crew, only two neighborhood respondents indicated any reservations about the shoot. One person expressed concern about “neighborhood safety because it depends on who’s in it,” while the other requested unspecified “inconvenience compensation.”

what's THIS about!?

The outlet cited three unnamed sources who said that talks about the shoot had “solidified” on March 14, when the permit had, in fact, been approved four days prior to that.

Getting a bit Pepe Silvia at this point.

Don't worry, I will cover all of this in my 10min+ react youtube video, you can find it through the link in my twitter post about the article with the caption "excuse me??". Anyway, by the end of the video I will have thoroughly reacted with concerned puzzlement and suspicion concluding that I'll be "looking for answers" and will declare conclusively "I don't know about that". I'll share the article/vid on reddit with headline "Beyonce Ignores Obvious Safety Issues And Refuses Compensation To Residents During Shoot For Fake Oscar Performance" to multiple subreddits like whatcouldgowrong and winstupidprizes

Huh?

please like and share

and don't forget to subscribe below

i'm laughing at the implication here — which is that there are still people who believe that everything on television is totally real and exactly as it appears guys i swear look at it!

do you think pfork staffers also check the other side of the mirror to see if all that stuff is really there too?

stereogum or somebody should start some beef with their own headline: "pfork fails to understand basic show business operations, harasses beyonce"

Good review of the Throwing Muses debut, coincidentally among the best albums ever:

https://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/throwing-muses-throwing-muses/

Agreed and agreed!

One of the best in months.

Minor point of order: The In a Doghouse bundle is available on Spotify pretty much everywhere apart from the US and Canada.

I know it’s ridiculous to complain about Pitchfork in 2022 and it has been slowly developing into a wider net “culture” site for some time now, but that “here’s what the stars wore at the Met Gala” photo essay was really striking in a, “do not want” kind of way. I guess whatever gets clicks, but that felt out of step even with their current incarnation. Figure we’re about a season away from “Phoebe Bridgers are lunch at THIS east village hot spot” paparazzi shots.

this is gonna sound really crazy but you can just ignore the one little box on the website w/ the met gala photos and keep scrolling

there's been a two page spread in rolling stone featuring literal paparazzi pics of rock stars going on like 3+ decades now, it will be ok

cool condescending post, just saying that it seemed particularly out of place for Pitchfork no matter what other outlets might have already been doing it.