pitchfork is dumb (#34985859340293849494 in a series.)

damn another classic by that guy

i've said it before and i'll say it again–"da funk" destroys "around the world" any day of the week

agree 1000%

1000000000000%

what if they are both good songs?

they only picked one

My only complaint about this list is that they picked a bunch of songs that they already wrote up blurbs about in the top 250 songs list.

missing:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=no1vf854aUc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HSwda46cNMg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNSpLqmY6K0

Hard pass on the David Morales and there are much much better AVH productions. The Bucketheads was pretty much peak Kenny Gonzalez though true.

oh yeah, didn't even realize "the bomb" wasn't on there! damn

Fly Life in its Brix Mix is a top 10 record of the 90s

and the Extra mix is a stunning catwalk of bass and freeform white noise

Pitchfork doesn’t really have any authority to run such a list, afaic— why would I pay attention to it?

What does authority have to do with it? It's just some people's opinions about music.

Pitchfork let their music opinion license lapse.

What does authority have to do with it?

well they call it "The 30 Best House Tracks of the ’90s" so you might think they were experts on the genre

don't imagine people who care deeply abt 90s house look to p4k for coverage

enjoyed the list

are there reasons to assert Sherburne and Cardew aren't experts here? I'm no expert, so I genuinely don't know

I meant merely what corrs understood— P4k is not a site that has much to do with the genre, and p4k wasn’t even around during much of that decade. Sherburne is a fine writer and a nice person, from my
memories, but it just seems like a primer that has been done before by publications that come from the culture. Yeah, it’s a boring ‘authenticity’ argument, but oh well— that’s what a site is subject to when it is a clearinghouse for criticism of every genre of music.

Yeah, that's fair; I feel similarly when they turn their attention to Jamaican music. Plus there is something undeniably opportunistic or just trend-chasing about big-upping house in particular right now

(my q was based on the fact that Sherburne is the primary reason I read their reviews these days, but I hear you)

I really enjoyed Rich Juzwiak on Janet Jackson's The Velvet Rope today.

I’m pretty sure Pitchfork is a business, not a… idk individual person or whatever. I don’t think the business is trying to be hip or authentic or something with a list of house records I think they’re just trying to get clicks. And I agree that’s wrong.

There are other ways to get clicks, you know. I hear tell of this Kanye guy.

Well I've been saying for years Pitchfork should open an unaccredited academy

finally got around to this one
https://pitchfork.com/features/lists-and-guides/great-records-you-may-have-missed-spring-summer-2022/

so much good stuff in there, weird that it's kind of hidden away

not sure what the point of having a rating system is if every album gets a 7.8

oh cool, a new Sloan album.

oh yes i was looking forward to another dose of "Ferguson's power-pop wimpiness" lol... yeah ok pretty much

not sure what the point of having a rating system is if every album gets a 7.8

― na (NA), Tuesday, October 25, 2022 9:02 AM (thirty-two minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

oh cool, a new Sloan album.

― jmm,

lol, before i checked, i thought "but doesn't Sloan always score in the 6.8 to 7.2 range?

i guess they've ranged across the 7s before

my post wasn't about a specific album, it was about how any time i actually open a review on their site it's always a 7.8

Probably because 7.8 is low enough they don't have to think about tagging it "Best New Music" but also high enough that they don't have to deal with the rabid, angry fanbases that see anything less than a 7.6 as a career destroying pan.

the rabid, super angry Sloan fans

if they they think they can safely avoid the ire of the dry cleaning stan army, they’ve got another thing coming

7.8 basically means 'yeah it's great but it doesn't really fit our current editorial profile for BNM content', disregard and move on, we don't need these cynical cowards

that do, vc?

like rolling stone's 3 1/2 star

scores have been lower even for bnm's this year, pitchfork is finally getting sick of music

Every time there's a BNM I guess 8.3 or 8.4 and so often I am right

Like I'm not sure how many there have been relative to higher scores but it's become my stock guess

pitchfork should should do a focus group where they ask their readers to rate their ratings.

how does a 6.5 rating make you feel?
...about a...seven. a 7.2
ok, how about a 7.4 rating
5 point.....five.
8.2?
8.4.
8.4?
8.2.
how about a 10?
9.2.

yankee...10 hotel...9.2 foxtrot...which is a 6.4 for me

haven't even looked at the selections yet, but the bpms charted at the top seem to be completely wrong

https://pitchfork.com/features/interactives/1990s-readers-poll-results/

"heart-shaped box" at 203? wonderwall at 175? what?

LOL

https://i.imgur.com/iZPI93A.jpg

idaho is feeling very sinister

they don't have to deal with the rabid, angry fanbases that see anything less than a 7.6 as a career destroying pan.

such fanbases almost definitely overstating pfork's influence in the year of our lord 2022

xxpost The BPMs are accurate if you read them in double-time, though I don't know why anyone would

the new sloan is v good

Is there no fuss among Swift fans about the rating on her new one? Progress?!

xxpost The BPMs are accurate if you read them in double-time, though I don't know why anyone would

― insane oatmeal raisin cookie posse (Whiney G. Weingarten), Tuesday, October 25, 2022 11:09 AM (seven minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

some are accurate–"karma police" seems right, same with "closer"–but they clearly had an intern put the songs through an online bpm calculator and didn't check their work

Huh, I haven't even heard of Mississippi's favourite album