pitchfork is dumb (#34985859340293849494 in a series.)

I wonder if it's going to serve anyone's needs. I don't think a web- only publication can attract readers interested in Alanis Morissette and Kylie Minogue. To my knowledge, no one actually hunts down information about such artists. People just hear about it on tv and that's it. Let's give Pitchfork a few months, until the corporate contributors pull the plug.

QUOTE OF THE YEAR.

the first thing i thought (after, well, this is no all cure all the time) was that i wished they really had "sold out" (what the fuck, is this 93?), because maybe it would mean LESS GODDAMN PROG.

Well, the Albini thing practically is...

Makes sense, really.

Well, the Albini thing practically is... huh???

You have completed your learning of life's lessons. Now, you suck ass just like all the other bores before you. Kylie, Alanis? Whatever, bitch. I am sure you already have the defense mechanisms in place so, this will mean nothing but, another exercise in...oh, who cares. Looking elsewhere for reality...or maybe I can pretend to be a rubber worm like pitchwhore.com...here big fishie, look, I rounded 'em up for you in a arrel. A whole demographic!

Not Funny

Y'know sometimes they really are asking for it:

"White Williams issues a debut album layered with impeccable influences-- including Roxy Music, Beck, and T. Rex-- and a sense of calculated disaffection."

Well shit SIGN ME UP.

Yeah, that was a bit of a repellant blurb if I ever saw one.

Wait, are you saying that doesn't seem accurate?

I read 'White' as 'While' and thought "The Saul Williams album sounds like that?"

it's more that they used that as their _hook_

x-post

The front blurbs are always stripped/condensed summary descriptions from the review inside -- in this case

His songs are thin and languorous, with impeccable influences and the sort of calculated disaffection that comes from an MFA in design and a good weed connection.

omg that is horrorshow

The blurb >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the article quote

I assume that's an article quote; nabisco, if you just made that up then SHAME ON YOU.

why would a critic ever try to guess where a song comes from?

I'm more bothered by beck as impeccable influence

Wait, are you saying that doesn't seem accurate?

The description of "a sense of calculated disaffection", a combination of words that makes me imagine the shittiest band of all time, followed by "recommended" was repellant for me. I guess I like my disaffection to be natural, not carefully planned, so I would never recommend something like that.

Then again, I've never heard it so what do I know and so on.

b-but someone at pfork said "hm, how can we get people to read this review? I know! we'll mention the artist's impeccable influences and calculated disaffection! that'll reel 'em in!"

RIP satire etc

they could have collaged+mis-used _anything_ from the article, and they collaged+mis-used that

The White Williams album reminds me much more of late 10cc and Bread than of Roxy Music. That bit was like the classic "Let's over-hip our influences" review.

The description of "a sense of calculated disaffection", a combination of words that makes me imagine the shittiest band of all time, followed by "recommended" was repellant for me.

See, this sounds like the blurb WORKED for you -- i.e., efficiently let you know you would probably not like this act.

I agree, though, it looks kind of weird to have such a neutral-to-disparaging summary blurb on a recommended album.

I like how they gave the new Babyshambles, which is actually tuneful and a good all around album, a 4.0, but gave the first one, which is dreadful and hard to listen to / bloated, a 7.3,

Yeah, it was definitely TWICE as good as the new one. Fuckin' morons.

ugh, "impeccable influences" is really repulsive.

(xpost) was that a parody or are you really getting worked up about an internet score for babyshambles

He was worked up?

wait, i thought the grading scale was logarithmic. like 5 is twice as good as 4. somebody email ryan schreiber to find out.

shit, now i need to reevaluate all my purchases of the last five years.

It's actually modelled after the Richter Scale, hence the superlative designations of various well-reviewed albums as either "Reccomended," "Best New Music," or "Whole Lotta Shakin' Goin' On."

There are new reviews

^reporters CUmmings and Keyes doing the lord's work

Something weird is going on because they removed a bunch of recent reviews. there was a schoolboy q review this week but its gone now. Some others too - very odd.

Huh

yeah there's a big gap in the bnm and 8.0 review sections - between march 2024 and october 2023

PAnon over here

if you google the schoolboy q review, you can find it https://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/schoolboy-q-blue-lips/

but within the site itself you can't find it.

what're they hidin

https://i.imgflip.com/1amtvd.jpg

I thought I was going crazy today when they had the news feature on the Dreamville lineup announcement and there was no Nicki link, nor did any of her reviews show up when I searched her on the site. I was starting to think I was crazy like surely Pitchfork has reviewed Nicki albums and then I finally found one of her most recent album on its wiki page.

https://slate.com/culture/2024/03/pitchfork-oral-history-music-festival-conde-nast-review.html

it's weird that this had zero mentions of any list that pitchfork ever did. the year end lists couldn't drive attention week to week like best new music could, but they felt like an important part of building and maintaining a pitchfork editorial voice.

why do we have two "pitchfork is dumb" threads?

ilx is dumb

It's a series

this one is gigantic and ancient so a sequel thread was made at some point but people keep using this old one anyway

thread names are too similar

i feel like having to ask demonstrates the reason. in the original thread there was a discussion about it being too big and being impossible to go back to if you're after anything but the latest few messages. but that message is buried forever because the thread is too big and is impossible to go back to if you're after anything but the latest few messages.

(and obv i do know this is the original thread i haven't lost my mind just yet)

Condé Nast should buy out this thread.

this one is gigantic and ancient so a sequel thread was made at some point but people keep using this old one anyway

lol I thought this one *was* the sequel and that the earlier discussion of the Slate oral history was on the original. ah well.

Thread names too similar

https://pitchfork.com/reviews/tracks/future-metro-boomin-like-that-kendrick-lamar/

As exciting as it is to finally have a full-length from the duo, “Like That” doesn’t show either at the peak of their powers. In fact, it’s boilerplate by their standards, Future boasting about nameless one-off flings and endless supplies of drugs over a so-so Metro beat that splits the difference between modern Atlanta and vintage California and Memphis.


the beat is literally "Everlasting Bass" by Rodney O and Joe Cooley

That was not good.

I haven’t listened to the song but rap nerd internet seems to be pointing out that the beat is sampling Three 6 Mafia sampling Rodney O

Or referencing or whatever, again, I haven’t listened to the song

I dont buy the three 6 thing. idk maybe he was inspired by how they flipped it. but metro flipped rodney o and joe cooley on the 21 savage album too hes not like ignorant of them

I just saw an article where Rodney O said Metro approached him about it

The cut up vocal sample is from Three 6's 'Ridin Spinners', no? Not sure where it was from before that.

you mean the Eazy E sample?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdf_GIV9Svo

that's the one

chops up vocals from eazy e's "eazy duz it"

right

that little chant has been sampled in duz-ens of songs through the years

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKQTHxGdWv4

A lot of people sampled Gumby's hightop fade

I feel like lazy/obvious sampling in current hip hop could be a thread of its own

"Pitchfork Names Mano sund4resan as New Head of Editorial Content"

https://www.billboard.com/pro/pitchfork-names-mano-sund4resan-head-editorial-content-exclusive/

lol @ the sund4r googleproofing tech

ha yeah

We just had a really cool meeting last week, where it was GQ editors sharing what they’re excited about in music looking ahead at the rest of the year, and then the Pitchfork editors doing the same.

lol

Billboard: This new chapter is taking place after a round of layoffs that got a lot of attention. What led to the layoffs, and what do those mean for the future of the publication?

Welch: I’ve been a reader of Pitchfork for 20-plus years. I started my career at The Fader, another music magazine that was sort of at its peak around the time that Pitchfork was really thriving. There was always a [dynamic of] looking across the road at what the other was doing. It’s an honor to have the opportunity to actually work on Pitchfork and to lead the team. They have done an awesome job in the time since January; we’ve been continuing to publish at a great clip. There’s been a lot happening in music, really exciting, emerging music that the site has covered — as it always has, going all the way back to the beginning — and then a bunch of huge releases as well.

Mano had such a clear vision for really what drives music conversation today, what all of us who are on the internet every day want to see. That just clarified for me what the future should be. Now we get to lead a conversation with a team of staff members and contributors about how we apply what Mano articulated: What should we keep exactly the same, and what can we do in new ways, especially as we think about all the platforms at our disposal.

It’s really hard for musicians right now. The way things are set up can be really beneficial to the huge acts, and it can be really hard for the middle and for the younger acts. And I think a huge part of Pitchfork‘s role is supporting that whole ecosystem, especially new artists and people that are in that difficult middle ground.

Yeah, I noticed Welch dodges all the layoff questions.

Was about to post that. They just totally ignore the question asked.

"Well, I wanted younger people who will do what I tell to do, rather than experienced people who will tell me my ideas are stupid."

Oh right, it's that Will Welch.

https://static01.nyt.com/images/2022/09/14/fashion/00WILL-WELCH5/merlin_211101828_a5e1fe32-f786-4376-bd49-91af987e0188-articleLarge.jpg

is he looking for a noose

lol

it’s a cool hire, he did great work on the louder than a riot podcast. his blog no bells is hit or miss with regard to how its tastes intersect with mine lol but hard to deny that it focuses on scenes that the music media doesn’t seem to have much time for
http://nobells.blog

hiring the no bells guy is at least a very interesting move, a good sign for the editorial direction not being watered down into gq blandness at least

"it's very interesting how age is perceived in rock music vs. jazz"

i explained how i felt on this thead somewhere. i don't treat genre musicians the same as i do rock and pop musicians. country/folk/bluegrass/metal/blues/etc seems like stuff you can do forever. and many do without stopping.


fine but also recognize that this is a meaningless distinction that you've made up in your head, especially cutting the incredibly fine hair between "rock" and "metal"