pitchfork is dumb (#34985859340293849494 in a series.)

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Donald
Oh my God, what just happened at P-Fork
Mon Apr 1 07:08:25 2002
63.167.209.146

I'm not going to spew any elitist bullshit, but Alanis Morrissette, Kylie Minogue? Oh my fucking God. I'll stay for a little while to see if P-Fork still serves my needs, but with today's front page, I'm not counting on it. I understand the career move, but I just don't think it's going to serve me any more.

jess, Monday, 1 April 2002 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink

stu Re: Oh my God, what just happened at P-Fork Mon Apr 1 07:41:08 2002 65.92.243.96

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.

Mitch Lastnamewithheld, Monday, 1 April 2002 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink

I am very disappointed. Could they have made it any more obvious? COME ON, PEOPLE.

David Raposa, Monday, 1 April 2002 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink

I don't think a web- only publication can attract readers interested in Alanis Morissette and Kylie Minogue.

QUOTE OF THE YEAR.

jess, Monday, 1 April 2002 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink

What makes me think that things will be back to normal by tomorrow? ;)

Sean Carruthers, Monday, 1 April 2002 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink

I don't know Sean... it would be April 2nd, which would make it one day after...

Andy K, Monday, 1 April 2002 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink

You scalawags, you make me laff. Perhaps.

Ned Raggett, Monday, 1 April 2002 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink

Speaking of which, HEY NED! My Bloody Valentine are finally releasing their new album!

Sean Carruthers, Monday, 1 April 2002 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink

We thought about that as one of the news items.

Dare, Monday, 1 April 2002 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink

"i for one will not be returning to this site if you're seriously going to be reviewing alanis. like i can't read that shit everywhere and anywhere? the reason i had pitchfork as my home page was because i could actually find out about the shit i care about. i'm glad you can pay your rent now, it's too bad that you sold out your millions of readers for britney fans in body glitter to do it."

Dare, Monday, 1 April 2002 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink

pitchfork as your homepage, classic or dud?

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.

jess, Monday, 1 April 2002 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink

he's calling you out, leone. FITE!

Todd Burns, Monday, 1 April 2002 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink

I think I'd rather read about Alanis and Kylie than most of the stuff they normally review.

Sean, Monday, 1 April 2002 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink

Their funniest joke came months ago.

Nicole, Monday, 1 April 2002 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink

I don't know what all you fools are talking about... I only WISH all of it were true.

Well, the Albini thing practically is...

mr. sparkle, Monday, 1 April 2002 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink

We thought about that as one of the news items.

Makes sense, really.

Ned Raggett, Monday, 1 April 2002 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink

I don't know what all you fools are talking about... I only WISH all of it were true.

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

Brock K., Monday, 1 April 2002 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink

LESS GODDAMN PROG

So, does that mean we'll write about the next Radiohead album, or not?

dleone, Monday, 1 April 2002 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink

And that Flaming Lips thing actually is true. I think.

powertonevolume, Monday, 1 April 2002 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink

Hein? Is the joke that Pitchfork reviewed some pop musik?? Even their KYLIE review was as dull as www.defra.gov.uk/farm/sustain/default.htm ARRRGHHHHHHHHH!! Then again Pitchfork = dull is a big shocker along the lines of Nelson in COLUMN!!!!!! shocker.

Sarah, Tuesday, 2 April 2002 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink

'On' column? 'HAS' column?! I can see him from my bladdy window but does that help my BRANE I think NICHT.

Sarah, Tuesday, 2 April 2002 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink

Dom, how much of the Kylie review was farce? "The song exudes a catchiness that belies its inherent simplicity, so reassuring during an era when chart acts sound increasingly baroque and producers race to see who can ape electronic music trends first" sounds at least semi-serious.

Mitch Lastnamewithheld, Tuesday, 2 April 2002 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink

that is because kylie is, like sophie ellis bextor, going for a retro- mancuso/levan vibe, with all the classicism inherent in such an endeavour.

gareth, Tuesday, 2 April 2002 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink

Actually, I did try to write about that record in the same way I would have for anything else at Pitchfork. I thought the gag would be better if people really thought we were changing styles, and Spin may be full of ads, but at least the reviews aren't jokes! As far as I know, anyway. Dullness wasn't intentional though.

dleone, Tuesday, 2 April 2002 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink

best e-mail address ever, eh starbar?

dudley, Tuesday, 2 April 2002 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink

Dead right sir. Power shandies all round to the geezer behind it eh?

Sarah, Wednesday, 3 April 2002 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink

From: DWilliams@EQRWORLD.com Subject: NO, Just Admit You Like It Up There

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

Dare, Thursday, 4 April 2002 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink

five years pass...

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.

lukas, Thursday, 1 November 2007 18:57 (eleven years ago) Permalink

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

Z S, Thursday, 1 November 2007 19:01 (eleven years ago) Permalink

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

nabisco, Thursday, 1 November 2007 19:10 (eleven years ago) Permalink

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

Ned Raggett, Thursday, 1 November 2007 19:11 (eleven years ago) Permalink

it's more that they used that as their _hook_

x-post

lukas, Thursday, 1 November 2007 19:20 (eleven years ago) Permalink

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.

nabisco, Thursday, 1 November 2007 19:46 (eleven years ago) Permalink

omg that is horrorshow

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

HI DERE, Thursday, 1 November 2007 20:18 (eleven years ago) Permalink

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

HI DERE, Thursday, 1 November 2007 20:22 (eleven years ago) Permalink

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

Mr. Que, Thursday, 1 November 2007 20:23 (eleven years ago) Permalink

I'm more bothered by beck as impeccable influence

dmr, Thursday, 1 November 2007 20:24 (eleven years ago) Permalink

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.

Z S, Thursday, 1 November 2007 20:29 (eleven years ago) Permalink

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

lukas, Thursday, 1 November 2007 20:34 (eleven years ago) Permalink

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

lukas, Thursday, 1 November 2007 20:35 (eleven years ago) Permalink

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.

I eat cannibals, Thursday, 1 November 2007 20:54 (eleven years ago) Permalink

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.

nabisco, Thursday, 1 November 2007 22:04 (eleven years ago) Permalink

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.

Erock Zombie, Friday, 2 November 2007 18:30 (eleven years ago) Permalink

ugh, "impeccable influences" is really repulsive.

Hurting 2, Friday, 2 November 2007 18:46 (eleven years ago) Permalink

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

dmr, Friday, 2 November 2007 18:47 (eleven years ago) Permalink

He was worked up?

roxymuzak, Friday, 2 November 2007 18:49 (eleven years ago) Permalink

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

elan, Friday, 2 November 2007 19:14 (eleven years ago) Permalink

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

elan, Friday, 2 November 2007 19:16 (eleven years ago) Permalink

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."

Alex in Baltimore, Friday, 2 November 2007 19:24 (eleven years ago) Permalink

idk if you need to justify yourself to someone who read the headline and nothing further

jolene club remix (BradNelson), Tuesday, 12 February 2019 17:23 (six days ago) Permalink

katherine, I enjoyed your piece, which was witty about a not necessarily wit-sparking topic.

Brad and fgti otm and morrisp otm too. This thread is pitiable.

rob, Tuesday, 12 February 2019 17:42 (six days ago) Permalink

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

We were never Breeting Borting (President Keyes), Tuesday, 12 February 2019 17:53 (six days ago) Permalink

wow yes

flamboyant goon tie included, Tuesday, 12 February 2019 17:55 (six days ago) Permalink

personally I don't expect perfect coherency btwn writers or whatever but the lyrics thing does bug me

bhad bundy (Simon H.), Tuesday, 12 February 2019 18:02 (six days ago) Permalink

I liked that Katherine's article took a concept that I (and I'm guessing, several other music obsessives) never quite knew how to elucidate - how the current-generation consensus is slowly replacing the current version of past-generation consensus - and made it understandable.

Prefecture, Tuesday, 12 February 2019 18:08 (six days ago) Permalink

I have thoughts about the "the lyrics are bad, here's why" method of a takedown review, but I can't really summarize them in a way that I find is effective. But here goes. It's almost as if it's a proxy for larger acknowledgments of changing tastes, aging, exhaustion, lack of interest in 2nd- and 3rd-stages of musician's career arcs. It's a maguffin, pinning a holistic dislike of A Band That We May Have Once Liked Or At Least Tolerated on "lyrical missteps". It kind of puts the critic in a position of being "not an asshole, just being objective"-- a contrast from say Jeremy Larson's takedown of Greta Von Fleet, where he was unabashedly and entertainingly being a massive dick. I find the "the lyrics are bad, here's why" approach to a takedown to leave me feeling a little lied to, myself-- "you liked HEALTH at one point and there's no difference between this and their early stuff except we're all older and the world has changed". But it's an understandable direction to take, preferable for the critic's own clean conscience to throw a band under a bus based on "objective complaints about the lyrics" than a piece about how "athletic music made by men about ennui is only a sustainable band-model until age 25. Grow up, HEALTH; we did."

flamboyant goon tie included, Tuesday, 12 February 2019 20:14 (six days ago) Permalink

oooh good take. that makes sense. personally I'd much prefer an honest "this sounded cool to us/me once but it's a rote old shtick now" to "this industrial act needs to step its lyric game up"

bhad bundy (Simon H.), Tuesday, 12 February 2019 20:20 (six days ago) Permalink

(also belatedly I apologize for whatever I did to make myself persona non grata enough to be added to a text filter, but)

theorizing your yells (katherine), Tuesday, 12 February 2019 21:06 (six days ago) Permalink

Maybe it wasn’t your fault and “champiness” was being a dick

Trϵϵship, Tuesday, 12 February 2019 21:15 (six days ago) Permalink

It kind of puts the critic in a position of being "not an asshole, just being objective"

I always have this feeling when reading lyrical takedowns, too.

Indexed, Tuesday, 12 February 2019 21:16 (six days ago) Permalink

Maybe it wasn’t your fault and “champiness” was being a dick

― Trϵϵship, Tuesday, February 12, 2019 4:15 PM (three minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

apparently it's automatic, which suggests that it wasn't what they were doing

apologies also for being vague, I don't know what exactly it was, but whatever it was is something I am genuinely sorry for

theorizing your yells (katherine), Tuesday, 12 February 2019 21:19 (six days ago) Permalink

Sorry to indirectly have made Katherine feel bad through my post - I can attest that I typed her name normally, was surprised by the filter, and taken aback by how it altered the tone of what was meant to be a very innocuous remark, hence my multiple follow-up posts attempting to mitigate that.

You can't see it but I had an epiphany (Champiness), Tuesday, 12 February 2019 21:34 (six days ago) Permalink

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.

Fuck the NRA (ulysses), Tuesday, 12 February 2019 21:45 (six days ago) Permalink

I just only see it applied to people that people hate

theorizing your yells (katherine), Tuesday, 12 February 2019 21:48 (six days ago) Permalink

Doesn’t it happen to john darnielle?

Trϵϵship, Tuesday, 12 February 2019 21:50 (six days ago) Permalink

everyone loves l0u1s jagg3r

ebro the letter (Whiney G. Weingarten), Tuesday, 12 February 2019 21:50 (six days ago) Permalink

Lol guess not. Mod can you remove that?

Trϵϵship, Tuesday, 12 February 2019 21:50 (six days ago) Permalink

and nitsuh abebe

ebro the letter (Whiney G. Weingarten), Tuesday, 12 February 2019 21:50 (six days ago) Permalink

Mod

ebro the letter (Whiney G. Weingarten), Tuesday, 12 February 2019 21:50 (six days ago) Permalink

And the washington redskins

ebro the letter (Whiney G. Weingarten), Tuesday, 12 February 2019 21:51 (six days ago) Permalink

mod

ebro the letter (Whiney G. Weingarten), Tuesday, 12 February 2019 21:51 (six days ago) Permalink

I just assumed all the ilxors with hollywood stars got googleproofed

Trϵϵship, Tuesday, 12 February 2019 21:52 (six days ago) Permalink

mod, also ban Treeship

ebro the letter (Whiney G. Weingarten), Tuesday, 12 February 2019 21:53 (six days ago) Permalink

DUMPLINGS!

jaymc, Tuesday, 12 February 2019 21:54 (six days ago) Permalink

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

Fuck the NRA (ulysses), Tuesday, 12 February 2019 21:57 (six days ago) Permalink

Can someone googleproof whiney from seeing my posts?

Trϵϵship, Tuesday, 12 February 2019 21:59 (six days ago) Permalink

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

mh, Tuesday, 12 February 2019 22:03 (six days ago) Permalink

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


this happens with every major outlet and stars/numeric ratings only exacerbate it

signed, freelancer

maura, Tuesday, 12 February 2019 22:14 (six days ago) Permalink

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.

mh, Tuesday, 12 February 2019 22:19 (six days ago) Permalink

lol @ whiney

yuh yuh (morrisp), Tuesday, 12 February 2019 22:20 (six days ago) Permalink

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, 14 February 2019 14:28 (four days ago) Permalink

I don't think any of those points are intended as negatives per se.

jmm, Thursday, 14 February 2019 14:32 (four days ago) Permalink

Yeah, I've never been a Grouper fan because her aesthetic doesn't do much for me, but a lot of people like it!

jaymc, Thursday, 14 February 2019 14:50 (four days ago) Permalink

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.

affects breves telnet (Gummy Gummy), Thursday, 14 February 2019 14:56 (four days ago) Permalink

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.

Uptown VONC (Le Bateau Ivre), Thursday, 14 February 2019 15:01 (four days ago) Permalink

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.

grawlix (unperson), Thursday, 14 February 2019 15:14 (four days ago) Permalink

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.

affects breves telnet (Gummy Gummy), Thursday, 14 February 2019 15:18 (four days ago) Permalink

Not in most contexts no, but in Grouper's context mos def. Which was my point.

Uptown VONC (Le Bateau Ivre), Thursday, 14 February 2019 15:21 (four days ago) Permalink

i'm not disagreeing with you!!

btw more bands should be named after species of fish.

affects breves telnet (Gummy Gummy), Thursday, 14 February 2019 15:22 (four days ago) Permalink

like a prog-rock outfit named haddock

affects breves telnet (Gummy Gummy), Thursday, 14 February 2019 15:22 (four days ago) Permalink

Surely some dumbbells have tried to be oh-so-clever by naming themselves after the humuhumunukunukuapua'a.

Mr. Snrub, Thursday, 14 February 2019 15:53 (four days ago) Permalink

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

mh, Thursday, 14 February 2019 16:12 (four days ago) Permalink

redskins

Blues Guitar Solo Heatmap (Free Download) (upper mississippi sh@kedown), Thursday, 14 February 2019 16:30 (four days ago) Permalink

damn hatcat is gone :(

Blues Guitar Solo Heatmap (Free Download) (upper mississippi sh@kedown), Thursday, 14 February 2019 16:30 (four days ago) Permalink

I demand the return of hatcat

mh, Thursday, 14 February 2019 16:34 (four days ago) Permalink

Huh, me too!

Uptown VONC (Le Bateau Ivre), Thursday, 14 February 2019 16:49 (four days ago) Permalink

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

...

lowercase (eric), Thursday, 14 February 2019 18:22 (four days ago) Permalink

the takeoff album was pretty good...

we're far from the challops now (voodoo chili), Thursday, 14 February 2019 18:36 (four days ago) Permalink

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.

Karl Malone, Thursday, 14 February 2019 19:00 (four days ago) Permalink


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.