pitchfork is dumb (#34985859340293849494 in a series.)

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (10615 of them)
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 (fifteen 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 (fifteen years ago) Permalink

best e-mail address ever, eh starbar?

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

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

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

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

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

it's more that they used that as their _hook_

x-post

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

omg that is horrorshow

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

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

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

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

I'm more bothered by beck as impeccable influence

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

ugh, "impeccable influences" is really repulsive.

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

He was worked up?

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

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

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

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

if anything, that reads like a good reason not to check out the album....

stephen, Friday, 2 November 2007 19:28 (ten years ago) Permalink

richter scale is logarithmic xpost

but kudos nonetheless

elan, Friday, 2 November 2007 19:42 (ten years ago) Permalink

yeah sorry the "actually" sounded like I was disagreeing when it more of an "yeah and" thing

Alex in Baltimore, Friday, 2 November 2007 19:43 (ten years ago) Permalink

No band has marked indie's prog revival more definitively than Battles: Their debut, Mirrored, took rock for a set of puzzle pieces, but was ultimately defined by its pictorial sensibility-- each song felt like a cartoon soundtrack-- and the incorporation of jokes into the most historically humorless music in the known world.

latebloomer, Friday, 2 November 2007 19:43 (ten years ago) Permalink

wtf, wtf -- wtf? -- wtf!

Hurting 2, Friday, 2 November 2007 19:45 (ten years ago) Permalink

the incorporation of JOKES

s1ocki, Friday, 2 November 2007 19:46 (ten years ago) Permalink

ya i saw that too... pretty lazy writing

s1ocki, Friday, 2 November 2007 19:46 (ten years ago) Permalink

How can you get paid to write if you don't know what "but" means?

HI DERE, Friday, 2 November 2007 19:51 (ten years ago) Permalink

jokes?!?!? has dude ever read the back of a don cab/a minor forest/whoever cd?

YGS, Friday, 2 November 2007 19:53 (ten years ago) Permalink

That bothers me more in a semantic sense: I think the album has a sense of humor, sure, but I don't know what "jokes" refers to in a largely instrumental piece of work.

jaymc, Friday, 2 November 2007 19:56 (ten years ago) Permalink

joeks, bruv

Ned Raggett, Friday, 2 November 2007 19:56 (ten years ago) Permalink

You can here an interpolation of classic knock-knock jokes in "Atlas".

HI DERE, Friday, 2 November 2007 20:06 (ten years ago) Permalink

<i>jokes?!?!? has dude ever read the back of a don cab/a minor forest/whoever cd?

-- YGS, Friday, 2 November 2007 19:53 (10 minutes ago) Link</i>

"jokes" was horrible word choice on my part--john is right--but come on, do you really think that having a punny song title is the same as making music that is formally and sonically <i>humorous</i>? eh. don cab always struck me as definitively unfunny, they just tried to compensate with SURREAL HEADLINES.

mike powell, Friday, 2 November 2007 20:08 (ten years ago) Permalink

Ha, I didn't even read the review, so I didn't know it was you, Mike.

jaymc, Friday, 2 November 2007 20:11 (ten years ago) Permalink

There is a strong semantic difference between "humor" and "jokes"; they shouldn't be used interchangeably and, based on your followup here, you definitely meant the former.

Also, why did you use "but" as your conjunction? The second clause does not invert, negate, contradict or palpably change the meaning of the first clause (Mirrored being defined by pictoral sensibility and humor is not a condition that lies in opposition to it viewing rock as a set of puzzle pieces), so your sentence winds up not making any sense; you've either left out a critical piece of information or just flat-out used the wrong word.

HI DERE, Friday, 2 November 2007 20:19 (ten years ago) Permalink

There is a strong semantic difference between "humor" and "jokes"; they shouldn't be used interchangeably and, based on your followup here, you definitely meant the former.

Also, why did you use "but" as your conjunction? The second clause does not invert, negate, contradict or palpably change the meaning of the first clause (Mirrored being defined by pictoral sensibility and humor is not a condition that lies in opposition to it viewing rock as a set of puzzle pieces), so your sentence winds up not making any sense; you've either left out a critical piece of information or just flat-out used the wrong word.

-- HI DERE, Friday, November 2, 2007 8:19 PM (4 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

you're right, 'but' wasn't a great choice. i think the idea was to say that though it had this puzzle-like quality--you could talk about how the parts fit together, like everyone does in a math-rock review--it was, for me, defined by these more abstract qualities: its sense of humor, its ability to be pictorally evocative. sure, i get what you're saying.

but seriously--human being here, willing to engage, bristles as asinine comments like the "knock-knock joke" one. furthermore--and i'd never slag scott or mark because i know they're incredibly busy guys--i think you bring the same charges to an editor. just saying.

mike powell, Friday, 2 November 2007 20:28 (ten years ago) Permalink

sorry, you *could* bring the same charges. lord i grow weary of life's endless ironies.

mike powell, Friday, 2 November 2007 20:29 (ten years ago) Permalink

I'm just glad you're writing regularly.

jaymc, Friday, 2 November 2007 20:29 (ten years ago) Permalink

I think I'm pretty much firmly on record as someone who thinks there are a lot of editors out there who aren't doing what they should. This mostly stems from a desire to be an editor (ha).

Also I think the egregious misspelling of "hear" is more offensive than the actual knock-knock joke comment (which was an allusion to a recently-revived ILE thread).

HI DERE, Friday, 2 November 2007 20:35 (ten years ago) Permalink

Joke: pretending "Atlas" has a different lyric when he is very clearly singing

people like to
people like to
eat a sandwich

nabisco, Friday, 2 November 2007 20:37 (ten years ago) Permalink

Also I think the egregious misspelling of "hear" is more offensive than the actual knock-knock joke comment (which was an allusion to a recently-revived ILE thread).

-- HI DERE, Friday, November 2, 2007 8:35 PM (44 seconds ago) Bookmark Link

and there i thought you were just aping my ignorance and carelessness.

mike powell, Friday, 2 November 2007 20:37 (ten years ago) Permalink

(xpost - that's not actually funny, of course: people do like them some sandwiches)

nabisco, Friday, 2 November 2007 20:39 (ten years ago) Permalink

i always heard the "eat a sandwich" bit as "penis terror"

ciderpress, Friday, 2 November 2007 20:41 (ten years ago) Permalink

tbh i yearn for cronut

mag gerwig! (Whiney G. Weingarten), Wednesday, 17 January 2018 22:11 (six days ago) Permalink

I mean, there is a distinct difference between bands popular on alt rock radio vs bands that hit it big on AAA.

hoooyaaargh it's me satan (voodoo chili), Wednesday, 17 January 2018 22:18 (six days ago) Permalink

Is it splitting hairs to differentiate, say, Smashing Pumpkins and the Counting Crowd?

hoooyaaargh it's me satan (voodoo chili), Wednesday, 17 January 2018 22:20 (six days ago) Permalink

Counting Crows, stupid iPhone

hoooyaaargh it's me satan (voodoo chili), Wednesday, 17 January 2018 22:20 (six days ago) Permalink

Who is the Counting Crows of being Dan Deacon?

mag gerwig! (Whiney G. Weingarten), Wednesday, 17 January 2018 22:21 (six days ago) Permalink

Mister Jobs aaand me

hoooyaaargh it's me satan (voodoo chili), Wednesday, 17 January 2018 22:22 (six days ago) Permalink

I mean, yes, if you narrow the pool of music listeners to a specific marketing demo of people that followed Grantland on Twitter and Tweet about how Ladybird made them cry and yearn to taste Cronut then, yes, Pitchfork is everything, slay kings

― mag gerwig! (Whiney G. Weingarten), Wednesday, January 17, 2018 5:03 PM (thirty minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I mean, this isn't really right either ^

mag gerwig! (Whiney G. Weingarten), Wednesday, 17 January 2018 22:37 (six days ago) Permalink

The difference between those bands and My Morning Jacket and p4k indie bands are pretty fucking minor, the only difference being that they're not immediately embraced by backseat lefsetz office warriors who think the NARRATIVE and THE CONVERSATION have any bearing on an objective financial reality.

There's also like Black Angels/Thee Oh Sees style psych bands that did/fine without P4k too

― mag gerwig! (Whiney G. Weingarten), Wednesday, January 17, 2018 5:01 PM (forty-six minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I mean, yes, if you narrow the pool of music listeners to a specific marketing demo of people that followed Grantland on Twitter and Tweet about how Ladybird made them cry and yearn to taste Cronut then, yes, Pitchfork is everything, slay kings

― mag gerwig! (Whiney G. Weingarten), Wednesday, January 17, 2018 5:03 PM (forty-four minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

this is a correct argument against the claim, made by no one ever, that p4k was omnipotent over all rock music

flopson, Wednesday, 17 January 2018 22:52 (six days ago) Permalink

it seems silly to deny that they once had serious gatekeeping/tastemaking power that has significantly declined in the recent past

hoooyaaargh it's me satan (voodoo chili), Thursday, 18 January 2018 00:15 (five days ago) Permalink

bullshit if anyone steps to me with some 7.6 bullshit i'm like get that garbage outta here son i only fucks with BNMs

bhad and bhabie (upper mississippi sh@kedown), Thursday, 18 January 2018 00:41 (five days ago) Permalink

re: Kanye, no, p4k had nothing to do with his success, if anything the perfect 10 for twisted fantasy was overcompensation, as good as that record is.

flappy bird, Thursday, 18 January 2018 01:45 (five days ago) Permalink

They gave him very good reviews before. You know, perhaps they just thought it was an incredible album?

Frederik B, Thursday, 18 January 2018 02:15 (five days ago) Permalink

actually yea you're right, I forgot about that. Late Registration was very high on their 2005 list

flappy bird, Thursday, 18 January 2018 02:18 (five days ago) Permalink

https://pitchfork.com/reviews/tracks/justin-timberlake-supplies/

savagely negative pitchfork reviews aren't dead, they're just thriving in the track reviews section

josh az (2011nostalgia), Thursday, 18 January 2018 19:40 (five days ago) Permalink

best new music used to result in five figure soundscan bumps.

maura, Friday, 19 January 2018 05:53 (four days ago) Permalink

From personal experience my old band played a local college radio show on the bill with Tapes n' Tapes the week this came out

https://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/8314-the-loon/

remember talking to the drummer and they were pretty blown away that it happened

anyway they didn't really draw that many people that night, it was okay attended (andrew broder of fog actually headlined), but anyway their NEXT gig was suddenly opening for Clap Your Hands Say Yeah, later that summer we took over their opening gig for Futureheads they cancelled because they went to play Pitchfork Fest.

Like honestly they could maybe draw 100 people in Mpls to a small club on a good night before that review and after that they were everywhere for a while

bhad and bhabie (upper mississippi sh@kedown), Friday, 19 January 2018 15:58 (four days ago) Permalink

yeah, I interviewed quite a few bnm'd bands in that period and many had similar experiences

niels, Friday, 19 January 2018 18:56 (four days ago) Permalink

anyone remember Thunderbirds Are Now! ? don't think they got BNM'd but they did play the first p4k fest when it was called Intonation, released an awesome album in 2005 called Justamustache, and then another in 2006, and then went quiet until last year when they put out a final single. they seemed burned by over enthusiastic press early on that quickly left them.... such a great band

flappy bird, Friday, 19 January 2018 18:58 (four days ago) Permalink

yeah i remember that name but i don't know if i checked them out
man there were so many bands

bhad and bhabie (upper mississippi sh@kedown), Friday, 19 January 2018 20:23 (four days ago) Permalink

i checked out CLEARLAKE because of the BNM imprimatur. i liked that album. but eventually sold it. same with the Futureheads.

omar little, Friday, 19 January 2018 20:26 (four days ago) Permalink

man there were so many bands

otm

flopson, Friday, 19 January 2018 20:51 (four days ago) Permalink

so weird

brimstead, Friday, 19 January 2018 20:54 (four days ago) Permalink

High Places... Tickley Feather... EAR PWR... Yeasayer...

flappy bird, Saturday, 20 January 2018 00:04 (three days ago) Permalink

aren't there more bands now?

or are you all saying "there were so many now-forgotten p4k bands"

alpine static, Saturday, 20 January 2018 01:50 (three days ago) Permalink

yea

flappy bird, Saturday, 20 January 2018 02:00 (three days ago) Permalink

props to pitchfork for publishing this in 2018, re: The-Dream

The most fascinating part of Nash’s songwriting career has been his uncanny ability to write not just capably but empathetically from a woman’s perspective. He’s better at it than he is at writing songs for men (see: Beyoncé’s “Single Ladies”; Mariah’s “H.A.T.E.U.”; Kelly Rowland’s “Dirty Laundry,” a song that relives, in painful detail, a physically abusive relationship.) It’s a perspective Nash didn’t know he was capable of until he started writing songs, but in retrospect, he knows where it came from. “My mother gave birth to me when she was 19,” Nash described. “All her friends, were there at the house, talking about women problems—with men, usually. But I was just previewed to a lot of conversations and a lot of sensitive points, from a woman’s standpoint.” But his desire to understand more fully how a woman might see the world goes beyond growing up surrounded by women. “I felt like I lost my best friend, in one way,” he said of losing his mother so young. “In another way, that was the love of my life.”

with no mention of his being charged with choking and assaulting his pregnant ex

Simon H., Sunday, 21 January 2018 07:21 (two days ago) Permalink

Yeah they usually manage to at least work in one uncomfortable paragraph about what we “must take into consideration” before jumping back into swoons. I was just sort of hovering over that whole review waiting for a disclaimer that never came.

You're all losing so many points on your progress bars (Champiness), Sunday, 21 January 2018 08:29 (two days ago) Permalink


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