pitchfork is dumb (#34985859340293849494 in a series.)

i love mcclusky, haven't heard much FOTL, but i laughed out a lot when i read the piece. i wasn't rolling on the floor laughing but it was laughing nevertheless

hahaha n/a

fotlmao

yeah this was pretty funny and IMO well-deserved

when the subject of the review doesn't even understand the references used in it nor the interpretations of the lyrics, something's wrong

when the subject of the review isn't from the same country as the reviewer it's pretty inevitable, isn't it?

As we approach the bottom of your first paragraph you refer to the 'corporate slick production on future of the left's third album' (*1) - a question, my dear friend - would this be the kind of corporate slickness you get through recording an album in 16 days (using the same methods as ever) over a six month period in studio downtime and friend-financed to the tune of £2,000 (whilst we work in temporary jobs and with credit, when available, to support our habit) or instead the kind of corporate-slickness (since, as tone indicates, we’re using the term pejoratively) a person could get from writing for a site which has run the adverts of a variety of corporations, big and small, for many years? I may not be wearing my eyeglasses at this particular moment, but I can definitely see a lovely shiny one sitting atop your review at this very moment

this is very, very OTM

exactly, but IMO things like dropping a John Stossel reference for no reason somehow seem even worse when the artist himself doesn't know who that is (dunno if anyone else here does?)

my issue with cohen's review is that he's pulling out all these things to try and make it seem like the new FOTL album is different/lesser than the previous albums (eg the "corporate slickness," subject matter, etc.) when it actually sounds exactly like their other albums. falkous' bands pretty much do one thing, they don't do stylistic or production shifts. on one listen, i do think the new album isn't as good as the other FOTL albums but it's a songwriting problem, not a production or subject matter problem.

If he'd stopped at Following your lead, I’m going to let that one ‘sink in’ this would have been A+

actually, this still would have been awesome if it kept going through the subject-matter corrections and shitting in pitchfork's cave. After that it gets pretty ad hominem itself

i've found that no matter how idiotically or non-sensically a critic states an issue, there's usually some grain of truth in there. i mean, they didn't like it, you can't semantically argue someone into liking something.

i don't think he's trying to argue someone into liking something, i think he's just being an amusingly argumentative dick, which again, is kind of his persona

"you got these specific things wrong. Oh, and blow me." is basically as much as a musician should ever respond to a review if they feel the need. The "blow me" is important so that the critic wants be "hey i'm cool!" with the next review.

who reviews the reviewers

when the subject of the review isn't from the same country as the reviewer it's pretty inevitable, isn't it?

― some dude, Thursday, May 31, 2012 5:43 PM (15 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

not really in this case at least

I think if there's a 'lesson' here it's to avoid trying to guess what the overarching topics of songs are when their lyrics are largely obtuse puns and non sequiturs, or at least not to make any value judgements off the back of them

On 'robocop 4 - fuck off robocop' (incidentally, for the cynical and/or interested reader I post a live video recorded at a guitar shop of the song near the end of this response, complete with full lyrics) we will simply have to agree to disagree. However, if it is truly amongst the worst songs of the year then I am a giant bat and Pitchfork a cave into which I will shit golden effigies of your face.

okay this is pretty funny

Allow me to efuckidate in an easy-to-understand fuck-by-point manner

A+

I can honestly say that, whatever you think of the music, that the lyrics on 'the plot against common sense' are the best I've written (and yes - in either band) by a factor of FUCK LOADS(*4).

okay I think I'm getting this album

His response reads very much in line with the band's banter live, which is the funniest I've ever heard short of the Mekons.

"you got these specific things wrong. Oh, and blow me." is basically as much as a musician should ever respond to a review if they feel the need. The "blow me" is important so that the critic wants be "hey i'm cool!" with the next review.

So, a musician-- maybe not A. Falkous, but other musicians-- is just expected to tell a stranger to blow them? Affecting a cavalier attitude re: reviews is expected of musicians, sure, and it looks good on them to be all whatevs about it. But if you are, uh, "butthurt" that a widely-read blog would feature a review of your band's most recent album and fill the review with a) factual errors b) hyperbolic statements re its shittiness c) accusations of selling-out d) etc., I'd imagine that it'd be pretty hard to just say "blow me" and resist launching a defence of one's work.

I'm 100% against the idea of responding to criticism as a hard and fast rule, and I discourage artist friends from doing so-- even pointing out a factual error leads to over-expository non-apologetic corrections, i.e. "the musician in question has pointed out that it's a Gretsch guitar he plays", making the seeming inconsequence of whatever factual errors that Artist A took issue with will always end up reading as "that guy is butthurt".

But I can't really get all lol FOTL here; even when Kevin Barnes did his of Montreal/Of Montreal klaxon of embarrassment, it read depressing to me. At least Falkous had the good sense to swear a lot.

for posterity: http://www.ssgmusic.com/father-john-mistys-josh-tillman-rails-against-pitchfork-via-twitter/

Swearing is funny.

Falkous seems like the type who would write a screed in response to a positive review.

xpost: in fairness, that's not the smartest sentence

wtf you guys

responding to a record review makes you a fucking amateur, nobody should do it. the authors of books maybe because they will sometimes get off a nice witty one-liner but rock musicians? don't read the reviews if they're going to cheese you off that hard, but if you must, at least don't publish a response AND LEAVE COMMENTS OPEN SO YOUR FANS CAN KISS YOUR ASS FOR YOU

retain 1 modicum of class for fuck's sake dudes imo

fuckin a

even though I think aero is OTM I am still enjoying I can honestly say that, whatever you think of the music, that the lyrics on 'the plot against common sense' are the best I've written (and yes - in either band) by a factor of FUCK LOADS(*4).

xp "Ombudsman" is pretty funny. In a perfect world Pitchfork would provide an ombudsman-cum-therapist for the musicians they scorn

wtf aero

read the first sentence, he acknowledged responding is stupid

it is stupid

it's still funny!

i wouldn't exactly ever accuse the Mclusky/FOTL dude of "class" though. and, as far as witty one-liners go, I again point to:

As for the cover, well, there’s a penguin on it you stupid cunt.

@ aero:

responding to a record review makes you a fucking amateur, nobody should do it

That is what I said (except I didn't call anyone an amateur). The issue I take is when people get all "lol that dude read that review and was butthurt" etc., as if every musician and their mother doesn't read every review and cry, punch walls.

responding to a record review makes you a fucking amateur, nobody should do it

I'm sure your opinion would be very valuable to him!

aero otm

xpost: in fairness, that's not the smartest sentence

you mean the "syncopation" one? for sure, but i still get what he's trying to say. dude was being childish pedant about it.

oh yeah, no disagreement there

see i think that fleet foxes twitter is hilarious, too

maybe there's something wrong with me

the Fleet Foxes Twitter IS hilarious because it is ridiculously funny that dude is getting that worked up and angry about a positive review

So, basically, any response at all means "angry"? Fwiw, neither of these scan as "angry" to me. Butthurt, but reasonable.

responding to a record review makes you a fucking amateur, nobody should do it

you know i used to agree with this but i'm getting pretty tired of it as received wisdom. i think it's a risky move but one i'd like to see more musicians take on.

it's possible to do it without the result being embarrassing and terrible, it's just really rare. especially with that kind of wordcount.

brad laner was just here on ilm responding to ned's p-fork medicine review. i think it's fine to respond if you feel so inclined, but i do think it's kinda lame that p-fork holds such weight these days that it feels like a make-or-break review for artists.

i feel like it's just something people say without examining why they're saying it. again, i realize there's a huge capacity for self-embarrassment there, but a musician is already writing recording and publicizing songs about their personal feelings and lives so what else have they got to lose.

Yeah, I actually fully disagree with you, aero. It's so obviously nagl but I think it's forgiveable, pardonable. And calling somebody an amateur? Dude states in his blog post that he and his band hold down temp work to make music, i.e. amateurs

it kinda IS a make-or-break thing for bands like the Fleet Foxes dude though.

(xpost)

Yeah, I actually fully disagree with you, aero. It's so obviously nagl but I think it's forgiveable, pardonable. And calling somebody an amateur? Dude states in his blog post that he and his band hold down temp work to make music, i.e. amateurs

that's not actually what "amateur" means

yeah, and fleet foxes "made it" already. with lots of help from pitchfork.

p-fork holds such weight these days that it feels like a make-or-break review for artists

Maybe not with listeners, but certainly with promoters and publicists

@ DJP. I think you're a member of AFM? If you are, you have to answer the question "Do you rely upon music for the majority of your income Y/N" and if it's Y, you are considered professional and are eligible, and if it's N, you are considered amateur and are not.

Lol at self for citing AFM as being anything other than "a source of terrible evil" but I'm 'splaining myself

the fleet foxes dude thing was remarkable in its butthurtedness

link pls?

xxp yeah i mean if ned had been like "10.0 medicine was the greatest shoegaze band ever better than mbv," that'd be a huge thing for them probably. just weird to have one publication carry that responsibility.

I am not a member of AFM, no