pitchfork is dumb (#34985859340293849494 in a series.)

I meant it sounds like fb speak or something. Like Bowie is your fb friend and on that day he is clicking 'share' and giving you the link to his video. And somehow doing the same thing with tactile vinyl records on RSD.

In the context of FB as the medium it is tough to convey the meaning without those FB terms, to be fair.

WHO CARES ABOUT MORRISSEY AND JIMMY KIMMEL

don't care about morrissey much, actively tired of jimmy kimmel despite limited exposure

you realize he's not taking a survey, right?

WHO CARES ABOUT MORRISSEY AND JIMMY KIMMEL

― ( ( ( ( ( ( ( (Z S), Thursday, February 28, 2013 5:19 PM (8 minutes ago) Bookmark

basically morrissey traffic is out here putting food on the table this week

You mean sharing food.

it's not so much dumb, but considering they gave it a mildly positive score the Parenthetical Girls review did a great job of making me loathe a band I've never heard.

oh man, i forgot about the epic morrissey vs. staples center blood feud that's been gripping the nation all week as well. i think my annoyance at the jimmy kimmel thing was enabled by the staples center coverage. i can take multiple stories about either feud, but put them together in the same week and i'm gonna have to type things in all caps on the internet

• Morrissey talks to close friend about Jimmy

• Staples Center serves meat just days

Yeah and the updates "Staples center NOT actually vegetarian for show" "UPDATE: wait actually is"

Nobody cares.

"Morrissey SLAMS Jimmy Kimmel..." I didn't read that as a slam at all. Just whining about Duck Dynasty with statistics.

Nobody cares.

i mean i agree with you in the general sense but i promise you that PLENTY of people really care about morrissey's bullshit, which is why this shit is being covered everywhere like it's 9/11

Also "Fallon vs .Vegetarians" is good cos any militant vegetarians will drive up outrage-based page traffice.

traffic even

on second thought, it is pretty amazing that morrissey somehow got into a feud with Jimmy Kimmel, the Duck Brothers or whatever, and the Staples Center, all in the same week

2013 really is an amazing year

Nobody cares.

i mean i agree with you in the general sense but i promise you that PLENTY of people really care about morrissey's bullshit, which is why this shit is being covered everywhere like it's 9/11

― J0rdan S., Friday, March 1, 2013 8:57 AM (21 minutes ago)

True but I'm trying to imagine someone saying "Did you hear? The staples center was going to blaaarrgghghh but now zzzzzzzzzzzzzz..." (My imagination doesn't employ good enough acting to fake interest in this.)

"this IS the news." - angry kid from the "peace sells" video

I've never touched the stuff, but I've come to assume that the titular state of "Kush Coma" is far less agitated than the one Danny Brown's actually in here.

fuck them for giving an to 8.3 but no BNM to Joe Meek's I Hear and New World. the kids need to hear that one

http://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/17864-joe-meek-i-hear-a-new-world/

I Hear a New World*

Yeah and the updates "Staples center NOT actually vegetarian for show" "UPDATE: wait actually is"

Nobody cares.

Amy Phillips on FB the other day:

We got nominated for a National Magazine Award!!! I'm sure my groundbreaking editorial work on such masterpieces as "Lil Wayne Is Dying (No He Isn't) (Yes He Is) (No He Isn't)" and "The Staples Center Is Going Vegetarian for Morrissey (No It Isn't) (Yes It Is) (No It Isn't)" contributed to this honor!

you know BNM stands for "best new music" right

But they didn't give it a BNR either.

right, BNR, whatevaerrerw

I can never figure out whether they're reviewing the quality of a reissue or the album itself. Little of both I guess- should be separate scores.

Yeah, Evan. If I'm reading a review on a reissue in particular, at least touch on whether the remastering is done well. So many reviews of remastered albums within the past few years don't even mention the quality of the remaster compared to the original.

the people who listen to an album because it has "BNM" or "BNR" next to it but wouldn't if the same review/score didn't have that distinction, those are not people i am very concerned for

I imagine people don't even click on the reviews if there's no BNM on the album icon, and therefore have no idea of the scores

and there are people who only buy books if there's an Oprah sticker

sheeple more like right

if the wool fits bruh

I'm sure the labels involved wouldn't be so conflicted about their money

the people who listen to an album because it has "BNM" or "BNR" next to it but wouldn't if the same review/score didn't have that distinction, those are not people i am very concerned for

well this is a very considerable chunk of pfork readers 15-30 and i come across the insidious adherence to their word a lot. it's a serious problem. imo pitchfork is evil re: scrubbing reviews, rewriting history as they see fit, and you can't enter into a discussion with anyone (except ILXors ;) ) without getting snagged in the you're a hipster for liking them/not liking them. they are terrible, terrible for music in a lot of ways

RIP music :(

it had a good run

I would argue that these people have existed throughout the entirety of my music fandom and that they've always been in the majority, and yet I still have been able to find and enjoy tons and tons of great music

One day I'll go on a rant about how pitchfork is great for the younger us and that it acted as a gateway to better publications and that railing against critic wesites is also part of their mandate etc. For now I'm sharping my english writing skills.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4m6Ptx4CV6k

the worst thing about it is that I really like this song.

good record iirc

I think the major problem with Pitchfork is its ubiquity: there aren't any other outlets that are both as well known as pitchfork, and that cover as wide a variety of music as they do. So their opinions hold too much weight; if something doesn't get a BNM tage then it flies under the radar for a lot of music fans, not necessarily because they are slavish devotees of pitchfork, but because going to the BNM section of the website is a convenient way for casual listeners to feel like they are caught up with "what's going on" in music. I feel like before Pitchfork though, which was also before the internet, the conditions were even worse, and only serious, ILMer-type music fans were dedicated enough to seek out relatively obscure stuff. I don't think Pitchfork is wholly negative as a phenomenon, but it is a bit disturbing how thoroughly their own personal canon has been inscribed in their readers' collective psyche, as indicated by the reader's choice poll last year. The solution to this, I think, is more pitchfork-like sites becoming popular, and putting forth counter-narratives to those offered by Pitchfork about what music is important now.

http://i.imgur.com/9QTQJDd.jpg

pitchfork should like split into factions and assign its writers "blue team" or "red team" or "green team" and then break down polls and etc. by teams. they could occasionally write articles about why their taste is great and the green team likes terrible music or whatever. it would be great fun.

does anybody here base decisions on BNM?

or they could publish one official review and one "dissenting" review for each album they cover. allow their readers to weigh multiple perspectives and not try to slant their opinion in any way.

xposts

Well I believe the genius coup by Schreiber was to make writers almost anonymous behind the gigantic 'Pitchfork' facade. For example, I never knew about Nitsuh Abebe before I started lurking hereon ILX, then I remembered I read and enjoyed a lot of his reviews. The team thing would be great.

i dont think anyone bases any decisions on BNM, it's just a flag that the site uses to say "hey look over here!", basically it's like a featured review, imho.

that's a good point. do you think there could be another way, beside the team thing, for pitchfork to emphasize the fact that their reviews are written by individual writers and are not just impersonal expressions of "Pitchfork TM"? maybe doing away with the scores is the way to do it, and also just publishing individual critics' lists at the end of the year rather than a main list for the publication as a whole.

i was thinking about that the other day.

like the Arcade Fire review was basically the most important record review of the 2000's... but can you tell me who wrote it without looking?