pitchfork is dumb (#34985859340293849494 in a series.)

every music site runs reviews before release date because leaks and pageviews

I don't think anyone was complaining about that.

someone upthread mentioned BNMs coming out before official release dates so

it just seems like a weird thing to single any one publication out for when everybody does it

I will complain about BNMs coming out before release dates because it's such a ridiculous practice that only exists for legacy reasons. I hate it.

We were talking more about how the BNM specifically directly results in sales. So when the review runs earlier than the release suddenly all these people are clamoring for it but by the time it comes in the peak interest from the public has passed. It wasn't a criticism on the fact that they run reviews early. Just a frustrating repeat occurrence for retail stores.

Actually, it sounds like a valid criticism to me.

What is the impetus to run reviews early anyway? To make a flack happy? Yay team.

To establish a website as "cool" and "hip" because WE HEAR IT BEFORE YOU DO? Yay team.

Part of it i guess is that they don't follow up every BNM review with equal ongoing celebrity obsession in the news/articles. So that interest doesn't last until the release date in many cases.

Or isn't sustained as well.

pretty cool thread from 2006

yeah, the problem still exists so why fix it or complain about it

looking at the reviews on there at the minute inc BNM ones and of the ones whose release dates I'm familiar with, most of them seem to run in the week preceding the release, which afaik has been standard practice since the dawn of time (for daily-or-more-frequent publications)?

Standard practice should never change, even if that practice was developed in vastly different media environment?

not pitchfork's fault if people can't remember the name of a record they wanted a week later

Nobody said it was.

Most of us are getting the leaks first so nbd.

lol, just looked at pfork's soundcloud for the first time and it's 100% metal: https://soundcloud.com/pitchfork

does anyone read The Dissolve? I never hear anything about it as a "thing" whatsoever.

I read a couple pieces over there. It's pretty much what you'd expect if you read The AV Club for any length of time, i.e. Rabin being Rabin, Robinson being Robinson, etc. Rabin's new thing is "Forgotbusters," movies that were among the top grossers the year they came out but nobody talks about or watches anymore.

they aren't doing anything that's helping anyone

i'm rooting for the dissolve but i find it hard to navigate and not much of interest yet

lol m@tt

I like The Dissolve. They seem to write about more interesting movies (or at least movies I'm more interested in reading about) than those same writers did when they were at The AV Club.

I like their 'writings of the day' stuff. Often there is an interesting article. Other than that, it's not so interesting, mainly American movies. But that's to be expected.

"Hands on the Controls was never issued on vinyl-- ironically, one of the greatest nil-fi recordings of the 00s only came out on CD"

"As a document of a chaos system in motion, Hands on the Controls is breathtaking; as a showcase for Dwyer’s emerging slop-psyche magnificence, it couldn’t sound more frighteningly vital."

7.9

Just seems like a discrepancy to me.

iirc the reviewer doesn't assign the numerical score

Oh... I think I remember hearing about that now. How silly.

If true.

Definitely true.

unassailably

http://25.media.tumblr.com/8b7bce693bef5199b121ec8d30a019ff/tumblr_mh3sftBI0x1qbn6jwo1_400.gif
Why don't the scores maaaatch

yeah I remember Underworld's Barking getting like 5.9 even though the reviewer didn't really say anything negative about it. Dan Deacon's new album scoring worse than his other ones despite the reviewer basically saying it was his best also scanned as odd. who determines what the scores actually are?

https://vesselanaw.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/masonicstructure.jpg

http://robot6.comicbookresources.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/milhouse_chalkboard.jpg

http://joehistorian.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/umbrella-man.png

Hmmm

iirc there's a bit of chat/negotiation between reviewer, general staff & editorial and they tabulate the best score for the p4k brand or whatever

each of my pictures above represents one of those groups

How curious

i can't imagine how embarrassing it would be to actually engage in this conversation in 2013

can't imagine how embarrassing it is to have engaged in it several times & still give a fuck abt how it is discussed

Well, I only thought it was odd. Nobody is losing sleep over here.

This happened to someone I know (actually, we also played in a band together for a while). Won't name bands or names, but I had very mixed feelings about it when I found out. It's been a long time and after that I started reading Pitchfork very differently. I sometimes read it to find out about bands or see bands mentioned in the say breath as other ones as recommendations.

Though I'm kind of tired of the hypersensitivity towards any discussion that isn't entirely original. There clearly isn't any other reason to comment unless you want to prove to everyone how much less of a sheeple you are or something. Anyway...

It's the nature of the business. ILXOR users probably see themselves as seeing through P4K's intentions more, but it doesn't mean most of P4K's readers do.

Though I'm kind of tired of the hypersensitivity towards any discussion that isn't entirely original

yeah this is def on the cusp of "not an original conversation" and "something someone gets butthurt over once a year"

see also WHY WONT THEY LET US SEE THE WRITERS INDIVIDUAL BALLOTS WHY

I think they did, last time.