pitchfork is dumb (#34985859340293849494 in a series.)

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.

It's not always such an emotional response.

Information is allowed to be new to different people, but I agree "butthurt" is not warranted if it truly is the case.

7.9 is not a bad score

No but to me the review seemed clearly to suggest a much higher one is all.

they have a hopper in the office that spits up scores at random

they also share coffee cups and spouses

Information is allowed to be new to different people, but I agree "butthurt" is not warranted if it truly is the case.

― Evan, Thursday, September 5, 2013 1:58 PM (54 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Well I'm glad someone who's posted on ILX for 11 years finally discovered discussion of pitchfork scores

You have me confused with someone else.

That's fine, because I wasn't in a very creative mood at the time I first logged in.

pitchfork knows best

While Youth Lagoon’s Wondrous Bughouse upped the ante for bong-rip phaser effects, Trevor Powers uses them to support and accent luminous and legible mediations on cosmic circumstances; closer “An Orphan of Fortune” wilfully sinks into impenetrable goo.

legible mediations on legible meditations

Is it really phasers? I hate misidentified effects

could be light sabers

Not sure this is so much "pitchfork is dumb", but whats up with the borderline creepy Lolita cover for the Ariana Grande album instead of the actual real cover? Is that the international cover or something?

lol n/mind apparently that one's just on the main page, the review page itself has the cover i was aware of.

that was the original cover that made the rounds well before the release date. prob just an error i guess.

not a fan of that review

singling out her voice as the sole redeemable quality of that album is total rockist popism right?

mm, also just generally wrong

yeah smh

"Mostly written by two of R&B's most mawkish hawkers, Babyface and Harmony Samuels, it’s built on cliché and tradition, and written professionally to a fault."

there is a deep irony in this line, see if you can pick it out!

hehe

Who wrote the grande rvw? (Soz, on phone and can't check/don't want to give that site clicks)

Andrew Ryce

Unsurprised