pitchfork is dumb (#34985859340293849494 in a series.)

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

ryce writes really weird imo, like he grew up in germany or something

As someone who grew up in Germany, I wonder if you could expand on that comment.

lol @ not wanting to give pitchfork clicks like it's the fucking daily mail

"that site"

rankled by "our collective unconscious of music technology"

why? opn review was great, maybe predictable but it hit all the right spots

good review, yeah, and lopatin deserves it. i just don't like the phrase.

So I haven't had a chance to sit down with the new Lee Ranaldo album yet (just picked it up last night), but it sounds like Colin St. John doesn't like it because it doesn't sound like Sonic Youth?

i dont understand this site

http://thedissolve.com/features/forgotbusters/212-hannibal-gave-silence-of-the-lambs-fans-a-sequel-c/

what a colossal waste of time

Shouldn't complaints like that belong in this thread?

that's their lead story today btw

jesus, there are at least two egregious spelling errors in the first paragraph alone of that In Solitude review today.

i just want to make it clear that i'm talking about a THREE THOUSAND WORD meditation on "hannibal" here

i guess this what the av club basically churns out all the time? i just dont get it

It's Rabin doing a version of the same column he did on AV Club.

The Dissolve would be a lot better if Phipps didn't just hire all his former co-workers from the AVC as staff at his new website but hey, at least they're diversifying with their freelancers.

yeah he did this sort of thing to some success at av club. they might be good ideas for a column if the execution was alot better, if you were actually using this odd little datapoint to examine something about that period or about film in general. the idea of blockbusters that generally fade from collective memory is plausibly interesting (and that hannibal is in there, this quickly, suggests that there may not be that many films that qualify or that maybe he should move beyond the 90s; disclosure's are few and far between) though really we're just talking mediocre films that had some ephereal buzz but weren't good enough to build a fanbase or interestingly bad enough to build a cult (and again, suggesting just how shallow this stream is, congo might not qualify). what's kinda disappointing in this glut of pop crit is this adherence to 'recap-brief judgment', there are no new ideas being created or developed here.

ya for sure, i'm not against examining junky or even outright bad films if it can bring us to some deeper understanding of the times or something.

but this just seems like mining trash to no real explicable end.

This whole model is befuddling to me. I have no idea how a/v club built such a sizable audience for 12-paragraph "what [movie] means" and "why [movie] matters" articles at a constant clip. Like once an essay outlines how every movie in the world means something and matters, you would think an audience would get wildly burnt out on that as a concept, but no

I think you are underselling the power of cult fandom