pitchfork is dumb (#34985859340293849494 in a series.)

https://i.redd.it/z9dpnrse3ef31.jpg

And like Eminem, he’s from the technical school of rap, where the height of artistry is cramming as many syllables and as much internal rhyme into each bar as possible, nuance be damned.

There is more to the "artistry" of the so-called “technical school of rap”--ie MCs that can actually rap--than “cramming as many syllables and as much internal rhyme into each bar as possible.”

How are we supposed to respond to an album that often reads like a suicide note?

Err, given recent events...not like this?

Eminem is a prog rapper. It all makes sense now.

unrelated, but because Pitchfork is the only place I keep seeing the name, can someone explain the moniker "Megan Thee Stallion" to me? I mean, this person ids as a woman, correct? Is this a joke I'm not getting?

i mean it's pretty easy to search the origins of someone's stage name as it's usually something that people get asked about but here you go: https://www.thefader.com/2019/05/20/megan-thee-stallion-fever-cover-story

Saved you a click: it's a Ween reference.

Megan got the nickname “Thee Stallion” in high school — stallion being a standard Texas title applied to tall, attractive women — before she ever laid down one bar. That changed when she got to college.

I guess I've never heard this word being figuratively used to describe anything other than male strength and virility but, hey, I've never been to Texas

In the "The Essence" Nas tells AZ he's going to bring "one of my baddest stallions" to the Deniece Williams concert that night. I've always assumed, given the context, that he meant a woman but I've never been quite sure...

yeah that's common

better known as Megan Thee Stallion (pronounced "Megan The Stallion"[4][5]),

kids these days.

lol paul does this help

https://www.billboard.com/files/styles/article_main_image/public/media/megan-thee-stallion-press-photo-2018-cr-DHinez-billboard-1548.jpg

Never thought I’d have to tell a bunch of white internet hipsters to listen to *MORE* UGK but here we are

https://pitchfork.com/news/nathan-fielder-signs-hbo-deal-new-comedy-pilot-in-the-works/
Does posting to this thread every time Pfork runs a story with no connection to the music world make me like those Hugo voters who choose “No Winner” in certain categories as an objection to the existence of the category itself or is this a battle I stand some chance of actually winning

Very happy for Fielder, ofc, as should probably be expected from a member of Condé Nast’s desired readership demographic

Would rather see a Nathan For You headline on Pitchfork than "Some Band was a Question On Jeopardy" for the 99999th time

What is Death Cab For Cutie?

that's "A Bonzo Dog (Doo Dah) Band Song was a Question On Jeopardy" for the 99998th time

I imagine that being interviewed by October must feel a lot like it does when I'm talking to my clients in marketing vs. what it feels like when they're actually interviewing you about your music... I don't know. I'm having trouble putting this into words. Just thinking about these somewhat known indie acts in these annoying October headlines.

On the other hand, they don't exactly *have* to agree to do an interview about beer.

I refuse to believe October is still a going concern

I love the write-up about Buckingham Nicks fwiw

I'm not talking about it being a problem or that they shouldn't agree to it, I just was thinking about what it's like to talk to October. Wondering what the conversation/interview is like. If it feels different and more phony. If they keep trying to abruptly shoehorn beer into their line of questioning so they can force a personal story that becomes one of those annoying headlines.

xps

only talk about your new album about your mom dying and see how they fit lagers in there.

I've read exactly one October post (with Chris Cohen) and it was so uncomfortable.

Guns N’ Roses Settle Lawsuit Over Guns ‘N’ Rosé Beer

should have been a https://oct.co/ feature imo

how can october thrive when it's competing with the motherlord for the best alcohol+music-related stories

from memory, that chris cohen october post was titled something like "Chris Cohen Doesn't Care What You Think" or something similarly needlessly intimidating, especially for a guy like chris cohen

ok, which title is worse

Chris Cohen Doesn’t Want to Bullshit You
Chris Cohen Doesn't Care What You Think

Another review which basically doesn't mention the actual music at all. (Apart from a very brief reference to "sublime minimalist production" right at the end. Must be extremely minimalist, by the sound of things, amirite?)

https://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/georgia-anne-muldrow-dudley-perkins-black-love-and-war/

you're not wrong but this is a good record & honestly pitchfork is just going with the general critical flow by placing the music in tertiary-at-best focus

I've heard some of Georgia Anne Muldrow's stuff in the past and quite liked it, so I'm sure it's a pretty decent album.

It just irks me when reviewers do this. It's as if all they did was peruse the lyric sheet without listening to a single second of the record itself.

god, words suck, why would anyone care about those

(conversely it irks me when reviewers clearly have just listened to a record as background music and not engaged with, you know, what the artist is actually saying, a critical part of the work in question)

If a review doesn't tell me a single thing about what the record actually sounds like, it's effectively useless.

yeah... gotta have a balance at least.

This is great: https://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/various-artists-jambu-e-os-miticos-sons-da-amazonia/

the music is uniformly thrilling, blending the syncopated shuffle of carimbó—a beat, originally played on hollowed-out tree trunks, that’s part galloping horse, part drunken stumble—with trance-like woodwind melodies, throaty sing-alongs, flickering rhythm guitar, and the overdriven sonics you might expect from a genre whose pioneers ran their electric guitars through church PAs powered by car batteries.

There's got to be at least one review of an instrumental album that doesn't discuss the music at all.

the music is uniformly thrilling, blending the syncopated shuffle of carimbó—a beat, originally played on hollowed-out tree trunks, that’s part galloping horse, part drunken stumble—with trance-like woodwind melodies, throaty sing-alongs, flickering rhythm guitar, and the overdriven sonics you might expect from a genre whose pioneers ran their electric guitars through church PAs powered by car batteries.

Now that's more like it.

That is a perfectly written review!

That's a great review not only because it provides vivid descriptions of the actual sounds, but because it avoids wide-eyed "world music" clichés, too. There's no suggestion that listening to this music will in any way improve you as a person - it's just awesome music.

otm

AND it made me listen to the album, which is the point.

Yep, good review of something I've never heard of but now want to check out. Reviews like that one only reinforce how crappy the others are.

This was last week or whatever, but I guess Yoni Wolf can't catch a break. You figure they would throw them a 6.8 or whatever by way of apology for past pans, because who cares anymore, but nope.

New review: https://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/why-aokohio/
Old review: https://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/17136-mumps-etc/

The only time me or anyone I know pay attention to @pitchfork is when we hop back in a time machine and head back to Y2K. They get so much wrong it’s comical. It is literally the Fox News of the music industry. They only get clicks by people like me tweeting negatives like this.

— Yoni Wolf (@YoniWolf) August 7, 2019

Also, @mehan_j you are a dick and you haven’t really listened to my work. You have only read the press release, which you have thoroughly regurgitated in “your” poorly written slander piece.

— Yoni Wolf (@YoniWolf) August 7, 2019

Too bad this follow-up tweet is kinda daft... I doubt Pfork’s mediocrities are due to Big Rockcrit conspiracies

The formerly respectable blog called @pitchfork is nothing but a tool for their big 10 corporate parent to promote work owned by other big music corporations and squash real independent artists. Swim in your coin you sold out washed up shill. Guess what, we aren’t going anywhere.

— Yoni Wolf (@YoniWolf) August 7, 2019

Poor Pitchfork! They sucked when they promoted The Pains of Being Pure at Heart, they suck now they're corporate Trumpist shills!

"The only time me or anyone I know pay attention to @pitchfork is when we hop back in a time machine and head back to Y2K," says guy from Anticon

that god awful site did same shit to both of us this year. trashed albums that clearly hadn't even been listened to. same incredibly creepy girl did both, she even got lyrics wrong repeatedly when quoting them despite having lyric sheets for both, somehow. among many other issues

— WILL GOD FORGIVE US??? (@fugazi420) August 7, 2019

Reading that Why? review and LOL'd at this patronizing line:

There’s also an accompanying visual album, made in partnership with — no joke — a director who randomly DM’d Wolf on Instagram

Whoaa, seriously no joke? This artist made a creative connection on social media? Let me sit down while I process that, how crazy!

Hmm "incredibly creepy" might be over-egging the French toast in that author's case, but I can think of other music writers for whom it absolutely applies. Yoni's point that "the artists are not going anywhere" is pretty apt, you can whack-a-mole a Tim Kinsella all you want but he's still getting his 76 years of life, it's better to keep the reviews ad rem