pitchfork is dumb (#34985859340293849494 in a series.)

5 Dumb Thoughts About Things Out This Week You Should Listen to Now

Catching up on that retrospective of reviews and I did a doubletake at this quote about Broken Social Scene:

Released in Canada in October 2002, the album had yet to arrive Stateside when Pitchfork’s Best New Music review ran the following February.

When people talk about something happening "Stateside" don't they mean "this side of the ocean"? Like, the same side that Canada is on? I would only ever use that expression in contrast with UK/Europe. Or have I always misunderstood, and I was shockingly old when I learned something today?

(I know there is probably a better thread for this but I can't think of what it is)

As a Canadian, I've always taken it to mean "on the US side of the border" (land or sea).

huh!

As a US citizen, I have always parsed "Stateside" as "within the borders of the United States"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hakgZ65dmfU

The number thing just seemed like they were going to write something but then stopped at the brainstorming process... but wdik

I never understood "Stateside" to include Canada, Mexico, Cuba, Paraguay, etc.

Stateside = in the United States. Not an expression Americans use very often ime.

The number thing just seemed like they were going to write something but then stopped at the brainstorming process... but wdik

― brimstead, Friday, May 28, 2021 3:08 PM (fifty minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

its a newsletter wgas

the correct take

It is very odd to be confronted with a video for a terrible song (per Alfred's post a few posts up) where you were in the invite-only audience.

Reviews Explorer:

We've reviewed 43 albums from my bloody valentine and 13 similar artists.

Was this thing even tested at all? Kevin Shields will have a heart attack if he sees those numbers.

I assume that 43 includes albums by the similar artists.

damn Ned that's OG Tin Machine cred, salute

xpost, yep

i was loling at that the morning it came out:

We've reviewed 43 albums from my bloody valentine and 13 similar artists.

the most misleading sentence ever written. what they mean is that spotify identified 13 similar artists, and combined with the reviewed albums by MBV (which we will not tell you here), those 14 artists have been reviewed 43 times, in total. looooooool k

EVER WRITTEN

i think the way to do it would be "We've reviewed 2 albums from MBV and 41 albums from 13 artists similar to MBV"

and then the artist similar to MBV is fucking deafheaven or something

Isnt this a bit like AMG’s Similar Albums tab?

AMG has reviewed 97,525 albums by the beatles and 22,320 similar acts

Re: Albini discussion upthread, I'm not defending it-- y'all know me, after all-- but it's worth pointing out that one attitude among people of Albini's generation is that language policing is idiotic and has little to do with actual allyship. I don't agree, but I've met enough people of various races who feel this way and know it's a tendency.

That said, that review of Cartwright's new record is fine and not worth getting upset at

Returning to the cause-of-death beat—they sound passive-aggressive about getting snaked on the reporting here:

B.J. Thomas, the singer best known for his version of “Raindrops Keep Fallin’ on My Head,” has died, as The New York Times reports. Thomas died Saturday (May 29) at his home in Arlington, Texas from complications stemming from lung cancer, as the Times points out.

Lead article: "The 21 Best Indoor Bluetooth Speakers For Every Home"

One of the members of Jimmy Eat World was kinda mad on Twitter about the difference between this weekend's Sunday Review and the original review of the album in question, and how it represented a fairly transparent rewriting of history (the whole "any album not in our archives" thing...).

I mean, I get why they may want to distance themselves from the d1crescenz0 era but feel like owning up to it and transparently re-directing things would be a lot better than just pretending it never happened (i.e. some sort of "we were wrong" series or something, idk). Especially coming so soon after the whole Reviews Explorer thing, I get why this rubs the wrong way.

golly pfork revising their own history to appeal to the current market!!??!? shockedpikachu.png

I'm not suggesting they don't, but there is a transparent way to do it and a disingenuous way to do it and they chose the latter. I'm arguing that it's not a great look.

they chose the latter

shockedpikachuenlarged.png

i'm genuinely unsure as to what ppl's expectation of behavior is here, aside from 1. me writing about the old brent di review in my piece, which, honestly, no fuckin thanks 2. pfork putting out a press release with a sunday review admitting they were wrong and they were sorry or something

maybe not being a bunch of liars?

omg calm down

Rolling Stone has changed their outlook on certain bands or albums for decades

brad otm

it's pretty easy to find the old bad rolling stone reviews though, no?

pfork putting out a press release with a sunday review admitting they were wrong and they were sorry or something

Why is this so inconceivable? "Normally the Pitchfork Sunday Review is for an important album we've never reviewed before. This week, it's being given over to an album we did review when it was new, but that review sucked because we were a bunch of self-fellating assholes back then. Enjoy!"

personally thrilled to erase a bad review from the internet, and pitchfork now is so different in both staff and taste from '99 pitchfork that it's like being accountable for a past life

we did review when it was new, but that review sucked because we were a bunch of self-fellating assholes back then


who is the "we"? how many 99 pfork ppl still even work there?

brad can u redo frances the mute as well

who is the "we"? how many 99 pfork ppl still even work there?

Is there any other institution you consider no longer responsible for its history just because the same people no longer work there?

prog will always be unfashionable and you should like it that way xp

Thanks Brad for providing some Clarity

lol

Is there any other institution you consider no longer responsible for its history just because the same people no longer work there?

― but also fuck you (unperson), Monday, June 7, 2021 4:48 PM (two minutes ago)

lmao the original review is imagined dialogue between slobodan milosevic and a military commander we're not exactly dealing with the new york times coverage of WMDs here

who is the "we"? how many 99 pfork ppl still even work there? Maybe that doesn't mean us?

Is there any other institution you consider no longer responsible for its history just because the same people no longer work there? Wait for something better?

1. me writing about the old brent di review in my piece, which, honestly, no fuckin thanks I shouldn't, it's not enough

2. pfork putting out a press release with a sunday review admitting they were wrong and they were sorry or something Pull one excuse from another

believe in what you want, evan

*joke post, those are clarity lyrics

who is the "we"? how many 99 pfork ppl still even work there?

Is there any other institution you consider no longer responsible for its history just because the same people no longer work there?

― but also fuck you (unperson), Monday, June 7, 2021 3:48 PM (fifteen minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

I'm still mad at the CIA for their review of The Real New Fall LP

jfc I should know better than to even dip a toe in this damn thread. to be clear, i love Brad's review and I'm so grateful that they got a platform to share a much, much better and far more thoughtful review of the album. and none of my problems with Brad in the least!

all I was saying was that I can understand why an artist might be a little annoyed (not egregiously so) to see them pretend like that original review never happened. I just think a slight tweak to the Sunday review header, like unperson suggests, would right the "wrong" and be transparent. of course reviewers from decades later are going to have a different perspective on an artist and album and are free to share those! it just feels like a disingenuous way to pretend a shitty, probably more than borderline offensive review never got published.

i mean, whatever, i'm not mad and it's stupid to even care. but this rings a little hollow after just publishing a review taking an artist to task for using derogatory words in the past. they were right to do so, but if you are going to call out others for bad behavior from decades ago, maybe be transparent about your own?

if i sold tens of millions of records, i probably would not get super worked-up about a bad review from 22 years ago.

the original review wasn't derogatory it was just plainly stupid from a conceptual POV, barely made an argument about the music, and had a low score. they just ran a huge feature last week on the history of the reviews section including several entries about bad past reviews. the idea that they'd need to send out a press release (lol...) or publicly apologize any time they write about an album previously covered by a dumb brent dicrescenzo review intended for an audience of hundreds during the infancy of the internet is ridiculous