Pitchforkmedia: Anything Indie = cool

[Mesh]

No, it was.  Welcome back

Sweet.

ps - I'm fucking awesome.

[Gamblour.]

This guy can eat my shit: http://pitchforkmedia.com/record-reviews/f/foo-fighters/colour-and-the-shape.shtml

It amazes how little these reviewers know about music. One review in particular talks about Thom Yorke singing in falsetto during "How to Disappear Completely" when he certainly isn't. I'm also positive they don't know what certain big words mean. They say that the Queens of the Stone Age song "Everybody Knows You're Insane" is misogynistic, when the song never mentions women or even a gender at all.

Working through their "Frances the Mute" review was bad enough until he said this about the song "The Widow": 'a yowling "November Rain"-style ballad'. I don't think I can yell shut the fuck up loud enough. This was one of my favorite sentences:

'The band managed to ingratiate themselves with so many who would have otherwise relegated De-Loused to the realm of ironic pleasures because they had the tact and melodic good sense to make masturbation acceptable for a deceptively Victorian set of listeners.'

What? See you in hell.

[modage]

i actually read pitchfork like every day.

[Gamblour.]

God, you must hate that.

[Stefen]

haha

[Pedro]

i read pitchfork most days, and it's sometimes sad to see something you like trashed so badly, but there's no need to take it personally.

[Gamblour.]

i read pitchfork most days, and it's sometimes sad to see something you like trashed so badly, but there's no need to take it personally.

Take it personally? Fuck you. Ok just kidding. What I meant was, the QOTSA and Radiohead albums were given good ratings, I'm just blown away by how fucking stupid those 'critics' can be. I hold their opinion with about as much weight as an Amazon.com customer review.

And it's hard to take them seriously when their criticisms are overworded, meandering diatribes that only sciolists with masturbatory tendencies would not eschew and instead plow through said obfuscations with zeal in an endeavor to further their perspicacity, bro.

But seriously, dey sux ass.

[modage]

haha, well i see what you mean.  and it does suck when they trash something i like (like ryan adams) but i think generally they are out there to 'fight the good fight' as it were and promote (what they consider) good music.  and as far as getting certain bands some attention i think they've done a good job.  who knows if The Arcade Fire would be as recognized without them?  because a band like Foo Fighters, it doesnt matter whether their cd gets trashed or not by pitchfork because its still gonna sell a few million copies and i dont think they trash it just to be snobby. he said he liked the first album and just found himself let down by the second one.  i dunno, i mostly go there for the news reporting in one place but i will agree with them sometimes on stuff.  sometimes snarky commentary is fun too.  read their 'review' of Louis XIV for some good times.

also: i just heard they have some internet radio thingy and its awesome.  sounds great too, just go to Open Stream in iTunes and type in some crazy crap.  i think they're just testing it out now but i want to listen to this every day.  its like... what real radio should be if they knew how to play something good.

SERIOUSLY THEY JUST PLAYED REPLACEMENTS-ANSWERING MACHINE FOLLOWED BY BIG STAR- SEPTEMBER GURLS.  OH...MY...GOD.

[Film Student]

Pitchfork Media has more integrity than every single mainstream music critic writing today.

For everyone who complains about their pretension:  Read their reviews of the Strokes, or of the Hives, or of Interpol.   And even if you don't agree with them (which I vehemently do not) their reviews of Beck's Guero, Tool's Lateralus, and Desaparecidos' Read Music/Speak Spanish are nothing short of brilliant.

They have a predisposition to hating a lot of post-rock stuff (with the exceptions of Mogwai and Godspeed), so their hatred of Frances the Mute isn't surprising.  The thing I like most about them is that they'll shit on the first few Bright Eyes records but then acknowledge that "I'm Wide Awake, it's Morning" is brilliant.  They have no problem contradicting themselves, and that earns my respect.

[life_boy]

I agree with themodernage completely.

I do think Pitchfork's reviews can be a bit verbose at times, but I like that some social criticism is included in some of their reviews (whether their review of Hot Fuss or Gwen Stefani's new album are the correct place for that or not is a completely different argument...but I don't really have a problem with it).  Maybe it's because that's how I have a tendency to write and maybe I enjoy reading stuff like that.  I can see how it would annoy some people, though.  I read Pitchfork because, for the most part, the reviews are well-written and it is a hell of a lot better than catching up on music by reading Rolling Stone.  A lot more intersting too.

[ABKman18]

They usually tend to support the people that matter, but sometimes they do shit on commercial stuff for the sake of it; I highly distrust those reviews.

[modage]

They usually tend to support the people that matter, but sometimes they do shit on commercial stuff for the sake of it; I highly distrust those reviews.

give an example.

[Stefen]

I was trying to look for an example but they actually gave all my favorite albums of the last year or so good reviews (qotsa, white stripes, black keys, brazillian girls)

But they definetely reak of a holier than thou attitude. All these shitty eye liner and pop punk and new wave revival bands really aernt that good, but they get shout outs on every review. Just cause they are cool, I guess? None of them are indie bands anymore.

Plus, they are so hipster that they have no sense of humor. It's all just bad/good, nothing in between.

[polkablues]

All these shitty eye liner and pop punk and new wave revival bands really aernt that good

The Bravery, anyone?

[Stefen]

No, they suck too. The 2000's in general are a sham as far as musical breakouts. We got some good stuff hear and there. But history repeats itself.

Seventies were good (but not as good as the sixties) with the classic rock stuff, zep and so on.

The 80's was like the disposable decade. It was alot of fun but there was no beatles, or led zeppelin. Maybe U2, again, it was just a fun decade. Populated by alot of cock rock bands.

Then the 90's is where it happened. The grunge scene broke out and people were trying new things in music, we got our first taste of radiohead, and most of the bands that matter in this decade came from the 90's.

This decade has been trash so far and it's at the halfway point. The early 90's were populated by the boybands and the britneys and all that non jazz. Then now in the mid point we have a cock rock ressurgence except in the form of these "the" bands. These bands just in it for the look and not making great music, you may think they are making great music, but so did alot of people with poison, winger, skid row and on and on.

the 2010's are gonna rule, though. These next 5 years will be brutal and with the online media places like pitchfork will have us all fooled into thinking it's great, but by the 2010's they'll have us thinking what were we thinking. Think about it.