Does anyone else get that vibe from them? By indie i mean the whole aesthetic of the indie scene not necessarily bands not on major labels. I mean they love their lo-fi shit and seem to write off other kinds of music. They apparently have little to no appreciation for harder shit like Tool and The Mars Volta, two bands who should blow the cornholes out of any discerning music lover. opinions please...
I am blaming them for the herd mentality usage of the word "pretentious" and all negative connotations to it.
Yeah, they're snobs like that, but since I don't read the site that much, I was surprised to see stuff like 50 cent on their top 100 singles of the year. Are they trying to make themselves more credible? Either way it doesn't work for me and I only read for the occasional review/news
Ryan Schrieber's review of Pet Sounds was the bestest!
well, it's funny, in that same year in music where they have 50 cent in the top singles, they claim that the second most annoying indie trend was "accepting the mainstream"
sometimes their reviews are good...brent d sucks. and they're snobbier than even me.
Haha, I like their new banner that says, "Are you a conceited fucking asshole? Click here. Pitchfork needs writers." Where did Mesh go?
is there a site that has a better news team though? I'd really like to stop giving these guys hits
Quote from: SlorgHaha, I like their new banner that says, "Are you a conceited fucking asshole? Click here. Pitchfork needs writers." Where did Mesh go?
is there a site that has a better news team though? I'd really like to stop giving these guys hits
Totally not music-related, but I get my news from //www.axisofjustice.org.
...the way it works in real life is that "more than likely"...an inndie labeled band will suck.....but an innndie labeled film will not.....i'm not saying that this is true for all the possibilites .......but its much easier to write a bunch of pseudo-inntellectuaal wanna be artisitc-nnihilistic "phuck the world"...kinnd of songs than it is to gather a crew annd make a film......
........if you don't believe me ...than i cann't help you there...maybe...um.... read the liner notes to the first poppa roach cd.......
lol... yeah, that band is a bag of smashed assholes.
they got it right with Mu, Xiu Xiu, and Sufjan Stevens.
Quote from: SlorgHaha, I like their new banner that says, "Are you a conceited fucking asshole? Click here. Pitchfork needs writers." Where did Mesh go?
is there a site that has a better news team though? I'd really like to stop giving these guys hits
Slorgs - I'm not sure your taste in music, but the Gossip section of buddyhead.com is pretty informative and entertaining. It's as pretentious as Pitchfork but somehow boils each story down to its core. Give it a shot.
Quote from: GoneSavageQuote from: SlorgHaha, I like their new banner that says, "Are you a conceited fucking asshole? Click here. Pitchfork needs writers." Where did Mesh go?
is there a site that has a better news team though? I'd really like to stop giving these guys hits
Slorgs - I'm not sure your taste in music, but the Gossip section of buddyhead.com is pretty informative and entertaining. It's as pretentious as Pitchfork but somehow boils each story down to its core. Give it a shot.
Haha, thanks, I like what I've read so far
Quote from: SlombHaha, I like their new banner that says, "Are you a conceited fucking asshole? Click here. Pitchfork needs writers." Where did Mesh go?
How's it going? I wrote for them. I'm now an editor there, too.
I know more about music than you and have better taste.
I don't get it :?:
Quote from: SlombI don't get it :?:
I kinda assumed you were ripping on me for being exactly the kind of conceited asshole Pitchfork was looking for.
If that wasn't your intent, sorry.
No, it was. Welcome back
Quote from: SlombNo, it was. Welcome back
Sweet.
ps - I'm fucking awesome.
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 (http://pitchforkmedia.com/record-reviews/m/mars-volta/frances-the-mute.shtml)": '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.
i actually read pitchfork like every day.
God, you must hate that.
haha
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.
Quote from: Pedro the Alpacai 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.
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.
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.
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 (http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/record-reviews/k/killers/hot-fuss.shtml) or Gwen Stefani's new album (http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/record-reviews/s/stefani_gwen/love-angel-music-baby.shtml) 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.
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.
Quote from: ABKman18They 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.
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.
Quote from: StefenAll these shitty eye liner and pop punk and new wave revival bands really aernt that good
The Bravery, anyone?
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.
Quote from: StefenNo, they suck too.
That's actually what I meant. My meaning was unclear.
My Chemical Romance, too, can lick my balls.
All those bands do. They all sound the same and have done nothing to differentiate themselves from eachother. It's like one big mish mash of shitty ass interchangeable indifferent "rock stars"
It's a shame I have to spend my early twenties with these morons. There is nothing I love about them. It's a hate/hate relationship.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/arts/features/story/0,11710,1641164,00.html
this seemed like the right thread to post this
www.pitchforkmedia.com
discuss!
they're right about one of those.
I have a very strong disliking for pitchfork. And it's not like I don't agree with some things on that list, but I think a lot of them are really out of place. Oh well. I'm probably just as pretentious as most of them there, anyway.
have you guys noticed how lots of their reviews start with something like "there's thirty-nine ways to review this album..." and then they'll say a bunch of 'post modernist' pap.
Well I was really talking about the Top 50 Albums of the Year.
Quote
01. Sufjan Stevens - Illinois
02. Kanye West - Late Registration
03. Art Brut - Bang Bang Rock & Roll
04. M.I.A. - Arular
05. Antony & the Johnsons - I Am a Bird Now
06. Deerhoof - The Runners Four
07. Animal Collective - Feels
08. LCD Soundsystem - LCD Soundsystem
09. Cam'ron - Purple Haze
10. Wolf Parade - Apologies to the Queen
11. Isolee - We Are Monster
12. New Pornographers - Twin Cinema
13. Various Artists - Run the Road
14. Vitalic - OK Cowboy
15. Clipse - We Got It 4 Cheap, Vol.2
16. Love Is All - Nine Times That Same Song
17. The Clientele - Strange Geometry
18. Clap Your Hands Say Yeah - Clap Your Hands Say Yeah
19. Sleater-Kinney - The Woods
20. The Hold Steady - Seperation Sunday
21. Bonnie 'Prince' Billy & Matt Sweeney - Superwolf
22. Broadcast - Tender Buttons
23. Ladytron - The Witching Hour
24. The Mountain Goats - The Sunset Tree
25. Alan Braxe & Friends - The Upper Cuts
26. The Decemberists - Picaresque
27. Jamie Lidell - Multiply
28. Sun O))) - Black One
29. Serena Maneesh - Serena Maneesh
30. Franz Ferdinand - You Could Have Had It So Much Better
31. Konono No. 1 - Congotronics
32. Beanie Sigel - The B.Coming
33. Bloc Party - Silent Alarm
34. Silver Jews - Tanglewood Numbers
35. The Game - The Documentary
36. Keith Fullerton Whitman - Multiples
37. Dominik Eulberg - Kruecht & Fleucht
38. Devendra Banhart - Cripple Crow
39 Robyn - Robyn
40. Young Jeezy - Let's Get It: Thug Motivation 101
41. Roisin Murphy - Ruby Blue
42. My Morning Jacket - Z
43. Spoon - Gimme Fiction
44. Vashti Bunyan - Lookaftering
45. M83 - Before The Dawn Heals Us
46. Fiona Apple = Extraordinary Machine [Jon Brion Version]
47. The Boy Least Likely To - The Best Party Ever
48. Okkervil River - Black Sheep Boy
49. The Fiery Furnaces - EP
50. Orthrelm - OV
i agree with their top ten aside from LCD Sounsystem and maybe Art Brut
:yabbse-thumbdown:
I dont' take that list seriously since they put number one at number 48
Kanye West is this year's Carlos Santana.
Sleater-Kinney should be higher.
i listen mostly to old music. there are only a few new bands i take real seriously.
pitchfork is mostly terrible to be honest. i like their best records of the 70's list better.
go there for lots of amazing records.
Quote from: Pitchfork MediaLET IT NEVER BE SAID WE'RE NOT INDIE! WE HAVE BEANIE SIEGEL ON THIS LIST, HOW ECLECTIC WE ARE! KANYE IS NUMBER FUCKING TWO! DID YOU SEE CLIPSE? YOUNG JEEZY!!!
Well, it's more of a paraphrase.
the list is :yabbse-thumbdown:... but i'll take this over rolling stone's best guitarists list. what shit that was.
how bout we get rid of music criticism altogether? horray! the most useless form of academia is gone.
you can ditch movie criticism while we're at it.
Weezer Members to Play Velvet Underground in Film
Matthew Solarski and Amy Phillips report:
As obvious heirs to the Velvet Underground's cultural legacy, two dudes from Weezer have been selected to portray members of the VU in the forthcoming Edie Sedgwick biopic Factory Girl. Weezer guitarist Brian Bell will put on his best Lou Reed swagger, while =w= drummer Patrick Wilson will attempt to invoke a John Cale cool in the George Hickenlooper-directed film, currently in production.
What's more, Bell and Wilson have recorded a new version of the classic VU track "Heroin", to be used in Factory Girl. Bell sings, while Wilson rocked the kit for the recording (VU drummer Moe Tucker, however, will be portrayed by Hole/Mötley Crüe/Eagles of Death Metal stickswoman Samantha Maloney in Factory Girl).
"Working on this project with Pat [Wilson] was a blast," Bell revealed on Weezer's official website. "There was no premeditated plan, no rehearsal, there was barely even a discussion of how to approach this seven minute ride-the lessons learned and the experience of recording-proved to be invaluable."
Seems like the Weezer boys are feeling pretty good about their try at "Heroin". "[Moe] Tucker did have an amazing feel," Bell said, "but she was no Pat, and Pat pulled out an 'Only In Dreams' type crescendo that I think makes that aspect of the song better."
Wait a second. Did he just say that the guy who played on "Beverly Hills" does a better "Heroin" than Moe Tucker? Good lord, is this man confused.
Bell continued, "maybe we might help turn a new generation on to this amazing art rock band and change the perspectives of a few unknowing listeners. If your music has steered too far from the aesthetic of the Velvet Underground you have to ask yourself, 'What the hell am I trying to do?'"
Um, dude? Maybe you forgot, but you're in WEEZER. What the hell are YOU trying to do?
Weezer's not the first rock act to play the Velvet Underground on the silver screen. Yo La Tengo did so previously in the 1996 Mary Harron-directed drama I Shot Andy Warhol.
Factory Girl tells the tale of Edie Sedgwick's meeting with Andy Warhol and her subsequent rise and fall in the 1960s New York scene. Sienna Miller (Casanova, Alfie, Layer Cake) plays Sedgwick and Guy Pearce (Memento, Two Brothers, The Count of Monte Cristo) is Warhol. The film also stars darksider Hayden Christensen (Star Wars Episode II and III), "Saturday Night Live"'s Jimmy Fallon, and relative newcomer Meredith Ostrom as Nico.
Patrick Wilson weighed in on the film's potential on his blog, stating, "the script is sweet and confidence is high that this movie wont [sic] suck."
Apparently the real Lou Reed thinks otherwise. "I read that script," Reed candidly told the New York Daily News. "It's one of the most disgusting, foul things I've seen - by any illiterate retard - in a long time. There's no limit to how low some people will go to write something to make money."
if lou reed doesn't like it...i don't like it
Quote from: squints on January 25, 2006, 01:18:17 PM
Weezer Members to Play Velvet Underground in Film
ok, i myself listen to some of their albums every now and then, so i'm not a Weezerphobe.., but that should be a fucking Onion headline or something :yabbse-angry:
Quote from: Hedwig on January 25, 2006, 02:55:14 PM
Quote from: squints on January 25, 2006, 01:18:17 PM
Weezer Members to Play Velvet Underground in Film
ok, i myself listen to some of their albums every now and then, so i'm not a Weezerphobe.., but that should be a fucking Onion headline or something :yabbse-angry:
Pinkerton is fucking amazing...post that though..its all downhill
There is something seriously wrong with Weezer playing Velvet Underground, especially now. Even if they had kept churning out tracks like the ones found on Blue and Pinkerton (without trying to emulate the worst possible sound, which they always find their new low on every album onward) it still wouldn't make sense.
I don't remember what the context was, but one of the reviewers on there once said something like "I'd rather have a minute of a bootlegged performance of Sister Ray by the Velvet Underground than the whole catalog of the Beatles." That's one of the dumbest things someone who supposedly likes music could say.
Quote from: squints on January 25, 2006, 03:29:50 PM
Quote from: Hedwig on January 25, 2006, 02:55:14 PM
Quote from: squints on January 25, 2006, 01:18:17 PM
Weezer Members to Play Velvet Underground in Film
ok, i myself listen to some of their albums every now and then, so i'm not a Weezerphobe.., but that should be a fucking Onion headline or something :yabbse-angry:
Pinkerton is fucking amazing...post that though..its all downhill
there is not a band i hate more than weezer right now. they have become such such crap. it's so sad cause pinkerton and blue are really amazing albums. the pitchfork review of make believe is pretty funny, though.
Anyone checked out pitchfork.tv that launched today? Seems pretty neat. I don't have sound here at work, but I can't wait to check it out when I get home.
Quote from: Stefen on April 07, 2008, 11:43:17 AM
Anyone checked out pitchfork.tv that launched today? Seems pretty neat. I don't have sound here at work, but I can't wait to check it out when I get home.
Not a lot up yet but it looks very cool. Especially that they put up a new documentary every week. This week it's loudQUIETloud about The Pixies.
....it could get a little to indie/art snobbish though... watch the reportage about Man Man :ponder:
I'd like to throw my support behind Pitchfork.tv. I could spend hours there and sometimes I do. The videos are amazing quality.
i saw a lot of the demos on the screens at Pitchfork's music festival last weekend but I didn't realize there was as much to it as there is.
what i like about these as opposed to other similar things that you see on mtv or vh1 is that there seems to be less pretense here in regard to the musicians being "cool" strictly on the premise of their marketed and/or indie street cred. maybe it's just the style of the editing.
Pitchfork went through a MAJOR overhaul over the weekend. Don't know how to feel about the new look yet. It's going to take some getting used to.
I'm a pretty passive Pitchfork fan. I might check it often, but I never really spend a lot of time on the site further than checking out the days news - so I'm not too attached to the old design.
I like the new one... it's a bit similar to the AV Club redesign, but whatever. I might actually spend more time on the site digging for the good stuff.
Ooohhhh.... lists!
http://pitchforkmusicfestival.com/
I think I started another thread for this... possibly way back when I went to the Pitchfork/Intonation show, but the earliest lineup has just been released for 2009's PMF. Pharoahe Monch is definitely the one that I'm most excited to see thus far.
What's worth noting: the Friday lineup, normally when a band plays an album in its entirety, will now be "Write The Night" wherein which ticket procurers will vote for the songs to be played by the following bands:
Jesus Lizard
Tortoise
Built to Spill
Yo La Tengo
Now then, performing on Saturday...
National
Pharoahe Monch
Pains of Being Pure At Heart
And Sunday...
Grizzly Bear
Walkmen
Vivian Girls
I just hope they don't spike the price of the tickets because I'm sure they've realized the room they have. Last year was $65 for all 3 days, which is a steal. I mean, hell, the first year (which was only two days, but still) was only $35.
That's a sweet lineup. I wonder if Yo La Tengo will be playing any Condo Fucks stuff. Sunday should be epic.
I like when they play a whole classic album instead of voting on which songs they play. What was it last year? Sonic Youth - Daydream Nation? GZA - Liquid Swords? I remember reading about those.
I agree, entire albums are better, and no, you're thinking of 2007.
2008 was Sebadoh performing "Bubble and Scrape", Public Enemy performing "It Takes a Nation of Millions To Hold Us Back" and Mission of Burma playing "Vs."
Quote from: Walrus on March 11, 2009, 04:33:14 PM
I agree, entire albums are better
Seconded.
But I fucking love Tortoise; should be an interesting night. If I lived anywhere near Chicago I'd go every year. The planet ticket alone would nullify the inexpensive ticket.
Quote from: Chest Rockwell on March 15, 2009, 01:55:32 PM
If I lived anywhere near Chicago I'd go every year. The planet ticket alone would nullify the inexpensive ticket.
Which one do you live on?
I know I'm the only one here going to Pitchfork (other than Reinhold) but the bands have been updated a few more times.
Apparently now The Flaming Lips will be playing (a couple weeks old news) but also MF Doom, or as its listed DOOM, Matt & Kim, Mew, M83... this looks like one of the finer lineups in a long time.
Quote from: Walrus on May 01, 2009, 10:17:42 PM
I know I'm the only one here going to Pitchfork (other than Reinhold) but the bands have been updated a few more times.
Apparently now The Flaming Lips will be playing (a couple weeks old news) but also MF Doom, or as its listed DOOM, Matt & Kim, Mew, M83... this looks like one of the finer lineups in a long time.
MF DOOM has officially changed his name to DOOM. Dj/Rupture was also just added...I'm getting more excited with each new batch of announcements, which seem to be happening weekly.
saw a pretty great video on PFM yesterday:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJkymylTNU4
That was a oh shit moment.
Has anyone been following their Decade in Music thing? Not too bad. The 500 songs and 200 albums of the decade got it more right than wrong.
it's mostly all dance/techno things I downloaded 1 song in the top 20 and knew like 3-4 :yabbse-undecided:
i think they went to far trying to seem diverse by having half a dozen rap acts with 2-3 albums each on the list while there would only be one (if that) of some of their most celebrated rock acts (other than Radiohead and Animal Collective).
i don't have a total grasp of the list as i don't think they ever just had a plain simple 1-200 list, but you had to go through multiple pages and links to see them all. i would just like to see the 200 in one simple list.
i know Elliott Smith's Figure 8 is way down there. i think only the second Shins record is on there. i want to say there are no Decemberists or Franz Ferdinand (at least the first album was quite celebrated). Malkmus albums usually always get high ratings, but i don't remember seeing even one.
Bjork's Vespertine seemed low. Daft Punk at #3 with an original 6 something rating.
at least they didn't blow the Flaming Lips/Embryonic review today.
Rap is hardly the genre that Rock is.
For the first time (for real this time) their top two was the best. Stillness is the Move is some straight 90's shit. It's fucking awesome, and My Girls is the best Animal Collective ever offered. Both were first 6 mo. releases of tha year, and they held up. I'm in love with Amber Cofffman. How cute is she?
Overall, 09 has been mad solid. Some will front, but this year is the best year since the best year (09). Dirty Projectors, Yeah Yeah Yeah's, Annimal C?
Great year. The end always are. I wonder how this gen. gets influenced.
Quote from: w a l r u s on October 12, 2009, 10:46:07 PM
Rap is hardly the genre that Rock is.
as in they aren't the same kind or type?
Quote from: Neil on December 19, 2009, 11:05:53 AM
Quote from: w a l r u s on October 12, 2009, 10:46:07 PM
Rap is hardly the genre that Rock is.
as in they aren't the same kind or type?
Well, way back then when it was in context, I was referring to how bigideas was assuming that Pitchfork was trying to see diverse by including more rap than rock and basically that rap is just as much music as rock is, so their presence on a list shouldn't mean that they're trying to ignore rock and focus on rap, but just looking at quality music.
i noticed they have dissed some prior big timers as of late:
The Decemberists
Franz Ferdinand
Wilco
I think they gave them all decent reviews, but no mention on Year End Album lists.
Hazards of Love was pretentious garbage. The Decemberists are like the Richard Kelly of music.
I think with those 3 bands, since they've all put at least a few albms and haven't deviated too much from the original formula they got popular with, Pitchfork is not excited about them like something totally new.
I think they all kinda bounced back from slightly disappointing albums to put out solid albums this year though.
I don't think Hazards is that different from their prior records - the first 3 which I believe got quite high ratings by Pitchfork. The only difference is they made it a full concept record - something they'd already done in shorter bits on EP's or long tracks within albums.
If you didn't like their prior work, I don't see how Hazards could change your mind.
I really get into Pitchfork's top video lists. I wasn't as impressed with this years videos as I was of 2008's. Still, good stuff.
http://pitchfork.com/features/staff-lists/7737-the-top-music-videos-of-2009/ (http://pitchfork.com/features/staff-lists/7737-the-top-music-videos-of-2009/)
Anyone check out Pitchforks top tracks of the 1990's?
The gangsta rap tracks were the only songs I was listening to in the 90's. I listened to everything else in the 2000's. It was like a trip down memory lane.
How did everyone think they handled Philip Selway's album?
Before knowing they were doing no reviews this week, it really pissed me off. It's pretty rare for them to post a review the week BEFORE an album comes out. In this case, it was a review that ripped the artist, so I took it they were trying to beat the British press' Monday reviews and, of course, the US Tuesday reviews hoping to 'skew the public opinion' before time and be 'oh so influential.'
I'm not too familiar with the actual album yet to say whether or not I agree. I doubt seriously it merits a 4.9 score though.
Quote from: Stefen on September 03, 2010, 04:30:57 AM
Anyone check out Pitchforks top tracks of the 1990's?
The gangsta rap tracks were the only songs I was listening to in the 90's. I listened to everything else in the 2000's. It was like a trip down memory lane.
That list was AWESOME. I think I just discovered 10 bands. You made my day, dear friend. Freaking sucks that I lost my waffles and what.cd account during my move (2-3 weeks without net)... like the kids say: FML.
Props to the site with the thread I'm resurrecting from all these years back, and I can't quite think of the last time Pitchfork had a big impact on my music taste, but I'm talking about my favorites, and I like to hear what Pitchfork is up to, we indeed share interests. That sentence was meant to be complimentary, 'cause I'm actually ... [shakes his head]
I want to try to imagine the writer of this article is here, and I'd appreciate to hear the other side. A big news item at Pitchfork last year, something they were really excited about, was Sun Kil Moon being a brat. He's a musician. There was another band involved. He's also an American Dude and he said dumb things that didn't hurt nobody. This Pitchfork review of his new album begins its first two paragraphs with criticisms against him. The news they're sharing. They don't like it. The writer says
QuoteThe end result of these developments is that it's becoming increasingly difficult to imagine Sun Kil Moon's music outside of how it, and he, are discussed on social media.
The writer says that. Ok, so what's being said is the writer of Pitchfork, his social media is talking about the news item from his site, and now he can't stop thinking about it. Second paragraph. In which he also mentions, and I didn't read it but let's say that's definitely a bad move on his part, "disparaged a female journalist (and Pitchfork contributing editor)," no good, and I've never heard of it until it's mentioned in the second paragraph of this review I'm accidentally reading.
The third paragraph begins:
QuoteEven setting all that aside
Third paragraph. I'm rolling on the ground here. The review is 6 paragraphs, and the third paragraph starts by mentioning this. My ground is laughing. My building is cracking up. My street's got its hands on its hips, I tell ya.
Here's the link but, in a social world I'm furthering this type of gossip by mentioning it and everything, so I recommend that if you don't already go to Pitchfork this isn't a reason to go to Pitchfork (and I don't wanna let it be, omg):
http://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/20693-universal-themes/
Yup, Pitchfork is garbage. They don't review music; they review contexts for said music, and the feelings they get listening to the music, and the content of the lyrics. Even if their reviewers had actual music knowledge, I doubt they'd know how to apply it to a review.
Can you imagine a world in which people had similarly low standards for movie reviews?
Though in fairness, (1) music is exceedingly difficult to write about, and (2) it's not just Pitchfork, really. Music journalists that don't know how to talk about music (90% of them?) write about context and the creative process and leave you with no meaningful impression of what the music itself is doing.
I can't believe they neglected to review my new favorite album
WEEK MUSIC by Nate Ferland (http://natefernald.tumblr.com)
Quote from: Jeremy Blackman on June 10, 2015, 10:22:33 PM
Yup, Pitchfork is garbage. They don't review music; they review contexts for said music, and the feelings they get listening to the music, and the content of the lyrics. Even if their reviewers had actual music knowledge, I doubt they'd know how to apply it to a review.
The music itself is irrelevant to them, it's all about the cultural context within which the music (and more specifically, the artist) resides. They don't review albums, they review zeitgeist.