Pitchfork: Classic or Dud?

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Well...I've been wondering if you ILM'ers have any serious opinions on the ole' PFM.

― Girolamo Savonarola, Tuesday, 21 January 2003 06:23 (twenty-two years ago)

[ducks]

― M Matos (M Matos), Tuesday, 21 January 2003 06:25 (twenty-two years ago)

please god make it stop

― geeta (geeta), Tuesday, 21 January 2003 06:28 (twenty-two years ago)

heh

― Jody Beth Rosen (Jody Beth Rosen), Tuesday, 21 January 2003 06:28 (twenty-two years ago)

If you search the archives, lord knows you'll find way too much text pertaining to this oh-so-sore topic. (Is there a tube of Ben Gay in the house?)

― David R. (popshots75`), Tuesday, 21 January 2003 06:29 (twenty-two years ago)

fremme neppe venette

― James Blount, Tuesday, 21 January 2003 06:55 (twenty-two years ago)

I almost wish the Mariners still had the pitchfork M on their caps until I remember how stupid it looked

― James Blount, Tuesday, 21 January 2003 06:56 (twenty-two years ago)

Classic.

― Chris Ott (Chris Ott), Tuesday, 21 January 2003 07:17 (twenty-two years ago)

that there said it all

― M Matos (M Matos), Tuesday, 21 January 2003 07:18 (twenty-two years ago)

This isn't a good day for Italian progressive rock fans. *sigh*

― tom (other), Tuesday, 21 January 2003 07:23 (twenty-two years ago)

Cud.

― Jody Beth Rosen (Jody Beth Rosen), Tuesday, 21 January 2003 07:31 (twenty-two years ago)

Swami just reissued the CD with the LP and single. Great stuff, especially if you like Drive Like Jehu.

(pssst.. guys, I'm trying hard here, play along)

― donut bitch (donut), Tuesday, 21 January 2003 08:04 (twenty-two years ago)

Yeah, Eucalyptus is a pretty good album, and I'm glad they reissued it, but it's still no Yank Crime.

Back on topic: Classic or Dud? The answer is "yes".

― Nick Mirov (nick), Tuesday, 21 January 2003 08:12 (twenty-two years ago)

el crapo, k.

― Hayden (Hayden), Tuesday, 21 January 2003 08:22 (twenty-two years ago)

Worse by the day (see the recent review of Twoism).

― kieran, Tuesday, 21 January 2003 08:33 (twenty-two years ago)

here's my honest answer: a classic of ambition. the sheer amount of writing/reviews available on it remains breathtaking; the writers frequently take real formal risks, trying things you don't see many music writers even attempt, much less carry through with. I admire its go-for-broke spirit, especially at a time when indie-etc. seems more irrelevant than ever; they carry the flag proudly, attempting to be as complete as possible within that realm. that's a difficult and noteworthy task right now given the sheer glut of stuff out there. and more than once, I've used its reviews to jumpstart my own thoughts while writing about something they've already covered.

most of the time, though, the execution is a giant dud. obviously nobody bats 1.000 (don't I fucking know it, ho ho ho), and ambitious writing is admirable, but pulling it off is hard, and too often--e.g. Brent DiCrescenzo's smug dialogue-reviews--they come off half-assed or condescending. those adjectives describe the tone of a LOT of the site's writing, and its attitude in general: they're the cool kids and you're not. ugh. and if you don't subscribe to "indie rock runs the universe" as a worldview, double ugh. that short-sightedness hovers over even the good writing like a plague, and when it's demonstrated overtly, e.g. top 100 albums of the 80s, I start wondering when they're gonna finally get it over with and just change their name from "pitchfork" to "kneejerk." is there any possible other reason to give ...Trail of Dead a 10.0? there are times when the site is like a parody of the stiff-necked, tight-assed pseudo-intellectualism that people make fun of indie rockers for, as Tom E's response to Ryan Schreiber's Andrew W.K. review said so well: http://www.netcomuk.co.uk/~tewing/2002_07_07_singlesa.html#78737877

― M Matos (M Matos), Tuesday, 21 January 2003 08:35 (twenty-two years ago)

(not, of course, like you NEED an excuse to make fun of indie rockers, but you know what I mean)

― M Matos (M Matos), Tuesday, 21 January 2003 08:38 (twenty-two years ago)

Of course not classic, that's such a bourgeois term. ;-)

― nathalie (nathalie), Tuesday, 21 January 2003 08:38 (twenty-two years ago)

Never so much as looked at the site. "Online record reviews"? By "indie boys"?

Please shoot me now.

― Mr. Diamond (diamond), Tuesday, 21 January 2003 08:40 (twenty-two years ago)

It's a shame that all this indie-bashing has cropped up on this thread ALREADY because (most) people don't dislike Pitchfork because its indie. Most anti-Pitchforkers dislike it because (as Matos says above) it's writers can be condescending, lazy in its dismissal of music outside its own coterie of accepted styles, the annoying assumptions made in some reviews (the Basement Jaxx or Andrew WK pieces come to mind instantly) that the reader shares their own particular musical prejudices and at times the reviews can be just plain inpenetrable.

That said, it does have some good writers, and I know for one my record collection would be much worse off without Mark Richard-San's electronica reviews.

― Matt DC (Matt DC), Tuesday, 21 January 2003 09:03 (twenty-two years ago)

Mich, that reminds me, my favorite part of Tom's response was always the top ten following it, leading with The Rapture. I'm pressed to think of a more perfect example of the new indie self-loathing, bands that seek to rise above their caste by sticking their heads in the sands, or worse, pretending not to take themselves (and [their] music) dead seriously. It's all gotten so twisted, even since then.

― Chris Ott (Chris Ott), Tuesday, 21 January 2003 09:06 (twenty-two years ago)

I'm confused--are you saying Tom's being self-loathing for liking the Rapture, or that the Rapture are self-loathing, or is there a meaning I'm missing here?

― M Matos (M Matos), Tuesday, 21 January 2003 09:23 (twenty-two years ago)

I have been thinking about that post for a long time now (mostly about whether there can really be a distinction between not-taking-seriously and pretending to not-take-seriously) and I'm thinking the latter, M -- i.e., Rapture as self-loathing indie band presumably pretending not to be indie. This is actually why I'm coming to think "indie" is becoming a vexed and less and less useful word, insofar as people who like indie claim a lot of the other-genre bands they like as being indie (e.g. when the first Air record came out or something) whereas other people don't. I've not heard enough Rapture to peg them but I get the feeling I could easily have heard "House of Jealous Lovers" without knowing anything about them and never had the word "indie" cross my mind.

― nabisco (nabisco), Tuesday, 21 January 2003 09:27 (twenty-two years ago)

answer has something to do with cowbells possibly

― geeta (geeta), Tuesday, 21 January 2003 09:29 (twenty-two years ago)

the annoying assumptions made in some reviews (the Basement Jaxx or Andrew WK pieces come to mind instantly) that the reader shares their own particular musical prejudices
But don't they, for the most part?
That's kind of something I like about Pitchfork. It seems to review everything, even stuff outside the indie genre, using the same set of parameters. And while this may not make for very good criticism, it does rather work for a sort of indie consumer guide.
Maybe that's not an especially good thing, I don't know.
But I think it's a rather interesting part of the indie mindset that they want to get outside their genre, yet at the same time they want the rest of the genres to start converging with indie.
But for someone who thinks like that, Pitchfork works quite well to guide them towards things they will or will not like.

― Melissa W (Melissa W), Tuesday, 21 January 2003 09:40 (twenty-two years ago)

if Nabisco is right, wouldn't the Rapture be the exact opposite of head-in-the-sand--more like head-in-the-air, looking around for stuff to be inspired by (or, less kindly, rip off and reconfigure)? and how on earth does Chris figure that they don't take themselves or their music dead seriously--does he think people are responding to "House of Jealous Lovers" as a JOKE or something? is digging the deepest groove you can somehow inherently nonserious to you, or what? for me, that's as serious a thing a musician can do? and isn't the entire point of this stuff supposed to be that when you hear it you think "good music" or "good song" or "good sound" rather than "wait a minute--is this violating my self-defined boundaries? am I allowed to like this?" I realize this shit's been argued to death on these boards, and it's one reason I don't digress more on ILx in this fashion (so uh maybe I'm doing with my posts what Ott seems to be doing with his music), but GAWD this just seems so fucking basic!

― M Matos (M Matos), Tuesday, 21 January 2003 09:42 (twenty-two years ago)

In any case I think it's clear based on the sample population in my bedroom that Pitchfork has the best-looking writers of any website ever, and with that settled we should all talk about the Monochrome Set.

― nabisco (nabisco), Tuesday, 21 January 2003 09:43 (twenty-two years ago)

[there was supposed to be a period after "a musician can do," not a question mark. sorry]

― M Matos (M Matos), Tuesday, 21 January 2003 09:43 (twenty-two years ago)

(Very true: I was very confused by the "head-in-sand" formulation for precisely that reason, in addition to the fact that "head-in-sand" indie is a perfectly nice thing if Death Cab for Cutie are anything to judge by.)

― nabisco (nabisco), Tuesday, 21 January 2003 09:46 (twenty-two years ago)

points well taken, Melissa. and I'm not trying to argue that it's not an especially good thing in itself; it's just frustrating that there seems to be such a frankly unwarranted snobbery involved--imagine if Urb or Relix or Dirty Linen or Smash Hits had that kind of hauteur, and you'd understand what's so frustrating about it. it's the hauteur that's frustrating, not the fact that it's indie people who have it.

― M Matos (M Matos), Tuesday, 21 January 2003 09:49 (twenty-two years ago)

(Okay I'm sort of ashamed to say that maybe I'm not reading enough Pitchfork lately but: do many of the writers even do that thing anymore? It's definitely a lot less prevalent than in the past, for the time being anyway.) (It's also, as I understand it, one of the main things a lot of people like best about Pitchfork, which I find interesting.)

― nabisco (nabisco), Tuesday, 21 January 2003 09:52 (twenty-two years ago)

It shows a distinct lack of understanding of what people who are bored with indie are looking for to suggest that being funky or danceable as the Rapture are is somehow self loating, pretending, or a joke.

As regards Mel's point, I suppose it is admirable they have the courage of their convictions but as I always say on Pitchfork threads I get the impression that with the Jaxx review or similar there's a queue of dorks who hate the album before even bothering with it just dying to get a chance to use their frankly unfunny jibes in a crap review. I don't think there's any excuse for wanting to tear an album apart instead of review something you like, they shouldn't bother with genres that are clearly outside their radar.

― Ronan (Ronan), Tuesday, 21 January 2003 09:54 (twenty-two years ago)

and yes, head-in-the-sand indie can be grebt--I really like the Alfie record, for instance, and Death Cab are fab at times. though my favorite DCFC-involved thing has to be the Dntel track Gibbard sings on, particularly the Superpitcher remix, which is on Triple R's Friends, which I love more and more w/every listen. AND which is about as head-in-the-sand as dance music gets; that's microhouse, right?

― M Matos (M Matos), Tuesday, 21 January 2003 09:58 (twenty-two years ago)

(NB I ask about the "anymore" part because I've always wondered it relates to the growth issue: when you're small it's obviously pretty helpful to just have a couple guys flinging big opinions snottily left and right, which I think means the market selects for that sort of thing. With that I am off to bed and what in the world is Matos doing up at this hour?)

― nabisco (nabisco), Tuesday, 21 January 2003 09:58 (twenty-two years ago)

(Oh and Matos, are you aware that Gibbard and one of the Dntel guys have just done a full record together?)

― nabisco (nabisco), Tuesday, 21 January 2003 09:59 (twenty-two years ago)

(I go to bed at 7am routinely, and I vant to suck your blood.)

(re: Gibbard/Dntel: drool)

― M Matos (M Matos), Tuesday, 21 January 2003 10:02 (twenty-two years ago)

(oh fuck got blood on the keyboard. D'OH!)

― M Matos (M Matos), Tuesday, 21 January 2003 10:03 (twenty-two years ago)

I go to bed at 7am routinely, and I vant to suck your blood

Best post evah.

― Mr. Diamond (diamond), Tuesday, 21 January 2003 10:04 (twenty-two years ago)

I don't think there's any excuse for wanting to tear an album apart instead of review something you like, they shouldn't bother with genres that are clearly outside their radar.

But isn't that part of the point? It's rather like, "You may have heard this album getting hyped lately, and you might be interested in buying it, but let us warn you... If you're indie like us, you probably won't like it."

― Melissa W (Melissa W), Tuesday, 21 January 2003 10:06 (twenty-two years ago)

fair enough, but don't be surprised when people who actually know the genres in question call their bullshit on it, either

― M Matos (M Matos), Tuesday, 21 January 2003 10:08 (twenty-two years ago)

This is going to sound completely unbelievable now but I did actually first hear The Rapture's track as part of a mostly electro/dance set and I assumed it was 'electroclash'. When I downloaded it of course I discovered it wasn't. I think it's a fantastic blueprint for what 'indie' could be - the visceral sound and imagination and outreach all present and correct, and a useful detox from the debilitating pursuit of meaning.

My comment abt Ryan's piece wasn't "give up indie" anyway, it was "admit you like pop". I still think that review is an extraordinary bit of writing.

Re Pitchfork: done to death topic here, but classic for the workrate alone. I think Mel W is on the money actually re. the genre stuff, which is why NYLPM doesnt huffily link to every review I don't like anymore.

― Tom (Groke), Tuesday, 21 January 2003 11:09 (twenty-two years ago)

I don't think it's any kind of service to the readers, I'm sure they're indie enough to decide what they're going to hate already. Anyway the notion of magazines as a buyers guide isn't one which appeals to me much, at least not on the internet where that's not such a necessity. Finally I don't believe for one second that Pitchfork's attitude is as reasonable as to advise their readers on which hyped albums to avoid, it's just a substitute for the non existant Pitchfork funnies page.

― Ronan (Ronan), Tuesday, 21 January 2003 11:33 (twenty-two years ago)

The thing is Ronan that the real lets-laugh-at-Pitchfork stinkers are actually pretty rare - that Basement Jaxx review came out 18 months ago and it still gets mentioned all the time.

― Tom (Groke), Tuesday, 21 January 2003 11:40 (twenty-two years ago)

Yeah I accept that, there've been a few I raised eyebrows at, Underworld for one, but I wouldn't have posted a thread about it cos it was more ignorance than actual malice coupled with ignorance. But there haven't been many big British style albums which hit America like Rooty in ages either, except the Streets and I didn't think much of the tone there, and I guess Underworld.

― Ronan (Ronan), Tuesday, 21 January 2003 11:55 (twenty-two years ago)

But the tone of pretty much all US Streets reviews was gosh-look-at-the-funny-British-guy - if *I* was American I'm sure I wouldn't like it that much either.

― Tom (Groke), Tuesday, 21 January 2003 11:59 (twenty-two years ago)

I mean yes PFM would be a better magazine if it employed someone who knew and liked dance music and let them review one or two dance releases a week - you could say that about a lot of genres. But the fact that it doesn't do that doesn't make it a *bad* magazine.

― Tom (Groke), Tuesday, 21 January 2003 12:05 (twenty-two years ago)

No I don't think it's necessarily crap or anything, I just think they should stick to what seems to be their field of expertise, no real need for specialist reviewer either, if there's no market for it. I also think reviewing something just cos it's been hyped is silly, I've mentioned before how irritating I found it when people I know who only like rock expected to like the Streets and then are all "the most overrated thing EVER".

― Ronan (Ronan), Tuesday, 21 January 2003 12:08 (twenty-two years ago)

this new frontpage is hard to read.

― mitch lastnamewithheld (mitchlnw), Tuesday, 21 January 2003 12:14 (twenty-two years ago)

I dont think it's a good idea to ignore the 'specialist' releases at all - one of the things that's potentially good about PFM (as I think I said last time we did this thread) is how huge its audience is and how it is genuinely quite influential on that audience* and could be much more ambitious with it - better reviews that are a bit patronising or get the facts wrong (and even the occasionally really stupid review) than nothing at all.

*I wonder how much the open-earedness towards IDM you get among indie kids is down to places like Pitchfork championing it a lot since the start, for instance.

― Tom (Groke), Tuesday, 21 January 2003 12:14 (twenty-two years ago)

no real need for specialist reviewer either, if there's no market for it.

I think there IS a market for it, and I think there's a real window for wide-ranging, intelligently written music site that covers as wide a range of stuff as FT/ILM/NYLPM but also reviews new releases as regularly as Pitchfork. Just a shame it doesn't really seem to exist yet. Possibly Pitchfork itself, with its large reader-base, could be that site, which is why it seems partly like a wasted opportunity to me.

― Matt DC (Matt DC), Tuesday, 21 January 2003 12:18 (twenty-two years ago)

Skipping 141 messages at this point... Click here if you want to load them all.

When exactly did Pitchfork become so obsessed with really shitty mediocre hip-hop? And why did this happen?

― Mr. Snrub (Mr. Snrub), Saturday, 18 June 2005 01:03 (twenty years ago)

I think dusted magazine is my #1 these days.

― Gear! (can Jung shill it, Mu?) (Gear!), Saturday, 18 June 2005 01:06 (twenty years ago)

how could anyone not love allen clapp?

― keith m (keithmcl), Saturday, 18 June 2005 01:10 (twenty years ago)

that's it? come on!! at least call me a dick or something!

― Nick Sylvester, Saturday, 18 June 2005 08:07 (twenty years ago)

"mediocre hip-hop"?

― deej.., Saturday, 18 June 2005 14:04 (twenty years ago)

my girlfriend's band was on PITCHFORK on friday. har.

― Ian John50n (orion), Saturday, 18 June 2005 15:44 (twenty years ago)

three months pass...

Have to give it up when things go right. Sean Fennnessey's review of Clipse is well written, informative and makes me want to listen to something I might have missed otherwise. I like how it isn't gagging on pretentious qualifiers and doesn't feature distracting "ironic" "humor".

― Spencer Chow (spencermfi), Tuesday, 11 October 2005 17:46 (nineteen years ago)

http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/record-reviews/c/clipse/we-got-it-4-cheap-vol-1-2.shtml

― Spencer Chow (spencermfi), Tuesday, 11 October 2005 17:47 (nineteen years ago)

I admire its go-for-broke spirit, especially at a time when indie-etc. seems more irrelevant than ever...
-- M Matos

This has changed a lot since 2003, don't you think?

― Mark (MarkR), Tuesday, 11 October 2005 18:53 (nineteen years ago)

No doubt - the brakes were hit sometime around mid-2004.

― David R. (popshots75`), Wednesday, 12 October 2005 05:18 (nineteen years ago)

saleswise, definitely. I dunno if that's necessarily the same thing as "adding new shit to the old template" though.

― Matos-Webster Dictionary (M Matos), Wednesday, 12 October 2005 05:27 (nineteen years ago)

unless you mean the idea that it's going for broke rather than sitting at the top of its heap, in which case I'd definitely say yes (that doesn't mean I think it's all the way great or anything, mind, but what is?)

― Matos-Webster Dictionary (M Matos), Wednesday, 12 October 2005 05:28 (nineteen years ago)

i like indie music, but not "indie music"

― gear (gear), Wednesday, 12 October 2005 05:30 (nineteen years ago)

I was talking about the profile of indie-etc. generally which seems to have increased a lot since 2003 and which I guess would make it more relevant.

― Mark (MarkR), Wednesday, 12 October 2005 19:46 (nineteen years ago)

well in jan. 2003 we were about 8 months from the wave really taking off. if this thread had been from, say, may 2004 it would have been a lot more suspect.

― strng hlkngtn: what does it mean? (dubplatestyle), Wednesday, 12 October 2005 19:48 (nineteen years ago)

"Adams: Or like when that first Pavement record came out. I was like there goes the neighborhood! Time to not give a fuck for 10 years. And no diss to Pavement, they're great, but that slacker, I could give a fuck attitude...

Pitchfork: It's dangerous in a way. And I think it's inadvertently caused, like, emo. And Coldplay. A return to earnestness. Kind of."

― corey c (shock of daylight), Wednesday, 12 October 2005 19:49 (nineteen years ago)

slacker = emo = coldplay = earnestness? kind of.

― corey c (shock of daylight), Wednesday, 12 October 2005 19:50 (nineteen years ago)

three weeks pass...

I check their news section every once in awhile and I see this on the side of the screen...

http://img192.imageshack.us/img192/3976/pitchforkad8lt.jpg

Well done, Pongo old boy! Hottest advertisement of the year. This gets a 9.7/10, Pitchforkmedia! Totally makes up for introducing me to the suicide girls.

― Cunga (Cunga), Tuesday, 8 November 2005 06:07 (nineteen years ago)

seven months pass...

So Pitchfork have finally implemented an official RSS Feed.

There are also some changes to the content management /information design of the Pitchfork website:

Pitchfork: News - each news item now gets a unique permalink. This will be useful for bloggers and users of social bookmarking systems.

Pirchfork: Reviews - a new information design for the reviews page. This is a big improvement on the old system.

Update: bad move ! previous pitchfork review URLs are not working ! This message comes up "This page does not exist" - surely they could auto redirect old URLs to the new URLs.

Question for pitchfork's scott plagenhoef, are there tech plans to redirect old urls to the new content management system?

as this would be ace for bloggers / social bookmark users and other websites such metacritic

e.g a review of Sonic Youth's new album was at this URL

http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/record-reviews/s/sonic-youth/rather-ripped.shtml

now comes up as:
http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/article/record_review/4

"This page does not exist."

― DJ Martian (djmartian), Thursday, 15 June 2006 12:55 (nineteen years ago)

martian - that one should work now. last couple of weeks' worth of reviews need to be re-directed. that should be completed today.

― scott pl. (scott pl.), Thursday, 15 June 2006 13:16 (nineteen years ago)

I like the sleeker look.

― BlastsOfStatic (BlastsofStatic), Thursday, 15 June 2006 13:19 (nineteen years ago)

thanks for the feedback, scott

another Q:

will there just be 1 Pitchfork RSS Feed: i.e
http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/rss/today

this blogger, made an assumption of rss feeds for each pitchfork section:
http://www.arcuradio.com/blog/2006/06/fork_1.php

― DJ Martian (djmartian), Thursday, 15 June 2006 13:31 (nineteen years ago)

so... is it still cool to hate pitchfork?

― marbles (marbles), Thursday, 15 June 2006 13:45 (nineteen years ago)

Wow, I love all the extra info at the bottom of each review (i.e., related reviews and news stories). It looks great.

― jaymc (jaymc), Thursday, 15 June 2006 13:45 (nineteen years ago)

Scott -- is the "Most Read Reviews" and "Most Read Features" for the last day, week, or month, or what?

― jaymc (jaymc), Thursday, 15 June 2006 13:49 (nineteen years ago)

Now that Pitchfork has RSS, they should add their feed to NewsNow

NewsNow: Music Reviews
http://www.newsnow.co.uk/newsfeed/?name=Music+Reviews

― DJ Martian (djmartian), Thursday, 15 June 2006 13:52 (nineteen years ago)

jaymc - it's for, like, the past few days.

martian - yes, each landing page has its own rss

(there are a few bugs we're working in, incl. server load, so apologies)

― scott pl. (scott pl.), Thursday, 15 June 2006 14:26 (nineteen years ago)

Classic!

― Steve Go1dberg (Steve Schneeberg), Friday, 16 June 2006 00:31 (nineteen years ago)

there was a period (yesterday? the day before?) that the site changed, all the news stories had pictures, two albums got images, the reviews were put together better, and there was a most popular section that showed you which reviews were read most (sonic youth was on top)

will this come back? i liked it

― boonah (boonah), Friday, 16 June 2006 14:42 (nineteen years ago)

Why don't they have an index for their Track Reviews section??? In order for me to find their review for, say, "Crazy" by Gnarls Barkley, I have to go to Google and type "site:www.pitchforkmedia.com crazy gnarls," and then look through every friggin' one of the search results until I find the right one. It's a huge pain in the ass, and I can't believe they haven't done something about it.

― Mr. Snrub (Mr. Snrub), Friday, 16 June 2006 17:17 (nineteen years ago)

it's worse than the holocaust!!

― s1ocki (slutsky), Friday, 16 June 2006 17:27 (nineteen years ago)

we all got "jumped in" when we started writing for pfork

― Bea Arthur - Lost COmic GEnius ? (dubplatestyle), Friday, 16 June 2006 17:29 (nineteen years ago)

it's worse than the holocaust!!

― s1ocki (slutsky), Friday, 16 June 2006 17:36 (nineteen years ago)

How dare they run an imperfect free website.

― Chris Ott (Chris Ott), Friday, 16 June 2006 17:54 (nineteen years ago)

it's worse than what s1ocki's gonna repost!

― David R. (popshots75`), Friday, 16 June 2006 17:59 (nineteen years ago)

five months pass...

so, was i the only spammed today via a pitchfork/vice mailing list, cos i have no recollection of giving either setup my personal email address :

romantic and for girls only.

ANORAK CHRISTMAS:
http://downloads.pitchforkmedia.com/%7Efiles/Sally%20Shapiro%20-%20Anorak%20Christmas.mp3

I'LL BE BY YOUR SIDE:
http://downloads.pitchforkmedia.com/Sally%20Shapiro%20-%20Ill%20Be%20By%20Your%20Side.mp3

I KNOW:
http://this.bigstereo.net/wp-content/uploads/2006/10/I%20Know.mp3

THE CHRISTMAS songs for 2006 called "anorak christmas" etc....cheesy eurovision 1983 style!
i can sent the mp3links out now to lots of addresses because its hosted by PITCHFORKMEDIA and BIGSTEREO so my server doesnt go down:-)

also the link of "by your side" which just got voted number 2 of the BEST SINGLES of the last 3 month by New York's VILLAGE VOICE is online!
ps:its by diskokaine's "sally shapiro"

hate or love it.
Wolfram

marfloW
_______________________________
TELETEXT homepage!
www.diskokaine.com
www.myspace.com/diskokaine

marfloW aka DISKOKAINE @ VICE MAGAZINE(UK):
http://www.viceland.com/int/v13n6/htdocs/ei.php?country=uk

DISKOKAINE'S "Sally Shapiro" @ PITCHFORKMEDIA(USA)
http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/page/track_reviews/37355/Sally_Shapiro_Ill_Be_By_Your_Side/page_1

and voted in New York's "VILLAGE VOICE" number 2 of the best new singles of this quartal.
http://www.villagevoice.com/blogs/statusainthood/archives/2006/10/the_quarterly_r_10.php

― mark e (mark e), Friday, 17 November 2006 23:17 (eighteen years ago)

Is there something in the sender or title suggesting it has something to do with Pitchfork? This line ...

i can sent the mp3links out now to lots of addresses because its hosted by PITCHFORKMEDIA and BIGSTEREO so my server doesnt go down:-)

... suggests the person's just taking advantage of the fact that Pitchfork happens to be hosting the song.

― nabisco (nabisco), Friday, 17 November 2006 23:22 (eighteen years ago)

which just got voted number 2 of the BEST SINGLES of the last 3 month by New York's VILLAGE VOICE is online!

i.e., in Breihan's blog

― jaymc (jaymc), Friday, 17 November 2006 23:25 (eighteen years ago)

Why did yesterday's +/- review mysteriously disappear?

― aaron d.g. (aaron d.g.), Friday, 17 November 2006 23:27 (eighteen years ago)

this was the part that raised my eyebrows :

marfloW aka DISKOKAINE @ VICE MAGAZINE(UK)

so its Vice people behind it, but with PF hosting i guess.

― mark e (mark e), Friday, 17 November 2006 23:30 (eighteen years ago)

fuck it. its late, and i'm bored.
i clicked the link (was concerned from work connection) and its just a crappy link to vice page reviewing the stuff.
so - not Vice people.
just crappy normal spam.
delete the above shit posts please.

― mark e (mark e), Friday, 17 November 2006 23:34 (eighteen years ago)

Yeah, PFork is offering the mp3 publically, cuz there's a review of it up -- whoever spammed you with this just decided it was convenient to deeplink into Pitchfork's server.

― nabisco (nabisco), Friday, 17 November 2006 23:37 (eighteen years ago)

yeah. it hurt when the penny dropped.
seriously crap website as well - not worksafe really either.

― mark e (mark e), Friday, 17 November 2006 23:41 (eighteen years ago)

i was going to say, though, this interesting confluence of vice, village voice, and pfm started to throw a lot of things into a whole new light.

― gear (gear), Friday, 17 November 2006 23:44 (eighteen years ago)

The Pillage Vice

― nate p. (natepatrin), Saturday, 18 November 2006 01:07 (eighteen years ago)

six years pass...

I've never noticed if this has been a thing before, but all five of today's reviews have covers that feature a face obscured in some manner. Cute, very cute.

― wronger than 100 geir posts (MacDara), Monday, 11 March 2013 17:21 (twelve years ago)

i feel like i've seen a disproportionate number of album covers with people in water lately.

― Poliopolice, Monday, 11 March 2013 17:47 (twelve years ago)

and obscured/distorted faces

― you are my capitalism (spazzmatazz), Monday, 11 March 2013 17:49 (twelve years ago)

anyone else completely despise ian cohen's writing?

― you are my capitalism (spazzmatazz), Tuesday, 12 March 2013 05:42 (twelve years ago)

no he's good

― batteries not included (flamboyant goon tie included), Tuesday, 12 March 2013 05:48 (twelve years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.