Meet and Greet: ILMers who have never read Pitchfork and couldn't care less about it anyway

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Hello, and welcome! Er, hello?

― colin s barrow (colin s barrow), Friday, 20 June 2003 04:41 (twenty-two years ago)

I've read it about twice, I think. It's ok for what it is, I don't feel too vehement about it

― Andrew Thames (Andrew Thames), Friday, 20 June 2003 04:44 (twenty-two years ago)

hello my name is doom-e and i could not care less about it.

― doom-e, Friday, 20 June 2003 04:44 (twenty-two years ago)

GWOUP HUG EVEWYBODY!!!!! Boo hoo! I *sob* thought I was alone... so alone...

― colin s barrow (colin s barrow), Friday, 20 June 2003 04:52 (twenty-two years ago)

I know where it is but why bother? no personality & as wrong for music as Leonard Maltin is for films. If he hates it, there might be something there.

― autovac (autovac), Friday, 20 June 2003 05:28 (twenty-two years ago)

Don't even know what it is, actually (apart from a tool used by farmers to move hay and a device the horned one uses to persecute the damned).

― Alex in NYC (vassifer), Friday, 20 June 2003 05:32 (twenty-two years ago)

Pitchwhat now?

― mei (mei), Friday, 20 June 2003 05:39 (twenty-two years ago)

*raises hand*

― chaki (chaki), Friday, 20 June 2003 05:40 (twenty-two years ago)

urgh, me too !

― s.r.w. (s.r.w.), Friday, 20 June 2003 06:24 (twenty-two years ago)

I've only read it when someone's linked to it enticingly from here on a thread I'm interested in.

― Stewart Osborne (Stewart Osborne), Friday, 20 June 2003 07:04 (twenty-two years ago)

OK, I admit I got curious and went over and had a look whenever people here got really riled up about it. But I wasn't particularly bothered. I'm far more intrigued by the irritation than what actually *causes* the irritation. I didn't even know what Pitchfork was until a few months ago!

― kate (kate), Friday, 20 June 2003 07:07 (twenty-two years ago)

Kate, you obviously start posting here when you get to work in the morning and I think you said you're inputting invoices.... you're not working for a property development company based in Reading are you? If so, you're sacked for wasting even more time on the internet than I do!

― Stewart Osborne (Stewart Osborne), Friday, 20 June 2003 07:17 (twenty-two years ago)

i dont care about it either.

but i care enough about it to post here that i dont care about it;)

― gareth (gareth), Friday, 20 June 2003 07:18 (twenty-two years ago)

you're not working for a property development company based in Reading are you?

Not that I'm aware of... I'd be worried about getting the sack, except I am actually meeting my quotas. I don't know how.

― kate (kate), Friday, 20 June 2003 07:26 (twenty-two years ago)

I mean... I thought I was quite indie, but I've never bothered reading it. Too much fucking hassle reading online magazines, anyway. And judging by all the huffing and puffing the place causes round here, it can't be good for my heart, so....

― Dom Passantino (Dom Passantino), Friday, 20 June 2003 08:56 (twenty-two years ago)

I like reading threads on here about it sometimes, that's about it.

― scott woods (s woods), Friday, 20 June 2003 09:37 (twenty-two years ago)

I care about it. What a fucking mortal sin.

― Ronan (Ronan), Friday, 20 June 2003 10:18 (twenty-two years ago)

Yes, that's what this thread's implying.

― Andrew Thames (Andrew Thames), Friday, 20 June 2003 10:46 (twenty-two years ago)

shame on you ronan.

I really don't give a fuck abt pitchfork and I don't really look much at other music pages bcz ILM is so much better.

but I'm still happy to buy the odd mag and zine on the printed page if i feel its good.

― Julio Desouza (jdesouza), Friday, 20 June 2003 10:49 (twenty-two years ago)

ALSO! ILM isn't coated in stupid timewasting graphics you get bored of after (or before) seeing once. Not that I really remember PFork's looks too well, I think it took a LONG time to load though

― Andrew Thames (Andrew Thames), Friday, 20 June 2003 10:51 (twenty-two years ago)

its just another source for info folks...i mean you can read can't you? no big deal. ILM has more or less replaced it for me, but i used to go there. less for opinion than just, y'know, o...dickwad has a new rekkid out.

― gaz (gaz), Friday, 20 June 2003 10:58 (twenty-two years ago)

I only know of it's existence through ILM

― phil jones (interstar), Friday, 20 June 2003 11:22 (twenty-two years ago)

when I said I care I meant I distance myself from people distancing themselves. i have argued about it hence i care. stall set out. fin

― Ronan (Ronan), Friday, 20 June 2003 11:23 (twenty-two years ago)

So more about the ideas behind PF than it in itself? Cool.

― Andrew Thames (Andrew Thames), Friday, 20 June 2003 11:25 (twenty-two years ago)

I am interested in *why* ILM hates Pitchfork so much. It seems to be quite typical of indie guilt self loathing, though. ;-)

― kate (kate), Friday, 20 June 2003 11:28 (twenty-two years ago)

there are specific examples on specific threads of instances where people here get annoyed, it's not that complicated. Pitchfork occasionally runs stuff which gets people riled here, the ideas get people riled here, for (very hackneyed) example the basement jaxx review.

There have been thousands of threads like this, it's kind of tiresome, if people don't care about pitchfork that's fabulous but I don't understand how on earth the tone of this thread seems to be that you have one up on people if you don't care about things enough to get into dumb endless arguments like the pitchfork ones.

I hardly trust people who don't do that, at least as far as music blabbing is concerned.

― Ronan (Ronan), Friday, 20 June 2003 11:39 (twenty-two years ago)

I don't think I'm one up, I'm just a bit puzzled. I don't really see why it's important that PF do a good BJaxx review. You love it anyway, don't you?

― Andrew Thames (Andrew Thames), Friday, 20 June 2003 11:42 (twenty-two years ago)

Oh I doubt I know enough of the details to be commenting, really

― Andrew Thames (Andrew Thames), Friday, 20 June 2003 11:44 (twenty-two years ago)

yeah my point is basically horses for courses.

― Ronan (Ronan), Friday, 20 June 2003 11:46 (twenty-two years ago)

Yeah, that's what mine was up at the top too. Their writing's not very exciting either.

― Andrew Thames (Andrew Thames), Friday, 20 June 2003 11:48 (twenty-two years ago)

and to continue my huge puff about nothing, I think it'd be easy enough to see both "ILM's" and "Pitchfork's" positions in relation to each other, in a general way, as I said before the idea that it's some stupendous irrational mystery like why do guys leave the toilet seat up ho ho boys and their toys is a bit nutso.

― Ronan (Ronan), Friday, 20 June 2003 11:49 (twenty-two years ago)

I have glanced at ut actually, cos of all the mentions it gets on here.

What the difference between it and a billion other music sites?

― mei (mei), Friday, 20 June 2003 12:03 (twenty-two years ago)

...it gets updated each weekday.

― DJ Martian (djmartian), Friday, 20 June 2003 12:17 (twenty-two years ago)

As opposed to ILM which gets updated every second. (Almost.)

― kate (kate), Friday, 20 June 2003 12:19 (twenty-two years ago)

On average, it prob just about does (posting to prove the point mostly)

― Andrew Thames (Andrew Thames), Friday, 20 June 2003 12:24 (twenty-two years ago)

I fear this has affected my enjoyment of other online music sites. Or maybe even print media. I put down a magazine. I pick it up ten minutes later, and get upset - "Jeez, what do you mean, it still has the same 10 crappy articles in it? New answers, please! Refresh! Refresh!"

― kate (kate), Friday, 20 June 2003 12:28 (twenty-two years ago)

haha me too kate!! i reread books to see if the ending got better!!

― mark s (mark s), Friday, 20 June 2003 12:30 (twenty-two years ago)

When you pick up a book that you'd put down a few weeks and start reading it again, do you shout THREAD REVIVAL!!! ?

― kate (kate), Friday, 20 June 2003 12:35 (twenty-two years ago)

i've enjoyed reading dleone's boredoms reviews that's about it tho. and s trife's eminem show review is funny

― ss, Friday, 20 June 2003 12:36 (twenty-two years ago)

Thanks to Kate, my leftovers are now to be called Food Revivals.

― Mr Noodles (Mr Noodles), Friday, 20 June 2003 12:41 (twenty-two years ago)

I think I've deep linked to it twice to read someone's review that's being slagged off on here. It's not my tea really, I just wish people would stop talking about it.

― Chewshabadoo (Chewshabadoo), Friday, 20 June 2003 13:05 (twenty-two years ago)

I'm sure I've never read as much as a complete paragraph, never mind an article. Nothing to do with its taste in music or quality of its writers. Online discussion about music by enthusiasts? fine and good, especially where their interests overlap with mine. Online articles/reviews by "music writers" (or wannabe music writers)? Er, none for me, thanks all the same.

― ArfArf, Friday, 20 June 2003 13:42 (twenty-two years ago)

There's millions of "music writers" on ILM!

― Andrew Thames (Andrew Thames), Friday, 20 June 2003 13:44 (twenty-two years ago)

Yes but they often aren't doing the music writery things I find so irritating. When they are I ignore 'em the best I can.

― ArfArf, Friday, 20 June 2003 13:51 (twenty-two years ago)

HI...!

*gives a toothless enormo-grin*

Me not read P'fork, me not checked P'fork, me always quite content with the bordering-on-formlessness vague quasi-idea of it that me sometimes gets from the P'fork-related posts on ILM.
Haven't got a good or a bad word to say 'bout P'fork, honest.

― t\'\'t (t\'\'t), Friday, 20 June 2003 15:24 (twenty-two years ago)

i actually like pitchfork as a whole. it's one of the best online sources for tips on new bands. you just have to pay attention to who writes what. some of their reviewers i could care less about, but some, particularly a couple who post on ILM, are definitely worth reading, in my opinion.
i'd have never heard of broken social scene if it weren't for them
i do hate their snide newswriters though
it's about time they got around to praising glenn branca

― Felcher (Felcher), Friday, 20 June 2003 15:31 (twenty-two years ago)

#1 reason for reading Pitchfork: it's free.

#1 reason for overlooking the frequently juvenile prose at Pitchfork: it's free.

#1 reason for not losing any sleep over Pitchfork: it's free.

― Paul Ess, Friday, 20 June 2003 17:59 (twenty-two years ago)

Nice email.

I read Pfork long before I knew about ILM/ILX.. Feeling guilty about my college indie-snob self is just not necessary. I'm glad I got over it and discovered that Depeche Mode is godlike genius and rebought all my old favorite industrial dance albums now that the $$ isn't going to whatever Tortoise side project Thrill Jockey or Touch and Go released lately.

― daria g (daria g), Friday, 20 June 2003 18:20 (twenty-two years ago)

Yay for daria!

I never heard of P-fork before ILM, no joke. I never read it unless it gets linked to here. There are so many more intelligent, well-informed interesting people that are here, there is simply no need for their juvenile scribblings.

― Mr. Diamond (diamond), Friday, 20 June 2003 18:22 (twenty-two years ago)

I don't know what 'indie guilt' is, but I don't like pitchfork (then again I don't like reading much music writing, it's enough for me when somebody here posts something like "CHECK THIS ACE TRACK NEEZIES" and then I know what's about that's worth searching out. ILM is so vastly superior to other music sites it just seems silly to me to keep referring to other publications all the time (though I understand it's often part of the fun). ILM is great, it's like hanging out at the bar with all yr favorite record geek buddies and having twenty conversations at the same time at light speed.

― Millar (Millar), Friday, 20 June 2003 19:11 (twenty-two years ago)

me!
mostly 'cause any genre-limited publication is navel-gazingly sleep-inducing.
(and pf doesn't have a cute navel.)

― bucky wunderlick (bucky), Friday, 20 June 2003 20:19 (twenty-two years ago)

I never read seem to bother reading it, but when I do there's always something worth reading on it. Like right now there's this Drew Daniel piece on his favorite Musique Concrète works and by golly it's a useful thing.

― Michael Daddino (epicharmus), Friday, 20 June 2003 21:02 (twenty-two years ago)

actually interestingly the first time I heard of it was when my brother emailed me a link to the basement jaxx article saying look at this idiot.

He's not a critic or any such thing.

― Ronan (Ronan), Saturday, 21 June 2003 10:00 (twenty-two years ago)

I don't give a rats ass about Pitchfork and I've never read it. Why write about music when you can be making it?

― Lynskey (Lynskey), Sunday, 22 June 2003 16:29 (twenty-two years ago)

Pitchfork has a pretty even hit-miss ratio, its news is very useful for folks out of (and sometimes in) the loop (i.e. if you're not receiving press releases everyday), a couple of the writers (many of them ILxors) are dandy (really liked Nabitsuh's Audio Bullys review, though I like the album more than he does). Not an Ott or a DiCrescenzo or a Schreiber fan writing-wise, and their stances seem really obvious and airless sometimes. But I can't imagine losing a hell of a lot of sleep over it, no.

― M Matos (M Matos), Sunday, 22 June 2003 17:59 (twenty-two years ago)

yeah, i think its got worse though, i think its jumped the shark for me though, mostly cos my tastes and pitchforks are now pretty different (ie. they gave wilco a 10, which is just inexplicable for me), and just me generally getting pissed off with their review style of most of their critics, the novelty wore off i guess. still a few good writers though, as you mention.

― Bob Shaw (Bob Shaw), Sunday, 22 June 2003 18:06 (twenty-two years ago)

hi, i'm lucy lurex and i've never read pitchfork either.

― di smith (lucylurex), Sunday, 22 June 2003 23:50 (twenty-two years ago)

I'm CKB and I never read Pitchfork.

― Chris Barrus (Chris Barrus), Monday, 23 June 2003 00:33 (twenty-two years ago)

Thank you all for being so honest. It's going to be a long hard struggle for all of us, but with each others' help, we'll pull through. I (sob) love youze.

― colin s barrow (colin s barrow), Monday, 23 June 2003 00:56 (twenty-two years ago)

i've never read it but i can't promise i never will

― duane, Monday, 23 June 2003 02:51 (twenty-two years ago)

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