pitchfork = the wire?!

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

― jess, Wednesday, 2 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago) link

new confused answers.

― jess, Wednesday, 2 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago) link

I don't know if Antietam or FSK (outed by the Stone back in '94, oh for shame) or SMOG (?!?!) count as "discoveries", but, hell, it's a list, and it looks interesting (on 1st page-thru).

― David Raposa, Wednesday, 2 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago) link

It's kind of theoretically interesting and it's a good thing for Pitchfork to be doing. A lot of the entries seem to just say "You know [thing you like]? Well, [thing we like] did it first." which seems to me kind of a depersonalised way of listening to music, especially after the intro to the piece promised something more interesting.

― Tom, Wednesday, 2 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago) link

Well, [thing we like] did it first." which seems to me kind of a depersonalised way of listening to music, especially after the intro to the piece promised something more interesting.

Hey now, I thought it was common knowledge MoM sounded like Cluster! As for the intro, the first time I heard Abbey Road, it mutated me into a horrible music mutant, so maybe Ryan was misleading the public with that one.

― dleone, Wednesday, 2 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago) link

The who did it first is a pretty silly angle. I care more about who did it better. That said, its an interesting list, and its nice to see Pitchfork cover a slew of artists their readers probably have never heard of. And I like the nod to Current 93.

― bnw, Wednesday, 2 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago) link

that kool g/polo blurb is the worst thing i've ever read, ever. 'hey, you like the first track on psyence fiction? well, that guy did some records!'. marley marl 'took eric b.'s lead' on production? do they even know how many things are wrong with that sentence? i'm glad i was too hungover to write anything for this fucking piece.

― ethan, Wednesday, 2 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago) link

I dunno, I think hearing currently-familiar sounds from the past is great; the new context changes things enough to make familiar ideas seem more exotic. it does lend itself to a certain amount of music- geek snobbery (like the friend of the guy doing the prefuse writeup)...

at any rate, this list does make me curious about a few of these records, so it's done its job... the ones on here i've heard, kukl and the radar bros., are both excellent (although the kukl write-up is pretty awful).

― dave k, Wednesday, 2 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago) link

It's as interesting take, yeah. What is funny about most reviews to me, in particular reviews about old/re-released albums that "you should know about," is how bad-ass I feel when I found them years before. Ha! It also means I can get kind of indignant and smug, and say things like "oh, Peter Brotzman's MACHINE GUN? COME ON! I used to scare kids with that album in '92!" But then again, I'm sure there are some people (like old friend Rick Reed) that had that album in 1969.

― Gage-o, Wednesday, 2 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago) link

the ultimate redux of this argt either way, tho, is:
A: "I'm younger than you, nyah!"
B: "Yeah? Well, I'm OLDER than you!"
(or vice versa)

― mark s, Wednesday, 2 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago) link

"Me-first!" revisionism aside, someone should tell them that Nuno Canavarro is from Portugal. It's 2002, about time Pitchfork got a fact-checker.

― hstencil, Wednesday, 2 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago) link

Are they still too edgy to bother with such a thing? (I'm still confused as to how being factually unsound can act as a selling point.)

― David Raposa, Wednesday, 2 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago) link

It was nice to see Radar Brothers' record mentioned, and it's always good to be reminded about Magazine. I was inspired to order Pauline Oliveros' "Deep Listening" and DJ Pica Pica Pica. I don't understand why smart people knock Pitchfork. Sometimes they get things wrong, some of the writing is less than good, and some of the writers have dodgy taste, but they cover a wide variety of stuff that I wouldn't be exposed to otherwise, the good bits are as good as anything on the web or at my newsstand, and it's easy to get a handle on which writers to trust in terms of recommendations. Plus the price is right.

― dan, Wednesday, 2 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago) link

...why smart people knock Pitchfork.
Can't speak for anyone else, but the main thing that annoys me about Pitchfork is when they publish falsehoods. It's not so much the silly errors as much as it is that the errors lead to bad writing and shoddily-formulated opinions.
The actual idea behind the article linked in this thread is fine, and some of the reviews are pretty accurate, but in general Pitchfork has always seemed to me to be a forum for people to spout opinions based on utter nonsense, exemplified by cloudy reportage.
It was kind of sad to see the one Pitchfork writer whose work I enjoyed, Mark Richard-San, go the presumptious knee-jerk route with his Iggy Pop review (more for his comments about the Stooges, not for the review of the album itself, which I couldn't care less about), but I s'pose it had to happen sooner or later.
― hstencil, Wednesday, 2 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago) link

whoops, sorry about the italics.

― hstencil, Wednesday, 2 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago) link

Still... I only have ONE of these. Maybe I'll do some downloading...

― Keiko, Wednesday, 2 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago) link

YES! They included Brainticket's COTTONWOOD HILL! My most fave Psychedelic album of all time.

― Kodanshi, Wednesday, 2 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago) link

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