"Pitchfork thinks this album sucks"

I don't really want to go into why it's a great album now, except for the sheer dopeness of Gab, the always solid and occasionally awesome production, and the overall "breath of fresh air" quality of the group. I like the raw-as-hell Solesides tracks better though.

"I know lots of famous people. One of these famous people is Steve Albini. He doesn't like Ben Folds Five. Neither do I. I haven't actually listened to the album".

Prick.

except for ethan, of course. dat boy can write

But, dammit, his first name is Otomo, not his last.

Sean -- I've never noticed that people were afraid to say Pitchfork sucks. I thought that was the typical ILM sentiment, actually. Do you wish people named names more frequently (e.g. "Mark's writing is awful!")? Because I don't see much of that, you're right.

I'm saying this as someone totally agnostic: ignorance = objectivity, in this specific instance. Pitchforkers who regularly contribute here (Mark, Dare, Dominique, ethan obv, poss. others?) all seem level-headed and interesting (taste in music aside heh).

"ignorance = objectivity" is my motto now, btw

haha i just sent in a review to s&s w.the word "wuv" in it: LA LUTTA CONTINUA!!

and when the full bangs/attali goes up on Sparks in Stone Lanes, we shall also see what we shall see. Oh yes. We shall. See, that is.

Apparently I am an ick entryist, because I agreed to write for them based on the logic that (a) tons of people read it, and (b) I might as well try to force something of my ideas in there. BUT the big problem is that I dislike the Patented Pitchfork Sneery "Provocative" Review, and so I don't write them, and so my reviews will probably all slip by without any "different viewpoint" ever registering on the readers.

But to be honest I was probably not significantly less indie than Schreiber until maybe two years ago.

And now you know why I write for the AMG. ;-)

I think it's just that Mark loves the experimental electronica, since he does most of the reviews of IDM stuff, although judging by the year end lists it is a wide spread sentiment among the staff.

I love pitchfork and i hate pitchfork for many of the same reasons.

i will say this: i don't know about the quality of the writing, but it has struck me as a lot less interesting in the past year or so. but i think the news section has improved a lot, and is the main reason i still check it most days.

That is, theoretically I could find it useful but the point of view is something I can't relate to at all so I pass it by.

It's not bad writing, it's just that's it's a bit alien to me.

Of course they were just jumping on the critical bandwagon, but this one hurts.

their news is all a week old (really, it is) and their reviews are too long (if you're as good a writer as you make yourself to be, try concise!) and they take themselves too seriously.

"Get off your high horse baby"
-- Go Back Snowball (somewhat modified)

That said, I find 'nu journalism' almost as icky as 'nu metal.' The formula (some hapless geek writing prose about his trip to Pathmark to illustrate, somehow, that he doesn't like the new album by XXY) is tiresome.

Like the last paragraph of the recent Scene Creamers review (a favorable review of a record I like).

Of course, the trouble with this kind of writing is, when I feel they've got it "wrong" (an unfavorable review of a record I like), it makes them look smug and trite and not really giving good "reasons," just throwing shit out there that sounds wrong to me, etc.

1. The review of Lateralus where the guy spent the entire review dissing and making fun of Tool fans. Because they're nowhere near as cool as he is.

2. Zaireeka got a 0.0 simply because the reviewer didn't have four CD players. That's like me giving a zero to every DVD movie ever made simply because I don't have a DVD player!

3. Jesus Christ, just tell me if Elephant is any good or not. NOBODY CARES ABOUT YOUR STUPID PRETENTIOUS BULLSHIT!! Ever notice how he never mentions the music at all? He probably made up his mind about the album before he even heard it.

4. The review of Original Pirate Material has me incensed. Has it EVER occured to them that people in the UK would approach music from a completely different angle than people in America? It's NOT hip-hop!! It's UK garage!!

Fuck that website up the ass.

This land is our land, motherfuckers!

But I don't see the point of getting so worked up about Pitchfork. They do have some good writing, and it's a faily enjoyable daily three minutes of skimming. Most music writing today is so crappy, it's amusing and mystifying to see people get so kettle-shrieking irate at a not-bad site.

am i to assume that this:

http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/article/record_review/51246-black-kids-partie-traumatic

lack of a review but picture of sad doggies means they just hated it so much they couldn't be bothered to write a review, or is a web server error?

i can't blame them. that band sucks.

Black Kids - Wizard of Ahhhs

^ What's incredible is that they were performing the most incredible, sloppy, throatgagging journalistic fellatio on Black Kids for a couple of months, then change course.

THIS IS WHY PITCHFORK CAN SUCK (not all the time):

Because they're the biggest tastemaker BY FAR in their arena. Mainstream music has its RIAA, CLear Channels, MTVs, and several dozen record labels to balance out (intensify?) its shittiness. I don't care about most of that music either.

However, sometimes Pitchfork throws a 1.6 rating to something that deserved better simply because NME loves them too much (or more interestingly, overhypes a band or rap act NME-style, leading to some critical backlash or worse, a terrible rating for album #2 to balance things out, which I'm totally guessing about or even making up but still). Their influence in the music scene these days is undeniable, and when they exaggerate their scores one way or the other like that, or even land on an extreme part of the rating spectrum for no reason, it can cause waves in the medium-sized indie world. Think of the albums they overrated that you saw in the front of record stores likely BECAUSE of a high Pitchfork rating. Think of the college parties and the half-hearted people who don't really listen to much music who jumped on a band's album because of a Pitchfork "Recommended" stamp. Also, think of the good acts who got 5.5s who DIDN'T end up on your non-music-loving friend's iPod and probably deserved to.

I might be imagining this all. I actually like and respect Pitchfork - I like most of their writing and styles and agree with most of what they have to say. But when they're obviously dick-riding or indie-knee-jerking and people can see that (or a large number of ILMers call it out), their influence troubles me because it can MAYBE have serious repercussions on an independent or up-and-coming act.

ARE U A SKYGREEN LEOPARDS BAND DUDE OR NOT?

<3 Skygreen Leopards btw

FUCK - I just saw that Black Kids review, which is what I expected from the comments above. Seriously!?? They went from journalistically going down on the Black Kids harder than Aurora Snow, slobber and all, to this lazy shit?

Like I just said in my post above - besides the disconnect among the staff (you'd think they'd convene regarding this change-up), the thing that irks me the most is the fact that Black Kids will be blogged about (and sell) that much less because of this crap. I personally give the band a "7." I do think they were overhyped before. But by doing this kind of schizophrenic shit, Pitchfork is contributing to the hype and backlash singlehandedly. I feel like they do this shit to maybe "balance it out." I wish they'd just get it right the first time. Man, I respect them so much less now.

This is why ILX is better.

:O

Wilter: No, I'm not. I've been using it as a log-in for most things since college a couple years back when I bought their CD and liked it a lot. Sick band name, too. I probably shouldn't use it on ILX - the one place on the internets where someone might not only know what it is, but even mistake me for a band member. Kinda cool, and much respect to Skygreen Leopards, if you're out there and reading this! I might have to change the handle soon. Maybe to "Iceman" or "Goose."

sweet! Now i can sleep at night.

However, sometimes Pitchfork throws a 1.6 rating to something that deserved better simply because NME loves them too much

This is the most retro-cogent sentence in this thread so far, because -- if anything -- Pitchfork has in the course of five years become the American NME/Melody Maker. With a unique twist, but there are many parallels, especially wrt to readers having this love/hate relationship with the publication, and the bring'em'up-drop'em'off attitude to bands, which is more of a reducing-clutter business decision I'm guessing, but hey it brings attention too.

Black Kids will be blogged about (and sell) that much less because of this crap.

Let's hope so.

With great power comes great responsibility.

Mackro - good point. Definitely different tastes than NME, but I can definitely see the parallels you draw. NME's bands are always somewhere between mainstream and indie, fully embraced by neither community in the US. Kooks, Arctic Monkeys, Starsailor, Oasis, Libertines, Embrace, Ting Tings... very Strokes-ish as far as playing up their outsider status for mainstream music and radio, but they fall short of being worth anything to the average Pitchfork reviewer. Tougher to pin down a typical Pitchfork hype darling, but yeah.

their influence troubles me because it can MAYBE have serious repercussions on an independent or up-and-coming act.

there's no MAYBE about it

Hmmmm. Well I checked out their Black Kids review. I like it better than their review of Daft Punk's Daft Club, but not as much as their review of the Jet album that had the YouTube video of the gorilla peeing into its own mouth.

The comments upthread make me want to read their review of that DJ Carhouse and MC Hellshit Live album, but apparently they've taken it down. :(

Tougher to pin down a typical Pitchfork hype darling, but yeah.

That's because there are no Pitchfork hype darlings. I'll give yopu the Arcade Fire, but that was like four years ago. How many albums in the past couple years have gotten a 9.5 or higher? TWO??

i can't say that i'm very aware of black kids, but my friend pointed out that they gave this shitty review to an album that's comprised in large part, apparently, of the songs from the EP that they gave an 8.4 rating to last year. so, over the course of a year those songs have somehow gotten worse? huh?

i don't even read pitchfork reviews anymore, unless it's for a band i love or from a writer i respect. i just look for tour dates, news and interviews.

Mr. Snrub - I think their search function is down still as a result of the server switch. I wasn't able to come up with any results for several different search terms.

Emily - I think the album features drastically reworked versions of the songs from the EP and they apparently lack much of the charm of the early versions. Or so I've gathered from the other websites that bothered to actually write an intelligent review on the album, as I've not head it yet.

This is why ILX is better.

-- skygreenleopard, Wednesday, July 23, 2008 12:27 AM (22 hours ago) Bookmark Link

really! they should hire an ilxor to write reviews from now on >:[

good revive