Pitchfork is gone?

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

If you request the Pitchfork front page you get a message that the server can't be found.

Old pages come up, but the record reviews page hasn't had any new reviews added since August 11th. Did I miss the memo about "scheduled maintenance" or "summer holidays"? Or has Pitchfork suddenly disappeared?

― Momus (Momus), Monday, 21 August 2006 12:58 (nineteen years ago)

Oh, wait, it's back! It's just

http://pitchforkmedia.com/

that no longer works!

― Momus (Momus), Monday, 21 August 2006 12:59 (nineteen years ago)

Weird, when I click the record reviews section from the current front page I get current reviews. But when I put the exact same page address in manually I get the Tortoise record on August 11th!

― Momus (Momus), Monday, 21 August 2006 13:01 (nineteen years ago)

shameful, mo

― mentalismé (sanskrit), Monday, 21 August 2006 13:03 (nineteen years ago)

-his entire life briefly flashed before his eyes-

― Scourage (Haberdager), Monday, 21 August 2006 13:04 (nineteen years ago)

Seriously, it's acting bizarrely! Where does this take you?

http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/page/record_reviews

― Momus (Momus), Monday, 21 August 2006 13:05 (nineteen years ago)

It takes me to Friday August 11th!

― Momus (Momus), Monday, 21 August 2006 13:05 (nineteen years ago)

it takes me to their most recent batch.

― Scourage (Haberdager), Monday, 21 August 2006 13:07 (nineteen years ago)

Hum, some weirdness with my browser, then. Will purge my caches, eat browser prunes, etc.

― Momus (Momus), Monday, 21 August 2006 13:11 (nineteen years ago)

two most recent batches were published today and August 11-- no new reviews last week on account of the 25K-word, five-part feature.

― scott pl. (scott pl.), Monday, 21 August 2006 13:13 (nineteen years ago)

Xpost: And some more rice, of course.

― Scourage (Haberdager), Monday, 21 August 2006 13:15 (nineteen years ago)

whole grains

― marc h. (marc h.), Monday, 21 August 2006 13:16 (nineteen years ago)

coffee

― David R. (popshots75`), Monday, 21 August 2006 13:23 (nineteen years ago)

not espresso, though, thank godz

― marc h. (marc h.), Monday, 21 August 2006 13:27 (nineteen years ago)

it's bork

― bobqawesome (bobqawesome), Monday, 21 August 2006 13:35 (nineteen years ago)

Bromus may be on to something, I can't get this gem to pull up:
http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/record-reviews/c/coltrane_john/live-at-the-village-vanguard.shtml

and the Google cache of it is missing..

― mentalismé (sanskrit), Monday, 21 August 2006 13:54 (nineteen years ago)

on the subject of websites acting funny, what's up with ILX? I just want to know if my computer is at it's last days or if it's a server problem or whatever.

― Thomas Mehlt (Tokyo Ghost Stories), Monday, 21 August 2006 15:24 (nineteen years ago)

http://www.sirois.org/wtc/never_forget.JPG

― Whiney G. Weingarten (whineyg), Monday, 21 August 2006 15:33 (nineteen years ago)

christopher OTM

― Scourage (Haberdager), Monday, 21 August 2006 15:34 (nineteen years ago)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v212/etienne_saint/crying20eagle.jpg

― gear (gear), Monday, 21 August 2006 16:16 (nineteen years ago)

ilx is gone?

― Sir Dr. Rev. PappaWheelie Jr. II of The Third Kind (PappaWheelie 2), Monday, 21 August 2006 16:29 (nineteen years ago)

oh wait, it's back!

― Sir Dr. Rev. PappaWheelie Jr. II of The Third Kind (PappaWheelie 2), Monday, 21 August 2006 16:29 (nineteen years ago)

I like it when Pitchfork goes down... you attempt to load it then by the time it crashes realise-: why the hell do I want to read more overly self-referential American students smugly and unamusingly attempting to prove via dull indie rock reviews their own superior intellect...?

― gekoppel (Gekoppel), Monday, 21 August 2006 19:04 (nineteen years ago)

TS: PITCHBORK VS POXY ILM

― hippo eats dwarlf (lfam), Monday, 21 August 2006 19:10 (nineteen years ago)

gear, that is fucking hilarious. i'm serious.

― that's so taylrr (ken taylrr), Monday, 21 August 2006 19:48 (nineteen years ago)

I'm always baffled by the things I totally miss only to discover everyone hates.

I didn't even know what Pitchfork was before Confounded forwarded me that Chigaco/Detroit House/Techno connection article. I love the article but never went back to Pitchfork for anything. Same for Vice...never read it, despite being a "don't" in it.

But if these things are so hated, why are they always topic? I don't sit around eating and then bitching about Ore Ida Frozen Fries.

― Sir Dr. Rev. PappaWheelie Jr. II of The Third Kind (PappaWheelie 2), Monday, 21 August 2006 20:16 (nineteen years ago)

Do you have the URL of your Vice "Don't"? That's an honour! I once dressed up like this for a lunch appointment at Vice, hoping they'd take a snap and make me a Don't. I failed. Wasn't even a Do.

― Momus (Momus), Monday, 21 August 2006 20:21 (nineteen years ago)

That's an honour!

So they keep telling me...

I imagine the reason I was a don't in Vice is the same reason Vice is a don't in my life.

So to answer your question, no, I don't have a link.

― Sir Dr. Rev. PappaWheelie Jr. II of The Third Kind (PappaWheelie 2), Monday, 21 August 2006 20:23 (nineteen years ago)

xpost: Pitchfork's review of Blur's 13 is one of the most OTM reviews I've ever read. It was DiCrescenzo as well!

They're often good for a laugh (see: their Obie Trice 'Cheers' review) but their slightly pompous 'we are THE AUTHORITY' stance gets a lot of peoples' backs up, especially the sort of people you'll find on ILM: smart, knowledgeable no-bullshit music-writers. There IS bullshit with Pitchfork, but there's also a lot of high-class writing. As ever, the h8rs and the fan-boiz/gurlz are viewing it through their own tinted sunglasses, and the truth is in between.

The reason they are on topic all the time is because although they hate to admit it, Pitchfork kinda ARE the authority in many peoples' eyes, and they're certainly the most *respected*/well-known online music-mag. Although their frequently rockist approach has led to a few breakaway movements (I could go on all night, but ENOUGH)

― Scourage (Haberdager), Monday, 21 August 2006 20:23 (nineteen years ago)

yeah work it haberdager!

http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b33/terv025/colin.gif

― hippo eats dwarlf (lfam), Monday, 21 August 2006 22:06 (nineteen years ago)

you attempt to load it then by the time it crashes realise-: why the hell do I want to read more overly self-referential American students smugly and unamusingly attempting to prove via dull indie rock reviews their own superior intellect...?

This reminds me of reading articles or messageboard posts about Pitchfork, though: i.e., it's always interesting to see what people are saying, but then when ILM finally starts working again you realize most of them are still living in 2003.

― marc h. (marc h.), Monday, 21 August 2006 22:12 (nineteen years ago)

dissssssssssssssssssss

― Confounded (Confounded), Monday, 21 August 2006 22:16 (nineteen years ago)

so anyone heard this dizzee rascal guy?

― M@tt He1geson: Real Name, No Gimmicks (Matt Helgeson), Monday, 21 August 2006 22:18 (nineteen years ago)

dissssssssssssssssssss

nah, i'm just whining

― marc h. (marc h.), Monday, 21 August 2006 22:26 (nineteen years ago)

Bromus may be on to something, I can't get this gem to pull up:
http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/record-reviews/c/coltrane_john/live-at-the-village-vanguard.shtml

It's now here.

― mark 0 (mark 0), Monday, 21 August 2006 22:35 (nineteen years ago)

you realize most of them are still living in 2003

So what's the chief difference between then and now?

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Monday, 21 August 2006 23:27 (nineteen years ago)

Har har, Ned. To begin with: scottpl. The rest follows.

I know nobody here would admit to actually reading Pitchfork, but doesn't anybody here actually read Pitchfork? Or is it more fun to smugly and unamusingly act like students?

― marc h. (marc h.), Monday, 21 August 2006 23:42 (nineteen years ago)

I think it's funnest to split infinitives.

― marc h. (marc h.), Monday, 21 August 2006 23:42 (nineteen years ago)

Har har, Ned.

Considering I was being serious...

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Monday, 21 August 2006 23:43 (nineteen years ago)

is scottpl responsible for the big changes in pfork over the past whatever? i still don't read the album reviews and sure as hell wasn't going to read top blah blah of bore bore list but i glance at track blurbs, read the columns.

― j blount (papa la bas), Monday, 21 August 2006 23:50 (nineteen years ago)

OK, Ned. I guess it just frustrates me that otherwise intelligent people continue to assume that we're students, that we only cover "dull indie rock" (Ned, you of all people know the longtime ILMers who work for Pitchfork, and what they cover), etc.

We may well be unamusing, and we may come across as trying to be smarter than we are, but I don't think the recurring stereotype of Pitchfork as dull indie-rock mag written by less-precocious-than-they-think college freshman is a tad dated.

― marc h. (marc h.), Monday, 21 August 2006 23:50 (nineteen years ago)

I *do* think, rather. Heh.

― marc h. (marc h.), Monday, 21 August 2006 23:51 (nineteen years ago)

Put another way: Is it so hard to believe we're just a bunch of dorks who love writing about music and, finally having an audience for that writing, are now trying to write about as much music as we can as best we can? And that we're all grown-ups here? That our staffs overlap with writers for other major publications?

Also, is it so hard to notice that we review a lot of things that aren't indie-rock? Or does it become that because Pitchfork covers it? It's confusing.

― marc h. (marc h.), Monday, 21 August 2006 23:55 (nineteen years ago)

marc you fuckers rule the roost right now, take a page from frank: enjoy it. don't sweat the small stuff. roll with the punches. take it to the limit.

― j blount (papa la bas), Monday, 21 August 2006 23:56 (nineteen years ago)

thanks, james! just consider the above rant some post-wired spread ennui.

― marc h. (marc h.), Tuesday, 22 August 2006 00:01 (nineteen years ago)

Pitchfork is my homepage and I refresh it every ten minutes!

― Steve Go1dberg (Steve Schneeberg), Tuesday, 22 August 2006 00:08 (nineteen years ago)

Ned, you of all people know the longtime ILMers who work for Pitchfork, and what they cover

Granted but I'm really not the best person to ask. My own cards on the table -- these days, and this is certainly a big change over the years, I don't read *any* music site regularly with the exception of, unsurprisingly, here, where years' worth of discussion has proven more immediately interesting to me in terms of names to check out, tracks to find, new ways of thinking about familiar music. But otherwise everything else -- I'm talking blogs, other discussion fora, formal publications etc. -- is not on my regular 'to check' list. If they're linked and mentioned for one reason or another, I'll check them out, but that's about it.

The vast majority of my online reading and reflection falls into political and news tracking, especially regarding this utter fucking travesty of a past three years in Iraq and the now thousands of deaths that have resulted and are remorselessly continuing. I ultimately find that more of immediate interest and importance; that said I don't expect my saying this to be some sign of moral superiority or anything. It is just what I find of most immediate relevance, and in an attempt to ensure that the signal/noise ratio of what I take in via the Net and other media doesn't overwhelm, I have chosen to draw the limits I have.

My own core problem with Pitchfork, as we discussed elsewhere, was a professional one that you had nothing to do with, and which I fully realize shouldn't be held against the organization at present. That Pitchfork still has to deal with an 'indie über alles' legacy which starkly defined it once is regrettable but is not my own particular burden to bear. If indeed you rule the roost, great -- I have my own little niche via the AMG and elsewhere, I enjoy contributing as I can, and I hope I have done something good with that as a result.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 22 August 2006 00:09 (nineteen years ago)

And I've personally designed a complete line of Pitchforkmedia kitchenware which I use to make dinner every night. Also pitchfork bedsheets.

― Steve Go1dberg (Steve Schneeberg), Tuesday, 22 August 2006 00:10 (nineteen years ago)

Fair enough, Ned. I shouldn't have assumed you'd been keeping track of our stuff. But I guess it feels like even though many more people apparently do read the site these days, the general impression of us among people I respect is one with which very few of us would identify. The world's tiniest violin, anyone?

― marc h. (marc h.), Tuesday, 22 August 2006 00:16 (nineteen years ago)

There is still time to rewrite the legacy. Without being flippant, though, I wonder sometimes if myspace trumps everyone.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 22 August 2006 00:22 (nineteen years ago)

yeah i first heard of pfork from kevin b4rnes lol and i remember thinking 'man why care so much about what some dude on the internet wrote?' and then i got a job at an indie record store and i realized some serious jim jones shit was going on. there's been so much creepier shit since then though that pfork predominance doesn't phase me anymore.

― j blount (papa la bas), Tuesday, 22 August 2006 00:38 (nineteen years ago)

MeSpace does trump everyone. A few years ago Pitchfork was the defining site of a generation. It got college kids 'round the (English speaking) world up to speed on taste and all things indie. Said kids have since moved on to (emulating Pitchfork?) prove their superior tastes and hipness with their own vanity sites. I keep one too ;)

― cosmo vitelli (cosmo vitelli), Tuesday, 22 August 2006 00:48 (nineteen years ago)

marc Pitchfork is the best it's ever been I think but while we've got yr ear here, yeah, the fuckin' "TOP ALBUMS OF THE SEVENTIES!" stuff is really on some old-guy-holdin'-forth-about-what's-"classic" schtick and is frankly beneath y'all

― Thomas Tallis (Tommy), Tuesday, 22 August 2006 01:44 (nineteen years ago)

"Pitchfork is the best it's ever been"

so you are getting that elusive 10.0, eh?

― timmy tannin (pompous), Tuesday, 22 August 2006 01:49 (nineteen years ago)

haha I have no idea, I'm just happy to see strongo & breihan bylines, I enjoy their writing - frankly timmy I half-expect to wake up tomorrow morning and discover that some dude who's got all the original-issue cassettes has handed me my ass on a plate

― Thomas Tallis (Tommy), Tuesday, 22 August 2006 01:51 (nineteen years ago)

TT is right - we shd totally do TOP ALBUMS OF THE AUGHTS right fuckin now.

― David R. (popshots75`), Tuesday, 22 August 2006 01:54 (nineteen years ago)

1. Pi

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 22 August 2006 01:56 (nineteen years ago)

Marc H., Pitchfork has so much power it frightens me. Don't you realise that?

If that Rose Melberg review had been for Stylus, I really wouldn't have cared as much.
...Ad: Sorry that I made that a little personal in The Softies thread. But, still.

― blood bitch (blood bitch), Tuesday, 22 August 2006 02:04 (nineteen years ago)

Marc H., Pitchfork has so much power it frightens me.

"power, and all that, that's power, we got so much power, that's
ridiculous."
"We have--"
"power, power, power, power, power, power now, it's ridiculous. We
got so much power now ..."

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 22 August 2006 02:21 (nineteen years ago)

I've been reading Pitchfork since early 2001 and while it arguably is better written and more reliable than ever before, it's possibly more boring than ever somehow.

That said, I don't think Ryan et al. can win. In 2001, it was "Where's the jazz coverage? Where's the hip-hop coverage? Where's the pop coverage? Etc." Beyond that, "Why is every review a thousand-word creative writing piece with no analysis whatsoever?"

Now it's "What's with all this jazz, hip-hop, and pop coverage?" "Why are the articles so dry and to the point? I MISS BRENT D AND BOWERS," etc.

― polyphonic (polyphonic), Tuesday, 22 August 2006 05:57 (nineteen years ago)

It's funny how pitchfork has just the right mix of attributes to inspire fervent partisanship the way it does. Do people argue as much about any other music publications or web sites?

― Steve Go1dberg (Steve Schneeberg), Tuesday, 22 August 2006 06:18 (nineteen years ago)

To summarise what I said earlier, Pitchfork is probably the only online music magazine I check every single day. Its opinions may not always be *right*, but at least they are defined, well-argued and often incredibly insightful. Its problem is one of arrogance, yes, but it has in no small way earnt the right to be arrogant. The current mix of music sites has never been bettered, and Pitchfork are somewhere near the centre of that mix.

― Scourage (Haberdager), Tuesday, 22 August 2006 09:11 (nineteen years ago)

two years pass...

does anyone get Pitchfork displayed in a really small font as well? i checked my text size/internet options, everything appears to be normal.. yet PF is unreadable as of now. (a good thing maybe ;) )

― Ludo, Tuesday, 3 March 2009 09:31 (sixteen years ago)

seven years pass...

http://pitchfork.com/?hg=0&nr=0

― ein Sexmonster (Jimmy The Mod Awaits The Return Of His Beloved), Sunday, 16 October 2016 14:48 (nine years ago)

ah it's back. nm

― ein Sexmonster (Jimmy The Mod Awaits The Return Of His Beloved), Sunday, 16 October 2016 14:58 (nine years ago)

it clearly isn't gone, because someone just sent me a hate email about a review, which they could not do if it were gone

― a self-reinforcing downward spiral of male-centric indie (katherine), Sunday, 16 October 2016 15:00 (nine years ago)

lol

― ein Sexmonster (Jimmy The Mod Awaits The Return Of His Beloved), Sunday, 16 October 2016 15:02 (nine years ago)

uh, this is still happening for me. has the site been hacked?

― Al Moon Faced Poon (Moodles), Sunday, 16 October 2016 15:08 (nine years ago)

DNS updated today, not expired

http://whois.domaintools.com/pitchfork.com

― StanM, Sunday, 16 October 2016 15:12 (nine years ago)

I don't think they've intentionally disappeared, just some admin stuff gone wrong (?)

― StanM, Sunday, 16 October 2016 15:14 (nine years ago)

it was a thrilling few minutes

― ein Sexmonster (Jimmy The Mod Awaits The Return Of His Beloved), Sunday, 16 October 2016 15:18 (nine years ago)

the empire crumbling

― j., Sunday, 16 October 2016 15:40 (nine years ago)

oh, for the days when sunday morning was an agreed upon server maintenance period in the IT world and you could just take stuff down for a while

― mh 😏, Sunday, 16 October 2016 15:51 (nine years ago)

if only

― F♯ A♯ (∞), Monday, 17 October 2016 18:57 (nine years ago)

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