7.8
December 1, 2004 7:14 AM Subscribe
"(Chances are that the hoodie-wearing tech
guy in your office scans the site during his morning Internet-reading
rituals.)"
Note to self- must become less predictable.
posted by selfnoise at 7:25 AM on December 1, 2004
guy in your office scans the site during his morning Internet-reading
rituals.)"
Note to self- must become less predictable.
posted by selfnoise at 7:25 AM on December 1, 2004
it's a shame how many indie-heads depend on pitchfork. they give a lot of crappy reviews to really good CDs.
posted by lotsofno at 7:28 AM on December 1, 2004
posted by lotsofno at 7:28 AM on December 1, 2004
And good reviews to crappy CDs. And the writing style is incredibly grating. And frequently the reviewers are ignorant (eg calling Ahleuchatistas free jazz, wtf?).
Pitchfork's chief value is in adverting to the existence of CDs. The reviews, meh.
posted by kenko at 7:37 AM on December 1, 2004
Pitchfork's chief value is in adverting to the existence of CDs. The reviews, meh.
posted by kenko at 7:37 AM on December 1, 2004
Pitchfork defining music....if this is true then the red states have won! (or, just what lotsofno and kenko said)
posted by tinamonster at 7:40 AM on December 1, 2004
posted by tinamonster at 7:40 AM on December 1, 2004
It is pretty amazing that this website has built such a following, and has such influence.
Even more amazing is the fact that they kept lots of business and personal stuff in an unprotected directory on their website.
Hillarity ensues.
posted by bluno at 7:48 AM on December 1, 2004 [1 favorite]
Even more amazing is the fact that they kept lots of business and personal stuff in an unprotected directory on their website.
Hillarity ensues.
posted by bluno at 7:48 AM on December 1, 2004 [1 favorite]
I've said it before, but it still applies-- I live in the northeast. If I want an irrelevant opinion from an obnoxious hipster, I can stop one on the street. Who needs Pitchfork?
posted by Mayor Curley at 7:50 AM on December 1, 2004
posted by Mayor Curley at 7:50 AM on December 1, 2004
I can't read Pitchfork without feeling the bile rise in my throat. Unsurprisingly, I liked Something Awful's take on it very, very much.
posted by fricative at 7:54 AM on December 1, 2004
posted by fricative at 7:54 AM on December 1, 2004
Though they are a bit high on the hipster scale, I find Pitchfork reviews are generally spot on. Though I suppose that's just because my tastes seem to line up with theirs most of the time.
Anyway, a student at the University of Chicago made headlines a few months ago with pitchformula.com. [Previously discussed] He developed a program that scraped the text from every Pitchfork review and associated word frequency with the rating given each album. Having thus determined which words were associated with the most positive ratings, he attempted to compose songs that exemplified those terms.
His compositions may leave something to be desired, but his overall concept is painfully clever.
posted by aladfar at 7:58 AM on December 1, 2004
Anyway, a student at the University of Chicago made headlines a few months ago with pitchformula.com. [Previously discussed] He developed a program that scraped the text from every Pitchfork review and associated word frequency with the rating given each album. Having thus determined which words were associated with the most positive ratings, he attempted to compose songs that exemplified those terms.
His compositions may leave something to be desired, but his overall concept is painfully clever.
posted by aladfar at 7:58 AM on December 1, 2004
Good for three things.
1) News.
2) Knowing what records are coming down the pike.
3) Pretty good best of [year/decade] lists.
The reviews are difficult to stomach most of the time, but if I know the particular reviewer's record I can take things into context.
Still I'm not sure why there's so much hate out there for it. Yes, it has that better-than-you vibe to it (what music reviewer doesn't think they're better than you?), and yes, a lot of the writer's go for that postmodernized aping Lester Bangs approach to reviews, but it is what it is.
posted by drpynchon at 8:06 AM on December 1, 2004
1) News.
2) Knowing what records are coming down the pike.
3) Pretty good best of [year/decade] lists.
The reviews are difficult to stomach most of the time, but if I know the particular reviewer's record I can take things into context.
Still I'm not sure why there's so much hate out there for it. Yes, it has that better-than-you vibe to it (what music reviewer doesn't think they're better than you?), and yes, a lot of the writer's go for that postmodernized aping Lester Bangs approach to reviews, but it is what it is.
posted by drpynchon at 8:06 AM on December 1, 2004
I almost always agree with their ratings and yearly lists, but the writing gets hard to handle. It's still one of the best resources for this kind of thing. Without Pitchfork, I would have most assuredly never heard of the Books or Notwist or MF Doom, acts largely ignored by other sites foaming "THE LATEST THING IS THE GREATEST THING! ALL HAIL BANDS WITH NAMES BEGINNING IN 'THE'!"
Whenever I hear people whining that Pitchfork dissed their band, I recall all my friends telling me how this new "Coldplay" thing was going to be better than Radiohead, but Pitchfork informed me "DO NOT BUY," and I am eternally grateful.
People railing against reviewers in general make me ill. Agree or disagree, discuss or refuse, but don't throw petty insults and I-so-know-betterisms at me when we're at a show. If you agree with a reviewer, someone whose job is it to have access to tons of music and make suggestions, then you should continue reading him/her and buying those CDs. If you disagree, go to a different reviewer. Lord.
posted by dougunderscorenelso at 8:19 AM on December 1, 2004
Whenever I hear people whining that Pitchfork dissed their band, I recall all my friends telling me how this new "Coldplay" thing was going to be better than Radiohead, but Pitchfork informed me "DO NOT BUY," and I am eternally grateful.
People railing against reviewers in general make me ill. Agree or disagree, discuss or refuse, but don't throw petty insults and I-so-know-betterisms at me when we're at a show. If you agree with a reviewer, someone whose job is it to have access to tons of music and make suggestions, then you should continue reading him/her and buying those CDs. If you disagree, go to a different reviewer. Lord.
posted by dougunderscorenelso at 8:19 AM on December 1, 2004
Pitchfork bashing is very tiresome. If you don't agree with it, it must be because they're snobby hipsters? What can they possibly know, anyway?
Most of the time I agree with their reviews. Sometimes I don't. Some reviewers I agree with more often than others. Most importantly, when they speak very highly of an album, it's almost always worth checking out. I've found out about lots of good music from them, and the writing is consistently above average. Viva la pfork.
posted by ludwig_van at 8:21 AM on December 1, 2004
Most of the time I agree with their reviews. Sometimes I don't. Some reviewers I agree with more often than others. Most importantly, when they speak very highly of an album, it's almost always worth checking out. I've found out about lots of good music from them, and the writing is consistently above average. Viva la pfork.
posted by ludwig_van at 8:21 AM on December 1, 2004
The pitchfork review numbers are usually a pretty good indicator, and when they really love an album (like Animal Collective's Sung Tongs), they're usually dead on. However, most of their reviews have very little to do with what's being reviewed, and can be downright awful.
The news, though, that's the important part.
posted by deafmute at 8:24 AM on December 1, 2004
The news, though, that's the important part.
posted by deafmute at 8:24 AM on December 1, 2004
I always thought Pitchfork was just an indie publicity firm, which is why I always thought it was odd that bands quoted their reviews. Your publicist thinks you rock? Way to go! I didn't realize they fancied themselves actual journalists. Oh well, I guess I'm old and in the way....
* skims thru a few Pitchfork reviews.... *
hmmmm.... well, whatever. I don't think I'm missing much. But hey -- you know what would make that site even better? More animated banner ads! More, I tell you. More blinky stuff!!!!!
posted by spilon at 8:27 AM on December 1, 2004
* skims thru a few Pitchfork reviews.... *
hmmmm.... well, whatever. I don't think I'm missing much. But hey -- you know what would make that site even better? More animated banner ads! More, I tell you. More blinky stuff!!!!!
posted by spilon at 8:27 AM on December 1, 2004
I check the site daily, though I usually just scan the news and look at the scores for albums with interesting-sounding blurbs. I find metacritic is a more reliable source for what's good and what's bad, although there are some excellent albums that pitchfork will get to that are underneath metacritic's radar.
Also, is hipinion the current manifestation of PFMS? I can't believe those guys are still at it.
posted by driveler at 8:31 AM on December 1, 2004
Also, is hipinion the current manifestation of PFMS? I can't believe those guys are still at it.
posted by driveler at 8:31 AM on December 1, 2004
i'm with selfnoise, i hate the fact that pitchfork has such a huge influence over my musical tastes. kinda the way metafilter influences my politics. there is a certain element of 'fitting into my target demographic' involved. but then again i'm canadian and tucker carlson says we just naturally hate ourselves anyway so there's yet another demographic i fit nicely into.
funny thing is i can't remember when exactly i started surfing either site. they just showed up one day on my desktop. one things sure, a morning just isn't a morning without a steaming cup of both while i listen to the shins, broken social scene and franz ferdinand on my iPod.
posted by lucksmonday at 8:40 AM on December 1, 2004
funny thing is i can't remember when exactly i started surfing either site. they just showed up one day on my desktop. one things sure, a morning just isn't a morning without a steaming cup of both while i listen to the shins, broken social scene and franz ferdinand on my iPod.
posted by lucksmonday at 8:40 AM on December 1, 2004
Cunts.
You mean "The Cunts"? I hear PF is hyping them as well.
posted by KevinSkomsvold at 8:43 AM on December 1, 2004
You mean "The Cunts"? I hear PF is hyping them as well.
posted by KevinSkomsvold at 8:43 AM on December 1, 2004
Okay, Pitchforkhaytas, the net is a big and wonderful place. Please tell me where good reviews can be found. I'm all ears.
I, for one, go to pitchfork quite a bit. They are far from perfect, but I've ended up listening to a bunch of stuff that I never would have listened to if not for them: Erlend Oye, The Decembrists, The Castanets, etc. I would have never given Interpol or (gasp) Loretta Lynn another thought if it hadn't been for their reviews.
Finding new music is a difficult task these days--radio is nearly a dead animal in the States after the ClearChannelization of America. KCRW's Morning Becomes Eclectic is a shining exception to that, but the choices are rapidly shrinking for people who are interested in music and not Corportate Entertainment Product V6.0. Pitchfork is one of the few reliable resources I have to discovering interesting new music.
Please though, I beg you, tell me where to go if Pitchfork sucks so bad.
posted by mcstayinskool at 8:44 AM on December 1, 2004
I, for one, go to pitchfork quite a bit. They are far from perfect, but I've ended up listening to a bunch of stuff that I never would have listened to if not for them: Erlend Oye, The Decembrists, The Castanets, etc. I would have never given Interpol or (gasp) Loretta Lynn another thought if it hadn't been for their reviews.
Finding new music is a difficult task these days--radio is nearly a dead animal in the States after the ClearChannelization of America. KCRW's Morning Becomes Eclectic is a shining exception to that, but the choices are rapidly shrinking for people who are interested in music and not Corportate Entertainment Product V6.0. Pitchfork is one of the few reliable resources I have to discovering interesting new music.
Please though, I beg you, tell me where to go if Pitchfork sucks so bad.
posted by mcstayinskool at 8:44 AM on December 1, 2004
lucks:
The Shins? Franz Ferdinand??? Those bands are so six months ago! Go get some friend-irritating Arcade Fire!
I feel weird that I end up agreeing with Pitchfork on nearly everything (including The Rapture's controversial Album Of The Year), but I've tried switching away and other sites are just wrong or way too drooly.
Is it ok to claim indie cred on WHEN we knew about Pitchfork? I was reading when OK Computer went out.
*puts hood up*
posted by dougunderscorenelso at 8:46 AM on December 1, 2004
The Shins? Franz Ferdinand??? Those bands are so six months ago! Go get some friend-irritating Arcade Fire!
I feel weird that I end up agreeing with Pitchfork on nearly everything (including The Rapture's controversial Album Of The Year), but I've tried switching away and other sites are just wrong or way too drooly.
Is it ok to claim indie cred on WHEN we knew about Pitchfork? I was reading when OK Computer went out.
*puts hood up*
posted by dougunderscorenelso at 8:46 AM on December 1, 2004
Please though, I beg you, tell me where to go if Pitchfork sucks so bad
I've had pretty good luck with MetaCritic.com. The combine reviews from a number of sources and score releases based on their own system. Seems to work well for me. I like PF too but I've gravitated toward MetaCritic recently.
posted by KevinSkomsvold at 8:48 AM on December 1, 2004
I've had pretty good luck with MetaCritic.com. The combine reviews from a number of sources and score releases based on their own system. Seems to work well for me. I like PF too but I've gravitated toward MetaCritic recently.
posted by KevinSkomsvold at 8:48 AM on December 1, 2004
I've been enjoying Junk Media as of late, particularly their interviews with Luna, Interpol and Arcade Fire.
A friend and I have been "publishing" Drawer B since the late '90s. [semi-self-link]
posted by shoepal at 8:53 AM on December 1, 2004
A friend and I have been "publishing" Drawer B since the late '90s. [semi-self-link]
posted by shoepal at 8:53 AM on December 1, 2004
I go to PF every weekday to see what's coming out and scan the news. I can't stand reading the actual reviews though as they're so fucking self-important. The news often gets their facts wrong as well and they don't correct them when emailed. I also frequently disagree strongly with their reviews, the most so for this review of Bobby Birdman's Born Free Forever, a 10 in my book and my fave album of the year (PF gave it a baffling 3.3).
Weird about the linked article... personally I was wondering if PF was on its way out--becoming less relevant and having less people depend on it. They're site ad space is so ridiculously overwhelming I find it difficult to actually read some of the news items. Things are constantly blinking and distracting me and as a result I make a point of never clicking on one of their ads. In addition, one of the funniest things about their site used to be the mail bag but they haven't updated it since June so I figured they were running the bare minimum just to get by. If you can't even find an intern to go through the mail, you're hurting.
The linked article was absolutely ridiculous though. I literally laughed out loud many times reading it. The bit about the Arcade Fire's popularity being solely PF's doing is prepoterous. There was a label bidding war for the the band before Funeral came out, they worked very hard to build up their reputation with their live sets, and Funeral is also not they're first CD. Also, if the 9.7 PF gave the record was the sole reason that sales went thru the roof, can the same be said of other CDs with just as high a rating? I don't think so (I think they gave Trail of Dead's last record a 10 and I don't know anyone who likes it and very few people that bought it; Fiery Furnaces also got a near-10 if I remember correctly and I don't think it has sold even a fraction of Funeral's numbers (though I'm speculating simply on sales to people I know and reviews/coverage in other media so who knows)).
Anyway, thanks for the link. The article was very amusing.
posted by dobbs at 9:03 AM on December 1, 2004
Weird about the linked article... personally I was wondering if PF was on its way out--becoming less relevant and having less people depend on it. They're site ad space is so ridiculously overwhelming I find it difficult to actually read some of the news items. Things are constantly blinking and distracting me and as a result I make a point of never clicking on one of their ads. In addition, one of the funniest things about their site used to be the mail bag but they haven't updated it since June so I figured they were running the bare minimum just to get by. If you can't even find an intern to go through the mail, you're hurting.
The linked article was absolutely ridiculous though. I literally laughed out loud many times reading it. The bit about the Arcade Fire's popularity being solely PF's doing is prepoterous. There was a label bidding war for the the band before Funeral came out, they worked very hard to build up their reputation with their live sets, and Funeral is also not they're first CD. Also, if the 9.7 PF gave the record was the sole reason that sales went thru the roof, can the same be said of other CDs with just as high a rating? I don't think so (I think they gave Trail of Dead's last record a 10 and I don't know anyone who likes it and very few people that bought it; Fiery Furnaces also got a near-10 if I remember correctly and I don't think it has sold even a fraction of Funeral's numbers (though I'm speculating simply on sales to people I know and reviews/coverage in other media so who knows)).
Anyway, thanks for the link. The article was very amusing.
posted by dobbs at 9:03 AM on December 1, 2004
junk media is nice, thanks for the link
posted by orange clock at 9:07 AM on December 1, 2004
posted by orange clock at 9:07 AM on December 1, 2004
I think they gave Trail of Dead's last record a 10 and I don't know anyone who likes it and very few people that bought it
Respectfully, I think you might not know enough people.
posted by drpynchon at 9:10 AM on December 1, 2004
Respectfully, I think you might not know enough people.
posted by drpynchon at 9:10 AM on December 1, 2004
My favorite quote from that article: "Chris Kaskie, 24, is Pitchfork's new advertising director, as well as the threesome's resident cutie." Is this an article or a mash-note?
My problem with Pitchfork reviewers (and most music reviewers) is that they care less about doing the work of actual criticism - putting things in historical and cultural context, trying to make sense out of a artisitic work that someone probably put a lot of time and effort into - than they do about giving me their gut opinions along with a ridiculously capricious "rating" calibrated to 1/10th of a point. This would be mostly fine, if I cared about their opinions, as I would those of a friend who knew my tastes well. But I don't. Now I don't want to read a treatise on the philosophical importance of a CD either. But there has to be a happy medium in music journalism.
posted by thirdparty at 9:14 AM on December 1, 2004
My problem with Pitchfork reviewers (and most music reviewers) is that they care less about doing the work of actual criticism - putting things in historical and cultural context, trying to make sense out of a artisitic work that someone probably put a lot of time and effort into - than they do about giving me their gut opinions along with a ridiculously capricious "rating" calibrated to 1/10th of a point. This would be mostly fine, if I cared about their opinions, as I would those of a friend who knew my tastes well. But I don't. Now I don't want to read a treatise on the philosophical importance of a CD either. But there has to be a happy medium in music journalism.
posted by thirdparty at 9:14 AM on December 1, 2004
Wow. I am surprised these guys are still around. I remember selling the print version in Iowa 10-11 years ago (?!). Saw them on the net a few years back. I didn't realize they were so big now. I've been out of the indie rock and reading scene a long time I guess.
Somehow I still manage to find plenty of music I like. :)
posted by infowar at 9:16 AM on December 1, 2004
Somehow I still manage to find plenty of music I like. :)
posted by infowar at 9:16 AM on December 1, 2004
I really like Pitchfork in the same way I like the Washington Post op-eds--some of the reviewers suck, some are great, some are so awful that I read them dutifully (e.g., George Will, Charles "I hate brown people" Krauthammer).
Dude. I just said Krauthammer.
Anyways, check out splendidezine.com for something even more indie.
posted by bardic at 9:23 AM on December 1, 2004
Dude. I just said Krauthammer.
Anyways, check out splendidezine.com for something even more indie.
posted by bardic at 9:23 AM on December 1, 2004
the arcade fire definitely do put on a terrific show--definitely in the 9+ category even on an off night, as the night i saw them was. but their album? i'm not sure if i'd go for a 9.7. if they were factoring in their live sets maybe, but if that were the case, their rainer maria reviews wouldn't be so bunk. their cbc radio sessions were nth times better than their studio cd (IMO, of course).
posted by lotsofno at 9:26 AM on December 1, 2004
posted by lotsofno at 9:26 AM on December 1, 2004
they gave Trail of Dead's last record a 10 and I don't know anyone who likes it
Trail of Dead's last record blows my mind. I didn't think it merited a 10 the first time I heard it, but then I listened to it some more and discovered it's actually pretty amazing.
posted by rocketman at 9:26 AM on December 1, 2004
Trail of Dead's last record blows my mind. I didn't think it merited a 10 the first time I heard it, but then I listened to it some more and discovered it's actually pretty amazing.
posted by rocketman at 9:26 AM on December 1, 2004
I see a lot of pitchfork bashing here, but you all have to admit the power that Pitchfork has over breaking new artists (the point of the article).
As pointed out in a recent askme, my favorite albums skew towards the stuff that Pitchfork likes, and I won't deny that. However, I do not like everything they praise (I hated the Animal Collective album - unlistenable), and like things they hate (I really actually liked the Travis Morrison album).
The reason I keep going back is that they really have their ear to the ground to new artists, I love their singles reviews (We Are the World), and I like hearing what they have to say about albums I am interested in. If an album gets an 8 or over, I will usually check it out, and albums they give 3 or lower to I will usually check out. They have panned some of my all time favorite records.
posted by Quartermass at 9:26 AM on December 1, 2004
As pointed out in a recent askme, my favorite albums skew towards the stuff that Pitchfork likes, and I won't deny that. However, I do not like everything they praise (I hated the Animal Collective album - unlistenable), and like things they hate (I really actually liked the Travis Morrison album).
The reason I keep going back is that they really have their ear to the ground to new artists, I love their singles reviews (We Are the World), and I like hearing what they have to say about albums I am interested in. If an album gets an 8 or over, I will usually check it out, and albums they give 3 or lower to I will usually check out. They have panned some of my all time favorite records.
posted by Quartermass at 9:26 AM on December 1, 2004
dougunderscorenelso:
I read Pitchfork back around '98 as well, and if you go back and look at reviews from that time period (Loop Guru's Loop Bites Dog is one I remember seeing back then), you'll notice how crappy the writing was back then. You can tell that people like Ryan Schreiber have matured a lot in the last 5 years (while simultaneously becoming bigger scenester pricks).
I mean, the writing now seems way more pretentious and unbearable, but there seems to be a bit more effort (people being paid more?) in the reviews these days.
posted by rxrfrx at 9:27 AM on December 1, 2004
I read Pitchfork back around '98 as well, and if you go back and look at reviews from that time period (Loop Guru's Loop Bites Dog is one I remember seeing back then), you'll notice how crappy the writing was back then. You can tell that people like Ryan Schreiber have matured a lot in the last 5 years (while simultaneously becoming bigger scenester pricks).
I mean, the writing now seems way more pretentious and unbearable, but there seems to be a bit more effort (people being paid more?) in the reviews these days.
posted by rxrfrx at 9:27 AM on December 1, 2004
It's true that when they really love an album, it tends to be good (even if it's not my thing, cf. And You Will Know Us...). But it's also true that if they really hate an album (0.0), it's generally a clever, engaging record that just makes the reviewer feel bad about his or her tastes, opinions, and subconscious biases (cf. Liz Phair).
Again: they're great for news, and occasionally insightful for reviews, and also occasionally atrocious for reviews. It is true that they have a better track record than, say, Rolling Stone, which is always nearly unreadable and completely lacking in anything even remotely resembling a compelling opinion; but they don't have a better track record than, say, Spin (which I've never understood why people hate), or the N.M.E., who champion crappy music just as often but who are at least hilariously amusing while they do so.
posted by logovisual at 9:37 AM on December 1, 2004
Again: they're great for news, and occasionally insightful for reviews, and also occasionally atrocious for reviews. It is true that they have a better track record than, say, Rolling Stone, which is always nearly unreadable and completely lacking in anything even remotely resembling a compelling opinion; but they don't have a better track record than, say, Spin (which I've never understood why people hate), or the N.M.E., who champion crappy music just as often but who are at least hilariously amusing while they do so.
posted by logovisual at 9:37 AM on December 1, 2004
Basically, reading pitchfork periodically has led me to more good albums than bad. I certainly find their attitudes and writing styles amusing at times, but I try not to let it bother me. I usually agree with them on albums they rave about and that's good enough for me. my two cents
posted by garethspor at 9:40 AM on December 1, 2004
posted by garethspor at 9:40 AM on December 1, 2004
They need to fire some of their writers, because a lot of those reviews are total wankery. Sometimes it's laughably hard to find anything related to the actual album being reviewed in those big, fat paragraphs. Random example.
That said, I only put marginal effort in reading reviews, unless they're regarding bands I've heard of or an album that's gotten an impressively high rating. I can read a film or book review and get a good handle on what the content is and have a much clearer idea of if I'd find it interesting. Music reviews can say 'this album is good' but it's a lot harder to say how or why. Perhaps this frustrates the Pitchfork people and leads them to jerking themselves off for lack of articulation.
I do appreciate their news section a great deal.
Oh and I just remembered that I used to enjoy the Canadian magazine, Exclaim. I should check to see if they're still good.
posted by picea at 9:42 AM on December 1, 2004
That said, I only put marginal effort in reading reviews, unless they're regarding bands I've heard of or an album that's gotten an impressively high rating. I can read a film or book review and get a good handle on what the content is and have a much clearer idea of if I'd find it interesting. Music reviews can say 'this album is good' but it's a lot harder to say how or why. Perhaps this frustrates the Pitchfork people and leads them to jerking themselves off for lack of articulation.
I do appreciate their news section a great deal.
Oh and I just remembered that I used to enjoy the Canadian magazine, Exclaim. I should check to see if they're still good.
posted by picea at 9:42 AM on December 1, 2004
Am I the only one who can't see the linked-to article? I guess I shouldn't let that get in the way of a little gratuitious (and tired!) PF bashing, though, eh? I kid, I kid... Mostly. Not much to add to what's been said here ("I read it for the news" / "Where do these damnfool pretentious kids get off with giving so-and-so a this-point-that" / etc.) other than, well, the bashing reminds me of (Allen's?) old bit, you know, with two old ladies at a diner:
1: "The food here is terrible."
2: "I know! And such small portions, too."
Just saying: Don't eat at Pitchfork if you don't like what's on the menu.
(Also: Quatermass, you have excellent taste in music.)
posted by joe lisboa at 9:59 AM on December 1, 2004
1: "The food here is terrible."
2: "I know! And such small portions, too."
Just saying: Don't eat at Pitchfork if you don't like what's on the menu.
(Also: Quatermass, you have excellent taste in music.)
posted by joe lisboa at 9:59 AM on December 1, 2004
*smacks self on head, repeating:*
"spell-check is your friend."
posted by joe lisboa at 10:00 AM on December 1, 2004
"spell-check is your friend."
posted by joe lisboa at 10:00 AM on December 1, 2004
In my experience, I can pretty much tell if I'm going to like a disc or not by reading their site - and for this I am very thankful. One of my early Pitchfork-junkie habits was to go back and read the reviews of all the albums that I already owned and loved. Considering how many of those discs they slagged, I quickly realized: If pitchfork likes it, so will I / If I like it, Pitchfork frequently thinks it's crap.
All in all, a useful resource.
posted by kahboom at 10:11 AM on December 1, 2004
All in all, a useful resource.
posted by kahboom at 10:11 AM on December 1, 2004
hey shoepal, drawerb is great, I've been reading it since the beginning. I think I used to email with you or your counterpart back when I was writing for usounds. Keep it up! Your reviews are always dead-on.
posted by chaz at 10:13 AM on December 1, 2004
posted by chaz at 10:13 AM on December 1, 2004
um...wasn't Rolling Stone relevant and cutting-edge once?
it's cultural evolution in action, baby...
and I'd still rather read the words of someone who's in it for the music, than some hack at the mag who's in it for the promo goods, the paycheque, and the backstage pass...
posted by Al_Truist at 10:16 AM on December 1, 2004
it's cultural evolution in action, baby...
and I'd still rather read the words of someone who's in it for the music, than some hack at the mag who's in it for the promo goods, the paycheque, and the backstage pass...
posted by Al_Truist at 10:16 AM on December 1, 2004
I'd just like to say that I love The Decemberists. Love is not a strong enough word... I loave them. I lurve them. I luff them. Two Fs! Bless you, pfork.
posted by ludwig_van at 10:19 AM on December 1, 2004
posted by ludwig_van at 10:19 AM on December 1, 2004
"(Chances are that the hoodie-wearing tech
guy in your office scans the site during his morning Internet-reading
rituals.)"
Werd.
BUT! They fuckin' LOVE Spoon (AKA Gods of all that is Right And Good in Modern Rock N Roll)...and so they're alright with me.
Anyway, if you let only one music site be your guide then I think you need to branch out more.
(now if BOTH popmatters and pitchfork hate a record...)
posted by black8 at 10:20 AM on December 1, 2004
Al_Truist, I think the criticism some people are leveling is that the equivalent of promo goods and backstage pass may be scene credibility and name dropping. I'm not sure where it originated, but the whole idea of "cred points" seems to be pretty big these days.
posted by mikeh at 10:26 AM on December 1, 2004
posted by mikeh at 10:26 AM on December 1, 2004
iamck: That's a pretty good novelty review, but my favorite remains this one.
posted by mikeh at 10:34 AM on December 1, 2004
posted by mikeh at 10:34 AM on December 1, 2004
Kicking it to you live from Lincoln, Nebraska are a midwestern sensibility (knowledgeable and well-written without getting too out-there) review sites.
Opuszine (lots of shoegaze, indie rock, some electronic)
and (warning: self-link) Almostcool Music Reviews (indie/avant/drone rock and electronic)
posted by almostcool at 10:40 AM on December 1, 2004
Opuszine (lots of shoegaze, indie rock, some electronic)
and (warning: self-link) Almostcool Music Reviews (indie/avant/drone rock and electronic)
posted by almostcool at 10:40 AM on December 1, 2004
rxrfrx, you're right......everything was supershort and difficult to trust. It's picked up a lot, but I still cringe when I open a random review and hear the names of 19 bands dropped in the first paragraph.
As bad as this is, I've taken to just immediately ordering anything they give a 9 or above....and then I listen to it and I'm all "Oh, this is electronica." It's kind of a fun way to do things. The reviews seem better after familiarity with the product.
posted by dougunderscorenelso at 11:01 AM on December 1, 2004
As bad as this is, I've taken to just immediately ordering anything they give a 9 or above....and then I listen to it and I'm all "Oh, this is electronica." It's kind of a fun way to do things. The reviews seem better after familiarity with the product.
posted by dougunderscorenelso at 11:01 AM on December 1, 2004
And Black, Pitchfork was one of the only people who would put Spoon's Series of Sneaks in their original top 50 albums of the 90s. I fuckin' loved that. Then they went back on it, but, whatever.
posted by dougunderscorenelso at 11:03 AM on December 1, 2004
posted by dougunderscorenelso at 11:03 AM on December 1, 2004
Rolling Stone is actually more relevant than you might expect--they had an excellent piece on Marines in Iraq by the guy who wrote Generation Kill, which I'm still meaning to pick up. They also think Gwen Stefani has talent beyond her tits and ass, but hey, they try.
Mmm, Gwen Stefani.
posted by bardic at 11:36 AM on December 1, 2004
Mmm, Gwen Stefani.
posted by bardic at 11:36 AM on December 1, 2004
People still read reviews? Why wouldn't you just download a couple songs from any band you hear mentioned favorably more than once, and see if you like them?
posted by kindall at 11:46 AM on December 1, 2004
posted by kindall at 11:46 AM on December 1, 2004
Hey kindall, I think that is the crux of the success of mp3blogs.
posted by shoepal at 11:51 AM on December 1, 2004
posted by shoepal at 11:51 AM on December 1, 2004
People still read reviews? Why wouldn't you just download a couple songs from any band you hear mentioned favorably more than once, and see if you like them?
Sometimes a well-written review can help you "get" music that you find impenetrable/inaccessible/whatever. It can provide context and reference points for understanding difficult music, and even if it's something you still don't like (or do), it can shed light on why other people may enjoy it (or not). To many of us, there's more to evaluating music than "I like it" or "I don't like it," and I think pitchfork tends to do pretty well in this category.
posted by ludwig_van at 11:52 AM on December 1, 2004
Sometimes a well-written review can help you "get" music that you find impenetrable/inaccessible/whatever. It can provide context and reference points for understanding difficult music, and even if it's something you still don't like (or do), it can shed light on why other people may enjoy it (or not). To many of us, there's more to evaluating music than "I like it" or "I don't like it," and I think pitchfork tends to do pretty well in this category.
posted by ludwig_van at 11:52 AM on December 1, 2004
HOW CAN I TELL WHATS SOUNDS GOOD WITH ONLY MY EARS? OH GOD PLEASE TELL ME WHATS GOOD.
posted by Satapher at 12:05 PM on December 1, 2004
posted by Satapher at 12:05 PM on December 1, 2004
And Black, Pitchfork was one of the only people who would put Spoon's Series of Sneaks in their original top 50 albums of the 90s.
I remember Magnet listed it in their Best of Year list. That magazine used to be relavant too.
And holy fuck, Satapher. Are you realizing that your constant trolling in pop culture threads is being ignored so now you're doing it in caps? Get a grip.
posted by dobbs at 12:22 PM on December 1, 2004
I remember Magnet listed it in their Best of Year list. That magazine used to be relavant too.
And holy fuck, Satapher. Are you realizing that your constant trolling in pop culture threads is being ignored so now you're doing it in caps? Get a grip.
posted by dobbs at 12:22 PM on December 1, 2004
It often has been remarked that only in politics and the "arts" does the layman regard himself as an expert, with the right to have his opinion heard. In the realm of politics he knows that this right, in the form of a vote, is guaranteed by fiat. Comparably, in the realm of public music, the concertgoer is secure in the knowledge that the amenities of concert going protect his firmly stated "I didn't like it" from further scrutiny. Imagine, if you can, a layman chancing upon a lecture on "Pointwise Periodic Homeomorphisms." At the conclusion, he announces: "I didn't like it," Social conventions being what they are in such circles, someone might dare inquire: "Why not?" Under duress, our layman discloses precise reasons for his failure to enjoy himself; he found the hall chilly, the lecturer's voice unpleasant, and he was suffering the digestive aftermath of a poor dinner. His interlocutor understandably disqualifies these reasons as irrelevant to the content and value of the lecture, and the development of mathematics is left undisturbed. If the concertgoer is at all versed in the ways of musical lifesmanship, he also will offer reasons for his "I didn't like it" - in the form of assertions that the work in question is "inexpressive," "undramatic," "lacking in poetry," etc., etc., tapping that store of vacuous equivalents hallowed by time for: "I don't like it, and I cannot or will not state why."
- Milton Babbitt, Who Cares if You Listen?
posted by ludwig_van at 12:22 PM on December 1, 2004 [1 favorite]
- Milton Babbitt, Who Cares if You Listen?
posted by ludwig_van at 12:22 PM on December 1, 2004 [1 favorite]
For once, I'm with satapher. Music's good if you like it, bad if you don't. Some reviews-ones that actually describe how the music sounds or what it's about, rather than psuedo-cultural studies babble-can be useful for guiding you towards unheard music to check out, but ultimately the judgement is still your own, if you have any self-respect.
And one of the beautiful things about popular music, is that by it's very definition, a layman is an expert.
posted by jonmc at 12:24 PM on December 1, 2004
And one of the beautiful things about popular music, is that by it's very definition, a layman is an expert.
posted by jonmc at 12:24 PM on December 1, 2004
Well, without PFM I never would have heard of any of the Elephant 6 bands (Apples in Stereo music video on Cartoon Network aside), so as far as I care they've justified their existence.
Sure, you'll get a skewed view of the music scene if you only read Pitchfork, just like you'll get a skewed view of the news if you only read Slashdot.
posted by darukaru at 12:29 PM on December 1, 2004
Sure, you'll get a skewed view of the music scene if you only read Pitchfork, just like you'll get a skewed view of the news if you only read Slashdot.
posted by darukaru at 12:29 PM on December 1, 2004
HOW CAN I TELL WHATS SOUNDS GOOD WITH ONLY MY EARS? OH GOD PLEASE TELL ME WHATS GOOD.
With the current state of radio, your ears aren't going to help you initially.
Pitchfork, the mp3blogs, internet radio sites like KEXP and KCRW are all good places to start looking for music. Whether or not you agree with their reviews (I'm 50-50 on PF), they do dig around deep enough to find five reviews every weekday. What other place does that many record reviews in a year? Hell, it's a p2p world. If you can glean something from a PF review that means something to you, you can download a track and see if you like it.
posted by eyeballkid at 12:35 PM on December 1, 2004
With the current state of radio, your ears aren't going to help you initially.
Pitchfork, the mp3blogs, internet radio sites like KEXP and KCRW are all good places to start looking for music. Whether or not you agree with their reviews (I'm 50-50 on PF), they do dig around deep enough to find five reviews every weekday. What other place does that many record reviews in a year? Hell, it's a p2p world. If you can glean something from a PF review that means something to you, you can download a track and see if you like it.
posted by eyeballkid at 12:35 PM on December 1, 2004
Music's good if you like it, bad if you don't.
Come on jon, as someone who seems to care about music, I can't believe you'd really think that. Everyone has a right to his or her personal tastes, but that statement is just not true. John Doe not caring for Beethoven's music does nothing to diminish its greatness. I would never argue for 100% objectivity in music, but arguing for 100% subjectivity is equally, if not more, absurd.
And one of the beautiful things about popular music, is that by it's very definition, a layman is an expert.
I don't think that's either true or beautiful.
posted by ludwig_van at 12:37 PM on December 1, 2004
Come on jon, as someone who seems to care about music, I can't believe you'd really think that. Everyone has a right to his or her personal tastes, but that statement is just not true. John Doe not caring for Beethoven's music does nothing to diminish its greatness. I would never argue for 100% objectivity in music, but arguing for 100% subjectivity is equally, if not more, absurd.
And one of the beautiful things about popular music, is that by it's very definition, a layman is an expert.
I don't think that's either true or beautiful.
posted by ludwig_van at 12:37 PM on December 1, 2004
Come on jon, as someone who seems to care about music, I can't believe you'd really think that.
Ultimately, yeah. It's fun to pimp stuff I like and slag stuff I don't and to argue theories and whatnot, but when it comes down to it, people like what they like. We respond the way we respond.
I don't think that's either true or beautiful.
It dosen't require your belief for it to be true. Ultimately, all you need to respond to music is ears, a functioning brain, and emotions. The depth of one's appreciation can certainly be ehanced by technical, cultural or historical knowledge, but it's still can't make me like something I hate or vice versa.
posted by jonmc at 12:43 PM on December 1, 2004
Ultimately, yeah. It's fun to pimp stuff I like and slag stuff I don't and to argue theories and whatnot, but when it comes down to it, people like what they like. We respond the way we respond.
I don't think that's either true or beautiful.
It dosen't require your belief for it to be true. Ultimately, all you need to respond to music is ears, a functioning brain, and emotions. The depth of one's appreciation can certainly be ehanced by technical, cultural or historical knowledge, but it's still can't make me like something I hate or vice versa.
posted by jonmc at 12:43 PM on December 1, 2004
You're misconstruing my point entirely, and I think I pretty clearly already agreed with part of what you just said.
The point is, however, that I can like what I like, but that doesn't mean that everything I like is good, or conversely, that everything I dislike is bad. I have every right to enjoy Justin Timberlake more than The Beatles, but that fact alone does not make him their better or equal. I have every right not to enjoy John Coltrane, but that fact alone does not make his music bad or irrelevant.
People educated in music can engage in discourse about the relative merits of different artists/works that goes beyond what they do or do not enjoy. Pop music or not, the layman has a lot to learn if he cannot defend his opinion beyond "I don't like it."
posted by ludwig_van at 12:50 PM on December 1, 2004
The point is, however, that I can like what I like, but that doesn't mean that everything I like is good, or conversely, that everything I dislike is bad. I have every right to enjoy Justin Timberlake more than The Beatles, but that fact alone does not make him their better or equal. I have every right not to enjoy John Coltrane, but that fact alone does not make his music bad or irrelevant.
People educated in music can engage in discourse about the relative merits of different artists/works that goes beyond what they do or do not enjoy. Pop music or not, the layman has a lot to learn if he cannot defend his opinion beyond "I don't like it."
posted by ludwig_van at 12:50 PM on December 1, 2004
And one of the beautiful things about popular music, is that by it's very definition, a layman is an expert.
I don't think that's either true or beautiful.
Well, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but I think jon's saying that popular music is, by definition, music that appeals to the widest possible audience -- in other words, critics don't dictate what is "popular," consumers (aka laypeople) do. Therefore, they are the "experts."
(on preview: well, I see jonmc didn't exactly defend in those terms. but it's my story, and I'm sticking to it).
posted by pardonyou? at 12:54 PM on December 1, 2004
I don't think that's either true or beautiful.
Well, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but I think jon's saying that popular music is, by definition, music that appeals to the widest possible audience -- in other words, critics don't dictate what is "popular," consumers (aka laypeople) do. Therefore, they are the "experts."
(on preview: well, I see jonmc didn't exactly defend in those terms. but it's my story, and I'm sticking to it).
posted by pardonyou? at 12:54 PM on December 1, 2004
I will admit that I always enjoyed reading glenn mcdonald's reviews, but more for his writing about the intertwingling of music with his life than for his opinions of the music he reviewed. I did buy some of the recordings he recommended, but a lot of the time I was hoping they'd make me feel the way they obviously made him feel, and I came to realize that that rarely works. I sure wish I'd been able to download some of that music for sampling rather than paying $15 for a whole CD of it.
These days I am more likely to watch closely Internet threads in which people discuss music and extract recommendations from those. For example, I will be seeking out some Spoon, even if I'm a little late to it.
posted by kindall at 12:54 PM on December 1, 2004
These days I am more likely to watch closely Internet threads in which people discuss music and extract recommendations from those. For example, I will be seeking out some Spoon, even if I'm a little late to it.
posted by kindall at 12:54 PM on December 1, 2004
And one of the beautiful things about popular music, is that by it's very definition, a layman is an expert.
I think it's true and the beauty is in the ear of the listener. Ulitmately our own pompous music attitude (Pop music or not, the layman has a lot to learn if he cannot defend his opinion beyond "I don't like it.") doesn't matter a whit to the 14 year-old girl who's diggin' the new Avril single.
posted by eyeballkid at 12:56 PM on December 1, 2004
I think it's true and the beauty is in the ear of the listener. Ulitmately our own pompous music attitude (Pop music or not, the layman has a lot to learn if he cannot defend his opinion beyond "I don't like it.") doesn't matter a whit to the 14 year-old girl who's diggin' the new Avril single.
posted by eyeballkid at 12:56 PM on December 1, 2004
Over sixty comments and no one's called it 'bitchfork' yet?
Can't tell whether that's a good thing or bad.
For the record I like Pitchfork. I also like NME, so make of that what you will. As with every publication some reviewers are better than others (and even good reviewers have off days, and sometimes bad ones produce good stuff).
I found Pitchfork back in '99 looking for reviews of Blur's 13. I liked the review and looking around the site found other reviews I liked. Brent DiCrescenzo, Dominique Leone, Ryan Schreiber, Chris Ott and Amanda Petrusich are among my favorite music reviewers. And there are other very good ones who work for PF but these are the ones I could remember off the top of my head (pitchfork isn't loading for me right now so I couldn't check their masthead).
posted by Kattullus at 12:59 PM on December 1, 2004
Can't tell whether that's a good thing or bad.
For the record I like Pitchfork. I also like NME, so make of that what you will. As with every publication some reviewers are better than others (and even good reviewers have off days, and sometimes bad ones produce good stuff).
I found Pitchfork back in '99 looking for reviews of Blur's 13. I liked the review and looking around the site found other reviews I liked. Brent DiCrescenzo, Dominique Leone, Ryan Schreiber, Chris Ott and Amanda Petrusich are among my favorite music reviewers. And there are other very good ones who work for PF but these are the ones I could remember off the top of my head (pitchfork isn't loading for me right now so I couldn't check their masthead).
posted by Kattullus at 12:59 PM on December 1, 2004
Pop music or not, the layman has a lot to learn if he cannot defend his opinion beyond "I don't like it."
But ultimately the things we use to defend our likes and dislikes are often fairly arbitrary, too. I don't like The Cure (to use my most obvious example) because I find Smith's vocals annoying and his lyrics whiny. I can still understand that he helped create a subgenre of rock and a subculture of listeners, but it still dosen't make me want to buy their records. So while it's "important" it still dosen't neccessarily make it "good."
Ultimately, this thread is about the efficacy of record reviews, pitchfork's in particular. My basic argument is that reviews are at their best when they're descriptive, rather than going off on socio-politico-gossipy tangents, since it gives you some idea of what to expect sonically so you can ultimately decide for yourself.
posted by jonmc at 1:01 PM on December 1, 2004
But ultimately the things we use to defend our likes and dislikes are often fairly arbitrary, too. I don't like The Cure (to use my most obvious example) because I find Smith's vocals annoying and his lyrics whiny. I can still understand that he helped create a subgenre of rock and a subculture of listeners, but it still dosen't make me want to buy their records. So while it's "important" it still dosen't neccessarily make it "good."
Ultimately, this thread is about the efficacy of record reviews, pitchfork's in particular. My basic argument is that reviews are at their best when they're descriptive, rather than going off on socio-politico-gossipy tangents, since it gives you some idea of what to expect sonically so you can ultimately decide for yourself.
posted by jonmc at 1:01 PM on December 1, 2004
You guys keep presenting the same strawman argument.
in other words, critics don't dictate what is "popular," consumers (aka laypeople) do.
Popularity != quality. More people buying a record indicates broad appeal, but not necessarily musical talent.
Ulitmately our own pompous music attitude (Pop music or not, the layman has a lot to learn if he cannot defend his opinion beyond "I don't like it.") doesn't matter a whit to the 14 year-old girl who's diggin' the new Avril single.
I don't think there's anything pompous about it. I'm not dictating what anyone should or shouldn't listen to or enjoy, and I agree that there are plenty of very large gray areas. But these things are hashed out by discussing the qualities present in the music, not the qualities present in the listener. And again, I'm sure it doesn't matter to the Avril fans that her music is bland and disingenuous. They're free to buy it, listen to it every day, see her in concert, and enjoy it. But that doesn't mean it deserves a place in the musical canon next to Pet Sounds and Sgt. Peppers.
On preview: My basic argument is that reviews are at their best when they're descriptive, rather than going off on socio-politico-gossipy tangents, since it gives you some idea of what to expect sonically so you can ultimately decide for yourself.
I agree completely.
posted by ludwig_van at 1:04 PM on December 1, 2004
in other words, critics don't dictate what is "popular," consumers (aka laypeople) do.
Popularity != quality. More people buying a record indicates broad appeal, but not necessarily musical talent.
Ulitmately our own pompous music attitude (Pop music or not, the layman has a lot to learn if he cannot defend his opinion beyond "I don't like it.") doesn't matter a whit to the 14 year-old girl who's diggin' the new Avril single.
I don't think there's anything pompous about it. I'm not dictating what anyone should or shouldn't listen to or enjoy, and I agree that there are plenty of very large gray areas. But these things are hashed out by discussing the qualities present in the music, not the qualities present in the listener. And again, I'm sure it doesn't matter to the Avril fans that her music is bland and disingenuous. They're free to buy it, listen to it every day, see her in concert, and enjoy it. But that doesn't mean it deserves a place in the musical canon next to Pet Sounds and Sgt. Peppers.
On preview: My basic argument is that reviews are at their best when they're descriptive, rather than going off on socio-politico-gossipy tangents, since it gives you some idea of what to expect sonically so you can ultimately decide for yourself.
I agree completely.
posted by ludwig_van at 1:04 PM on December 1, 2004
But, jonmc, ludwig_van's point is that you can like bad music and dislike good music, and that doesn't make the bad music good or vice versa. (on preview, he's taken care of himself.)
That said, I find the attitude expressed in that Babbit quotation toxic.
(Further on preview: "popular music", as a classification, deserves ridicule; it serves only to prop up the notion that some kinds of music are inherently more valuable and better than others. The idea that popular music, by definition, appeals to the widest possible audience ought to be laid to rest on observing the incredible balkanization of genres within itself. I mean, I saw Orthrelm last night, and they fall pretty clearly under the generally accepted "popular music" rubric, but they don't exactly have a wide appeal.)
Kattullus, dominique also reviews records here.
I'm addicted to preview: I hope you're not advancing the thesis that musical talent = quality, ludwig?
posted by kenko at 1:06 PM on December 1, 2004
That said, I find the attitude expressed in that Babbit quotation toxic.
(Further on preview: "popular music", as a classification, deserves ridicule; it serves only to prop up the notion that some kinds of music are inherently more valuable and better than others. The idea that popular music, by definition, appeals to the widest possible audience ought to be laid to rest on observing the incredible balkanization of genres within itself. I mean, I saw Orthrelm last night, and they fall pretty clearly under the generally accepted "popular music" rubric, but they don't exactly have a wide appeal.)
Kattullus, dominique also reviews records here.
I'm addicted to preview: I hope you're not advancing the thesis that musical talent = quality, ludwig?
posted by kenko at 1:06 PM on December 1, 2004
That said, I find the attitude expressed in that Babbit quotation toxic.
The quote really needs to be taken in the context of the entire essay. I don't agree with him entirely, and I'm not a fan of many of the schools of thought in 20th century music, but I find his opinions interesting and eloquently expressed nonetheless.
I'm addicted to preview: I hope you're not advancing the thesis that musical talent = quality, ludwig?
Well, that depends, what do you mean by musical talent? If you're asking if I'm equating musical talent with instrumental chops, no, that isn't at all what I meant. But musical talent could just as easily refer to composition as performance. Furthermore, performing talent does not necessarily imply self-indulgent wankery, so I guess I'm not sure what you're asking.
posted by ludwig_van at 1:13 PM on December 1, 2004
The quote really needs to be taken in the context of the entire essay. I don't agree with him entirely, and I'm not a fan of many of the schools of thought in 20th century music, but I find his opinions interesting and eloquently expressed nonetheless.
I'm addicted to preview: I hope you're not advancing the thesis that musical talent = quality, ludwig?
Well, that depends, what do you mean by musical talent? If you're asking if I'm equating musical talent with instrumental chops, no, that isn't at all what I meant. But musical talent could just as easily refer to composition as performance. Furthermore, performing talent does not necessarily imply self-indulgent wankery, so I guess I'm not sure what you're asking.
posted by ludwig_van at 1:13 PM on December 1, 2004
But that doesn't mean it deserves a place in the musical canon next to Pet Sounds and Sgt. Peppers.
Well, that argument goes round and round, too. For years Bubblegum Music from the 60's and 70's was written off as exactly what you describe Avril's (who I don't like) music, and there's a whole book devoted to carving out it's place in the canon. So it's kinda up in the air on that front, too.
And what's good and what's bad (ie desirable) in music is very subjective. You seem to like symphonies and grand movements and lush strings and whatnot. I like loud guitars, emphatic percussion, and unsubtle melodies. Which one of us is right?
It's kind of a swamp. If you're gonna right about music, you kind of have to judge it on it's own terms. IE, Van Halen was just trying to make loud, testosterone music, and on that front they fully succeeded. To judge their worth by the standards of say grand opera is absurd and unfair.
If that makes any sense.
posted by jonmc at 1:13 PM on December 1, 2004
Well, that argument goes round and round, too. For years Bubblegum Music from the 60's and 70's was written off as exactly what you describe Avril's (who I don't like) music, and there's a whole book devoted to carving out it's place in the canon. So it's kinda up in the air on that front, too.
And what's good and what's bad (ie desirable) in music is very subjective. You seem to like symphonies and grand movements and lush strings and whatnot. I like loud guitars, emphatic percussion, and unsubtle melodies. Which one of us is right?
It's kind of a swamp. If you're gonna right about music, you kind of have to judge it on it's own terms. IE, Van Halen was just trying to make loud, testosterone music, and on that front they fully succeeded. To judge their worth by the standards of say grand opera is absurd and unfair.
If that makes any sense.
posted by jonmc at 1:13 PM on December 1, 2004
ludwig_van, I suppose I was thinking along the instrumental talent lines; that's the usual angle for rock-oriented types, I would guess.
And you don't need to tell me that performing talent doesn't equal wankery, not a bit.
jonmc, it's still possible to fail on your own stated terms—like that cover of "Pour Some Sugar on Me" by Townsend that got FPPed a while ago. They were evidently trying to do whatever it is that boy bands do, but they sucked on that account.
posted by kenko at 1:23 PM on December 1, 2004
And you don't need to tell me that performing talent doesn't equal wankery, not a bit.
jonmc, it's still possible to fail on your own stated terms—like that cover of "Pour Some Sugar on Me" by Townsend that got FPPed a while ago. They were evidently trying to do whatever it is that boy bands do, but they sucked on that account.
posted by kenko at 1:23 PM on December 1, 2004
And what's good and what's bad (ie desirable) in music is very subjective. You seem to like symphonies and grand movements and lush strings and whatnot. I like loud guitars, emphatic percussion, and unsubtle melodies. Which one of us is right?
But the qualities you're referring to don't tell us anything about the music itself. Sure, I enjoy orchestral music, although it doesn't make up the bulk of my music listening. But to hit on my previous point again, just because I listen to more weezer than Wagner doesn't mean that I think Cuomo to be the better composer. But I never said anything about style or instrumentation; within certain limits, I'm sure that musical brilliance is possible in any number of settings. If Mozart had had electric guitars, maybe he would've written amazing music for them. I don't think string quartets are inherently better than operas, or rock songs better than electronic tracks, etc. However, it is inherently difficult for a three minute pop song to present the amount of genius and expression which is possible in a form like a symphony, although one could decide that an album as a whole might serve as a better unit of comparison.
Again, the qualities of music lay within the music itself and are not always readily apparent. I can listen to a classical piece and say that it makes me feel happy, or I can study orchestration and examine the score and remark upon the clever combination of timbres, the use of dynamics, the thematic development, the unexpected harmonies, the use of various instruments' unique registral characteristics, etc.
We could draw an analogy to writing. Is tragedy better than comedy? I don't think so. But is Shakespeare better than Stephen King? I do think so, and one can attempt to illustrate this point through a scholarly analysis of the works.
posted by ludwig_van at 1:26 PM on December 1, 2004
But the qualities you're referring to don't tell us anything about the music itself. Sure, I enjoy orchestral music, although it doesn't make up the bulk of my music listening. But to hit on my previous point again, just because I listen to more weezer than Wagner doesn't mean that I think Cuomo to be the better composer. But I never said anything about style or instrumentation; within certain limits, I'm sure that musical brilliance is possible in any number of settings. If Mozart had had electric guitars, maybe he would've written amazing music for them. I don't think string quartets are inherently better than operas, or rock songs better than electronic tracks, etc. However, it is inherently difficult for a three minute pop song to present the amount of genius and expression which is possible in a form like a symphony, although one could decide that an album as a whole might serve as a better unit of comparison.
Again, the qualities of music lay within the music itself and are not always readily apparent. I can listen to a classical piece and say that it makes me feel happy, or I can study orchestration and examine the score and remark upon the clever combination of timbres, the use of dynamics, the thematic development, the unexpected harmonies, the use of various instruments' unique registral characteristics, etc.
We could draw an analogy to writing. Is tragedy better than comedy? I don't think so. But is Shakespeare better than Stephen King? I do think so, and one can attempt to illustrate this point through a scholarly analysis of the works.
posted by ludwig_van at 1:26 PM on December 1, 2004
jonmc, it's still possible to fail on your own stated terms—like that cover of "Pour Some Sugar on Me" by Townsend that got FPPed a while ago. They were evidently trying to do whatever it is that boy bands do, but they sucked on that account.
Agreed. And that's where reviews & journalism become useful.
ludwig van's king/shakespeare analysis nicely illustrates my point: Stephen King wanted to write great pulp horror novels. William Shakespeare had grander ambitions. Both men succeeded, I'd argue. Where the subjectivity of the reader comes in is when the reader decides whether he decides he wants pulp horror or grand comedy/tragedy.
Too much of today's criticism amounts to simply saying "pulp horror sucks!" or the reverse, if you catch my drift.
posted by jonmc at 1:32 PM on December 1, 2004
Agreed. And that's where reviews & journalism become useful.
ludwig van's king/shakespeare analysis nicely illustrates my point: Stephen King wanted to write great pulp horror novels. William Shakespeare had grander ambitions. Both men succeeded, I'd argue. Where the subjectivity of the reader comes in is when the reader decides whether he decides he wants pulp horror or grand comedy/tragedy.
Too much of today's criticism amounts to simply saying "pulp horror sucks!" or the reverse, if you catch my drift.
posted by jonmc at 1:32 PM on December 1, 2004
Too much of today's criticism amounts to simply saying "pulp horror sucks!" or the reverse, if you catch my drift.
I agree that this isn't a productive sentiment, but where would we be if everyone agreed that King's writings were just as venerable as Shakespeare's, and equally worthy of study/imitation? There's nothing wrong with trying to learn how to write pulp horror, but I think we can agree that Shakespeare's works display a greater skill and that there is more to be learned from them.
It's possible to be entertaining without being artful, but it's also possible to be both, and I think it's important that we remember these things and keep aspiring to greatness.
posted by ludwig_van at 1:47 PM on December 1, 2004
I agree that this isn't a productive sentiment, but where would we be if everyone agreed that King's writings were just as venerable as Shakespeare's, and equally worthy of study/imitation? There's nothing wrong with trying to learn how to write pulp horror, but I think we can agree that Shakespeare's works display a greater skill and that there is more to be learned from them.
It's possible to be entertaining without being artful, but it's also possible to be both, and I think it's important that we remember these things and keep aspiring to greatness.
posted by ludwig_van at 1:47 PM on December 1, 2004
But ultimately the things we use to defend our likes and dislikes are often fairly arbitrary, too. I don't like The Cure (to use my most obvious example) because I find Smith's vocals annoying and his lyrics whiny. I can still understand that he helped create a subgenre of rock and a subculture of listeners, but it still dosen't make me want to buy their records. So while it's "important" it still dosen't neccessarily make it "good."
Ultimately, this thread is about the efficacy of record reviews, pitchfork's in particular. My basic argument is that reviews are at their best when they're descriptive, rather than going off on socio-politico-gossipy tangents, since it gives you some idea of what to expect sonically so you can ultimately decide for yourself.
There are a number of bands I personally dislike but recognize some merit in, as there are painters and writers and filmmakers. Undoubtedly my opinion on some of these matters will change as I grow older and gain new perspectives, and as I am educated more in the intricacies of these arts. To suggest that music is good "if you like it" is in some senses foolish. Take a novel such as Virginia Woolf's The Waves, for instance. I would modestly suggest that if you gave the book to one hundred people (and they all read it), somewhere in the neighbourhood of eighty percent would dislike it intensly. Why? Because it's difficult. It's not an easy romp of a narrative that takes you vicariously through a series of dramatic events in which our hero (Freud's Ego, if we want to keep with the Woolf theme) vanquishes easily-defined evil-doers and emerges broken but triumphant.
That's common. It's pulp. It's what people who don't know a fuckin thing about writing looooove. It's not necessarily bad, and not all "popular" culture is mindless, but something isn't "good" because you like it. It just means you like it. In the same sense, I've read a number of "good" texts that I'm endlessly bored by, even if I have some respect for the artistry of the work. While good is subjective to some extent and to be argued over, I think there is a good amount of critical agreement regarding the arts and a historical tradition of "good" that can be applied in most cases.
posted by The God Complex at 1:48 PM on December 1, 2004
[if this seems like it wanders around without making a point or even without much coherence, it's because it does; this thread has started to touch on a lot of ill-articulated points of interest for me.]
Saying "If Mozart had had electric guitars, maybe he would have written amazing music for them", and the implied comparison of the song and the symphony makes it seem as if you think of musical expression as all of a type. A song, whether by Strauss, Jacques Brel, or Sufjan Stevens (say) is simply incommensurable with a symphonic work, or a string quartet, or whatever. The issue isn't whether songs or a song are or is better than symphonies or a symphony, and the mindset that thinks that's even a worthwhile question to ask is, IMO, wrongheaded. They're different things. You don't think Rivers Cuomo is on a par as a composer with Wagner? Fine: but that's not the way to judge Weezer's output. (It might be the way to judge bands that do put a premium on composition. Prog-unfriendly critics (most of them) would trot out ELP at this point, but since I actually like composed rock I'll say instead albums like the Stormy Six's Macchina Maccheronica, Univers Zero's 1313, Kyle Bruckmann's Wrack (actually avant-jazz), the Motor Totemist Guild's stuff, etc. Though still those are mostly songs or song-length pieces.)
(Whether the classical "art song" is the right kind of thing to be compared to the rock song, or Tin Pan Alley's productions, or that kind of thing, is an interesting question, I think.)
(I had dinner once with my sister, who is a line cook at a fancy pants NYC restaurant, at a place where one of the dishes involved shrimp, tomatoes, and wasabi; she mentioned that it was essentially a clever joke on shrimp cocktails, something that didn't and probably wouldn't have occurred to me. Even though it's not really relevant I mention it by way of saying that the things you say in your last paragraph regarding the analysis of music could be pretty easily adapted to be about food, especially as haute cuisine comes to be more and more modernist: an experienced chef or food critic may be able to talk at length about how a dish exploits particular properties of its ingredients, uses unexpected flavor combinations, the role of textural and temperature differences, little jokes or quotations embedded in a dish like the one above, innovative preparatory technique, etc—but that won't make it taste good. That's[1] what bugged me the most about the Babbitt quotation (I still haven't read the rest of the essay, though): the reference to "the progress of mathematics" as if music were some kind of science, and progress is being made, music is actually going somewhere, and if it sounds bad, tough noogies, because it's objectively better in some way.
People say "I didn't like it and that's the end of it" because sometimes that really is the end of it. If Babbitt ate some excrement artfully prepared (and I haven't heard his music, I think, so that's not meant as a commentary on it), he would probably say something like "that tasted like shit", and a request for future explanation would be inappropriate. That's it, it just tastes like shit. Nothing more to say.)
[1] reading on preview I'm not quite sure what "that" refers to but I'm leaving it in anyway.
Greg Sandow's pages on his class on "classical music in the age of pop" (in particular this one) are interesting in the "classical"/"popular" argument, and in general I think he writes very intelligently on his blog about it (when he does write about it; I haven't checked in there in a while).
So, l_v (I hope you don't mind if I address you familiarly), do you think greatness is achievable in popular, as distinct from mass, culture?
posted by kenko at 2:00 PM on December 1, 2004
Saying "If Mozart had had electric guitars, maybe he would have written amazing music for them", and the implied comparison of the song and the symphony makes it seem as if you think of musical expression as all of a type. A song, whether by Strauss, Jacques Brel, or Sufjan Stevens (say) is simply incommensurable with a symphonic work, or a string quartet, or whatever. The issue isn't whether songs or a song are or is better than symphonies or a symphony, and the mindset that thinks that's even a worthwhile question to ask is, IMO, wrongheaded. They're different things. You don't think Rivers Cuomo is on a par as a composer with Wagner? Fine: but that's not the way to judge Weezer's output. (It might be the way to judge bands that do put a premium on composition. Prog-unfriendly critics (most of them) would trot out ELP at this point, but since I actually like composed rock I'll say instead albums like the Stormy Six's Macchina Maccheronica, Univers Zero's 1313, Kyle Bruckmann's Wrack (actually avant-jazz), the Motor Totemist Guild's stuff, etc. Though still those are mostly songs or song-length pieces.)
(Whether the classical "art song" is the right kind of thing to be compared to the rock song, or Tin Pan Alley's productions, or that kind of thing, is an interesting question, I think.)
(I had dinner once with my sister, who is a line cook at a fancy pants NYC restaurant, at a place where one of the dishes involved shrimp, tomatoes, and wasabi; she mentioned that it was essentially a clever joke on shrimp cocktails, something that didn't and probably wouldn't have occurred to me. Even though it's not really relevant I mention it by way of saying that the things you say in your last paragraph regarding the analysis of music could be pretty easily adapted to be about food, especially as haute cuisine comes to be more and more modernist: an experienced chef or food critic may be able to talk at length about how a dish exploits particular properties of its ingredients, uses unexpected flavor combinations, the role of textural and temperature differences, little jokes or quotations embedded in a dish like the one above, innovative preparatory technique, etc—but that won't make it taste good. That's[1] what bugged me the most about the Babbitt quotation (I still haven't read the rest of the essay, though): the reference to "the progress of mathematics" as if music were some kind of science, and progress is being made, music is actually going somewhere, and if it sounds bad, tough noogies, because it's objectively better in some way.
People say "I didn't like it and that's the end of it" because sometimes that really is the end of it. If Babbitt ate some excrement artfully prepared (and I haven't heard his music, I think, so that's not meant as a commentary on it), he would probably say something like "that tasted like shit", and a request for future explanation would be inappropriate. That's it, it just tastes like shit. Nothing more to say.)
[1] reading on preview I'm not quite sure what "that" refers to but I'm leaving it in anyway.
Greg Sandow's pages on his class on "classical music in the age of pop" (in particular this one) are interesting in the "classical"/"popular" argument, and in general I think he writes very intelligently on his blog about it (when he does write about it; I haven't checked in there in a while).
So, l_v (I hope you don't mind if I address you familiarly), do you think greatness is achievable in popular, as distinct from mass, culture?
posted by kenko at 2:00 PM on December 1, 2004
Maybe a better band to name as compositionally-oriented would be Orthrelm, whom I don't know much about (heard them first time last night playing in an idiom that's a departure from what I was expecting), but whom a lot of people who know a lot more about music than I do think is the hottest shit since sliced bread (one of Weasel Walter's testimonials, eg), while still playing in a decidedly rock idiom (which isn't true of some of the bands I listed before).
Not that this is really waht this thread's about, but hey.
posted by kenko at 2:07 PM on December 1, 2004
Not that this is really waht this thread's about, but hey.
posted by kenko at 2:07 PM on December 1, 2004
Actually, the food metaphor is a good one.
In terms of judging pop music versus "higher art," I'd say you can't fault a cheeseburger for not being cheaubriand. But there are cheeseburgers and there are cheeseburgers.
posted by jonmc at 3:24 PM on December 1, 2004
In terms of judging pop music versus "higher art," I'd say you can't fault a cheeseburger for not being cheaubriand. But there are cheeseburgers and there are cheeseburgers.
posted by jonmc at 3:24 PM on December 1, 2004
They're different things. You don't think Rivers Cuomo is on a par as a composer with Wagner? Fine: but that's not the way to judge Weezer's output. (It might be the way to judge bands that do put a premium on composition.
Kenko, I'm in partial agreement here. Of course the pop song is a very different from most classical forms, but you seem to be using the term composition as though it doesn't apply to songwriting. Why not? Songwriting consists of two parts: composing music, and writing lyrics (we'll ignore the recording/production aspect for the moment). I don't see why you'd assume that the term composition doesn't apply to pop songs. They're made of all the same materials as classical music, just arranged and presented differently, just as Stephen King and Virginia Woolf both write in English, but in very different styles.
But like I said earlier, it doesn't seem as unreasonable to compare an album as a whole to a longer classical form, especially in the case of albums that are created as cohesive works. I think Rivers Cuomo is a brilliant songwriter (his last two albums excluded), and I know that he is educated in theory and composition. The smooth modulations and melodic development on Pinkerton are excellent. I think the latter section of Only In Dreams is brilliant contrapuntal writing and it's reminiscent of a string quartet. However, I'd still feel justified in saying that his output doesn't demonstrate the compositional or orchestrational knowledge or ability of Wagner. Again, the styles are different, but the musical vocabulary is the same. Could Rivers compose Tristan and Isolde? Who knows, but he hasn't yet.
Furthermore, there are people doing interesting things with form in the pop context. The Tain by The Decemberists is an 18 minute EP consisting of a single composition in five parts. It tells a story based on Celtic mythology, it has interesting and varied instrumentation, although the standard rock setup is there, and it has recurring themes which unify the work. And it's damn good, and damn catchy, if you ask me. That's good composition, not to mention lyric-writing. Then there's something like SMiLE, which very obviously draws on classical forms and techniques.
So, l_v (I hope you don't mind if I address you familiarly), do you think greatness is achievable in popular, as distinct from mass, culture?
I sure do. I don't think that any popular musicians have reached the heights of the great masters, and I'm not sure they ever will in the context of the classical forms. After Beethoven's 9th, there were many composers (Wagner included) who thought that the symphony had been taken as far as it could go, and was no longer worth attempting. But I don't think it's entirely impossible. I think The Beatles and Brian Wilson (and George Gershwin, if you want to include him here) have come close, and I think there are some musicians out there today doing some great things.
That's[1] what bugged me the most about the Babbitt quotation (I still haven't read the rest of the essay, though): the reference to "the progress of mathematics" as if music were some kind of science, and progress is being made, music is actually going somewhere, and if it sounds bad, tough noogies, because it's objectively better in some way.
This is better explained if you read the whole thing, although it's also where I tend to diverge from his viewpoint. He's speaking of a type of music which he calls "serious" contemporary music, and which to me seems best described as "academic" music. He gives a number of good arguments for why this type of music is valuable, but all of his considerations seem to be about academic value rather than aesthetic, which is as you perceived.
posted by ludwig_van at 3:27 PM on December 1, 2004
Kenko, I'm in partial agreement here. Of course the pop song is a very different from most classical forms, but you seem to be using the term composition as though it doesn't apply to songwriting. Why not? Songwriting consists of two parts: composing music, and writing lyrics (we'll ignore the recording/production aspect for the moment). I don't see why you'd assume that the term composition doesn't apply to pop songs. They're made of all the same materials as classical music, just arranged and presented differently, just as Stephen King and Virginia Woolf both write in English, but in very different styles.
But like I said earlier, it doesn't seem as unreasonable to compare an album as a whole to a longer classical form, especially in the case of albums that are created as cohesive works. I think Rivers Cuomo is a brilliant songwriter (his last two albums excluded), and I know that he is educated in theory and composition. The smooth modulations and melodic development on Pinkerton are excellent. I think the latter section of Only In Dreams is brilliant contrapuntal writing and it's reminiscent of a string quartet. However, I'd still feel justified in saying that his output doesn't demonstrate the compositional or orchestrational knowledge or ability of Wagner. Again, the styles are different, but the musical vocabulary is the same. Could Rivers compose Tristan and Isolde? Who knows, but he hasn't yet.
Furthermore, there are people doing interesting things with form in the pop context. The Tain by The Decemberists is an 18 minute EP consisting of a single composition in five parts. It tells a story based on Celtic mythology, it has interesting and varied instrumentation, although the standard rock setup is there, and it has recurring themes which unify the work. And it's damn good, and damn catchy, if you ask me. That's good composition, not to mention lyric-writing. Then there's something like SMiLE, which very obviously draws on classical forms and techniques.
So, l_v (I hope you don't mind if I address you familiarly), do you think greatness is achievable in popular, as distinct from mass, culture?
I sure do. I don't think that any popular musicians have reached the heights of the great masters, and I'm not sure they ever will in the context of the classical forms. After Beethoven's 9th, there were many composers (Wagner included) who thought that the symphony had been taken as far as it could go, and was no longer worth attempting. But I don't think it's entirely impossible. I think The Beatles and Brian Wilson (and George Gershwin, if you want to include him here) have come close, and I think there are some musicians out there today doing some great things.
That's[1] what bugged me the most about the Babbitt quotation (I still haven't read the rest of the essay, though): the reference to "the progress of mathematics" as if music were some kind of science, and progress is being made, music is actually going somewhere, and if it sounds bad, tough noogies, because it's objectively better in some way.
This is better explained if you read the whole thing, although it's also where I tend to diverge from his viewpoint. He's speaking of a type of music which he calls "serious" contemporary music, and which to me seems best described as "academic" music. He gives a number of good arguments for why this type of music is valuable, but all of his considerations seem to be about academic value rather than aesthetic, which is as you perceived.
posted by ludwig_van at 3:27 PM on December 1, 2004
My thoughts on said site are well expressed with this quote from Cat Power's site.
"As mentioned in many respected industry trades and several well-written websites (and, uh, Pitchfork too)"
posted by VanRoosta at 4:09 PM on December 1, 2004
"As mentioned in many respected industry trades and several well-written websites (and, uh, Pitchfork too)"
posted by VanRoosta at 4:09 PM on December 1, 2004
I suppose that the reason I don't like the term composition applied to songwriting is that it's frequently used as if the model of all composition is classical, and that popular music is like walking dogs or female preachers (that is, according to Samuel Johnson, it's not done well but you're surprised to find it done at all). That, and I suspect the role improvisation or jamming plays in a lot of rock is rather higher. And, since I am not musically educated (I can't, for instance, identify harmonies or (reliably) odd time signatures), I don't think of the music I listen to in very compositional terms—perhaps more so than some, but not the way someone who could actually compose (or for that matter play) could.
As for extended pieces in pop music, I like the Tain (& the Decemberists) a lot, but hell man, it ain't nothing new. One of the worst things about the near whole-scale and remarkably thorough rejection of prog and prog-influenced experimental rock is that if someone doesn't have a total blind spot with reference to it, his opinion on it will be a mass of ill-assembled critical commonplaces (opposing prog wholesale and punk wholesale, eg). Fortunately that's changing. </crank>
posted by kenko at 4:19 PM on December 1, 2004
As for extended pieces in pop music, I like the Tain (& the Decemberists) a lot, but hell man, it ain't nothing new. One of the worst things about the near whole-scale and remarkably thorough rejection of prog and prog-influenced experimental rock is that if someone doesn't have a total blind spot with reference to it, his opinion on it will be a mass of ill-assembled critical commonplaces (opposing prog wholesale and punk wholesale, eg). Fortunately that's changing. </crank>
posted by kenko at 4:19 PM on December 1, 2004
As for extended pieces in pop music, I like the Tain (& the Decemberists) a lot, but hell man, it ain't nothing new.
Of course not, but I was speaking in the context of pop music. I'd argue that prog deals with extended/unconventional forms by definition, and that it tends to sit out on the edge of what we'd likely call "popular music." And Brian Wilson was doing this stuff in the 60s, but I was just pointing out that the torch is still being carried.
posted by ludwig_van at 4:26 PM on December 1, 2004
Of course not, but I was speaking in the context of pop music. I'd argue that prog deals with extended/unconventional forms by definition, and that it tends to sit out on the edge of what we'd likely call "popular music." And Brian Wilson was doing this stuff in the 60s, but I was just pointing out that the torch is still being carried.
posted by ludwig_van at 4:26 PM on December 1, 2004
Huzzah!
posted by ludwig_van at 4:40 PM on December 1, 2004
posted by ludwig_van at 4:40 PM on December 1, 2004
dobbs, Pitchfork may not have singlehandedly made the Arcade Fire superhot, but they definitely made Broken Social Scene on the map.
I read Pitchfork mostly for their news; the reviews, I skim. I usually pay attention to the "Best New Music" section because it's usually really good.
posted by SoftRain at 5:01 PM on December 1, 2004
I read Pitchfork mostly for their news; the reviews, I skim. I usually pay attention to the "Best New Music" section because it's usually really good.
posted by SoftRain at 5:01 PM on December 1, 2004
comes in late from work to find:
Rolling Stone is actually more relevant than you might expect--they had an excellent piece on Marines in Iraq by the guy who wrote Generation Kill, which I'm still meaning to pick up.
sorry, bardic, but I don't see how this makes them a relevant music magazine. Just saying...
posted by Al_Truist at 5:13 PM on December 1, 2004
Rolling Stone is actually more relevant than you might expect--they had an excellent piece on Marines in Iraq by the guy who wrote Generation Kill, which I'm still meaning to pick up.
sorry, bardic, but I don't see how this makes them a relevant music magazine. Just saying...
posted by Al_Truist at 5:13 PM on December 1, 2004
music is a big resevoir, much like the human race, made up of 0.01% holy water and all the rest is liquid shit.
pitchforkmedia is a warehouse full of glucose.... suck up that shit bitches.
posted by Satapher at 5:32 PM on December 1, 2004
pitchforkmedia is a warehouse full of glucose.... suck up that shit bitches.
posted by Satapher at 5:32 PM on December 1, 2004
The Arcade Fire/PF claim IS pretty out there. They busted their asses on the Unicorns' gruelling tour schedule and warmed the hearts of thousands with either thick-rimmed or beer glasses.
Music is so tied into fashion and culture that it's difficult to argue against or for a band's fame, and difficult to argue about the methods responsible. A friend of mine was all "William Hung makes me SO MAD. Some bands work their asses off and never make it and he does nothing and gets money." That's how stuff is. It's simplifying it, but: a number of bands hit it big just because they were a certain kind of bad for years, and the bad came in style. I get so tired of why/how/is it deserved? talks.
er, apparently: MY SOLUTION: DESTROY ALL DISCOURSE.
posted by dougunderscorenelso at 5:34 PM on December 1, 2004
Music is so tied into fashion and culture that it's difficult to argue against or for a band's fame, and difficult to argue about the methods responsible. A friend of mine was all "William Hung makes me SO MAD. Some bands work their asses off and never make it and he does nothing and gets money." That's how stuff is. It's simplifying it, but: a number of bands hit it big just because they were a certain kind of bad for years, and the bad came in style. I get so tired of why/how/is it deserved? talks.
er, apparently: MY SOLUTION: DESTROY ALL DISCOURSE.
posted by dougunderscorenelso at 5:34 PM on December 1, 2004
dobbs, Pitchfork may not have singlehandedly made the Arcade Fire superhot, but they definitely made Broken Social Scene on the map.
That's a different story altogether. AF were hot before Merge signed them. BSS were hot IN CANADA before PFM even heard of them. They reviewed the album (which was not distro'd in the usa) and the lack of availability state-side got people pissed and talking. Then, PFM broke the news that they were being distro'd in the usa and they took off there. I mean, it's great for BSS but I guess my point was that "high marks on PFM != massive sales," which is what I thought was one of the points of the article. If the album is lukewarm people aren't going to give a shit regardless of what PFM says about it. There is plenty of music that they deem "best new music" that vanishes from the limelight right away. AF flew because they rock and yes, PFM recognized it, but to give the rag all the credit is ludicrous, othewise there would be many more bands meeting with equal success. (Take a look through their recent best of list. How many of those bands are making it like AF are? The author of the article picked the one band in the past 10 months that's blown up and gave PFM credit for it. Seems a little silly to me.)
posted by dobbs at 8:17 PM on December 1, 2004
That's a different story altogether. AF were hot before Merge signed them. BSS were hot IN CANADA before PFM even heard of them. They reviewed the album (which was not distro'd in the usa) and the lack of availability state-side got people pissed and talking. Then, PFM broke the news that they were being distro'd in the usa and they took off there. I mean, it's great for BSS but I guess my point was that "high marks on PFM != massive sales," which is what I thought was one of the points of the article. If the album is lukewarm people aren't going to give a shit regardless of what PFM says about it. There is plenty of music that they deem "best new music" that vanishes from the limelight right away. AF flew because they rock and yes, PFM recognized it, but to give the rag all the credit is ludicrous, othewise there would be many more bands meeting with equal success. (Take a look through their recent best of list. How many of those bands are making it like AF are? The author of the article picked the one band in the past 10 months that's blown up and gave PFM credit for it. Seems a little silly to me.)
posted by dobbs at 8:17 PM on December 1, 2004
"Without Pitchfork, I can't imagine that all the hype around the Arcade Fire would have happened," says Mr. Hougland. "It's totally Pitchfork; it's not even worth speculating about. It's possible that they would have gotten that popular, but it would have taken a lot longer."
On a personal note, one of my best friends, and the longtime bassist of our crappy cover band, is bassist for the Arcade Fire. His older brother is frontman. I have watched my friend wait for a long time. I do not think he, in a hundred thousand years, would attribute his recent successes to Pitchfork Media. I will, of course, be certain to ask when I see him next. What a quote. What an inane and horrible thing to say.
(on preview/actually skimming comments: Thanks, dobbs.)
posted by jennanemone at 6:23 AM on December 2, 2004
On a personal note, one of my best friends, and the longtime bassist of our crappy cover band, is bassist for the Arcade Fire. His older brother is frontman. I have watched my friend wait for a long time. I do not think he, in a hundred thousand years, would attribute his recent successes to Pitchfork Media. I will, of course, be certain to ask when I see him next. What a quote. What an inane and horrible thing to say.
(on preview/actually skimming comments: Thanks, dobbs.)
posted by jennanemone at 6:23 AM on December 2, 2004
I'm Icelandic. I know the success of The Broken Social Scene here in Iceland (where a number of my friends and acquaintances listen to them) can almost entirely be attributed to Pitchfork. If PF hadn't championed them, most of these people would barely have heard of them.
Which makes me guess that while PF may not have a huge influence in places that are the engines of indie culture (New York being the most obvious example. Same goes for large collegetowns or most sizable cities), here on the margins where people can connect most easily to indie culture through the internet the influence of PF is enormous.
posted by Kattullus at 11:33 AM on December 3, 2004
Which makes me guess that while PF may not have a huge influence in places that are the engines of indie culture (New York being the most obvious example. Same goes for large collegetowns or most sizable cities), here on the margins where people can connect most easily to indie culture through the internet the influence of PF is enormous.
posted by Kattullus at 11:33 AM on December 3, 2004
« Older Ach! A Wee Haggis! | Be an artist, today Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by fungible at 7:20 AM on December 1, 2004