What the dilly with Pitchfork?

Point being: If they didn't try and project so much attitude about such industry issues, I don't think the system described above would even be an issue. I suppose they're too busy pretending to be Limp Bizkit fans in the Reader Mail section to notice this.

Full disclosure: I once attempted to contribute to Pitchfork and quickly decided that I very much did not want to contribute to Pitchfork, so perhaps some of that animosity is lingering.

Sure they're hypocrites and snobs, but that's what makes them so loveable. Even though the quality of the reviews is questionable, I have to admit that I have been intorduced to quite a few things that I wouldn't have found otherwise thanks to the 'fork. If they can make a couple of bucks by hosting a few mp3's a month, more power to them.

well, you did. what's wrong with making a little money? I doubt you're an anti-capitalist anarchist, so let's not reinforce the indie that indie = nonprofit. Just look at how well Fugazi have done on their own business model. Melissa's comment was pretty much accurate -- Ryan Schreiber is hardly rolling in dough.

Sorry for the late response, just noticed this thread.

1) Nice to keep comparing Dabrye with Prefuse 73 without taking the time to mention that Dabrye co-produced some tracks on One Word Extinguisher and Instrumentl came out on Prefuse's Eastern Developments.

2) "...who spends 96 percent of his waking life practicing the "furrowed brow" in the mirror while reading No Logo and taking notes." That's seriously the best put-down you could come up with?

3) At least spell TADD Mullinix's name right you clowns.

Pitchfork makes the level of discourse on ILM actually seem intelligent. Hope those MP3 sales are going well.

Do you (or someone else using an address starting with nineoclockdrop in 2002 in Ann Arbor) happen to know him (from Ann Arbor) personally?

And Stan, if you googled a little bit harder you might realize that I haven't exactly hidden my involvment. But that doesn't change the fact that this was a crap review.

Sure, and I bet they read their email as well.

*not a real word

-- Nitsuh (nt...) (webmail), August 24th, 2001 8:00 PM. (link)

awesome. ilm can be like an old high school yearbook sometimes.

I don't think Pitchfork could be any more in touch with the kids today. Kids today are basically consumers. Musically, they don't care about indie cred, where it comes from, how it's made, etc. - they just want to find it, rate it, and download it. Politically, they pick up pet causes, follow their favorite blogs, pick their favorite candidates, etc. - they're political consumers, browsing through the market of political ideas - but there are no movements. The bands aren't into politics, the kids could basically give a shit ... like seriously, name one thing they could rally around. (Iraq doesn't count, we blew that chance four years ago.)

-- fongoloid sangfroid (mikeoptin...), Yesterday 9:28 PM. (sanskrit) (later)

so so so true.

Pitchfork and the blogging culture in general (yeah, I know - Pitchfork are more of an online mag than a blog) are, I think, way too new for anyone to make that kind of judgement call about them. Remember, you're looking at vintage Rolling Stone with the benefit of historical hindsight. Come back to Pitchfork in fifteen years' time, then you'll be able to have a clear view of their cultural & social impact, whatever it may be.

Kids today are basically consumers.

You could make that argument at just about any point in the last 50 years, hell, in the last century.

Musically, they don't care about indie cred, where it comes from, how it's made, etc. - they just want to find it, rate it, and download it.

Or is it more that "indie cred" is an obsolete measure of authenticity, and that something has replaced it??? Maybe blog cred is where it's at?

(Sorry to conflate two different posters, but I was really intrigued by the post-and-response!)

Where?

Note the date. 9/11 changed everything, man.

9/11 changed everything, man.

So true, Nitsuh. :)

I don't buy the apologizing for today's music culture, both consumers and kids and pf alike. There have certainly been periods in the past where things have been "wide open" in terms of upheaval and opportunities and the like. Assuming that the interweb has done for music culture what, say, the 60s or punk or even "grunge" did in the past (to name a few rockist examples), the fact of the matter is that for the most part today's music writing is a dull and lazy enterprise written for kids who are dull and lazy.

One reason that Pitchfork hasn't produced the next Hunter S. Thompson is partially because there are no space limitations in online publishing. So, RS publishing the entirity of Fear and Loathing was a BIG DEAL. It's not a big deal if some just-out-of-undergrad music writer gets his 100 word review put up on PF (at about 2 cents a word, right?).

But the real problem is that no one even bothers to put in the effort. I don't care at all if someone hates the Dabrye record. I'm just sick of reading shitty, lazy psuedo-journalism that, in this case, is about an artist who actually does work hard at his craft. I mean, at least spell his name right! That takes 2 seconds to fact check.

Or maybe it's the old thing of just because everyone CAN do it, that doesn't mean that everyone should. I gave up on music journalism a long time ago because I realized I wasn't any good at it. Sometimes I wish that 98% of the writers out there would do the same thing.

but right now i'm mainly trying to figure out whether bush really believes his high-horse speech right now about saving embryos, or whether he actually knows that the ones that could have been used for stem-cell research are going to be DESTROYED ANYWAY. like: "oops, something good almost happened on my watch! finally time to bust out that veto"

This is a shitty, lazy excuse for why pseudo-journalism is bad, though your point regarding copyediting is good.

Wrong.

And Marc, don't you remember the snowflake babies ... ? All of those embryos will be implanted in a loving mother (in a heterosexual marriage) who can't conceive kids of her own.

And then a lot of them will be miscarry.

I mostly made the joke, though, because of the word "next." Hunter S. Thompson did not write that Kentucky Derby piece while in the womb -- he (and his theoretical "next" equivalent) wrote stuff far less glamorous and interesting than Pitchfork features along the way. (Saying Pitchfork isn't publishing "the next Thompson" is like reading Bob Christgau's early Voice story about macrobiotic diets and saying "this guy sure won't ever be an important music critic" -- it's just mixed-up and meaningless.)

I was trying to say this upthread, but you've phrased it much better than I did.

i don't know if anyone mentioned this, but i do remember them putting up some kind of pissed off/satirical thing the day after bush won the second time

Pitchfork Closes For Election Day
Tuesday, November 02, 2004

In what could be interpreted as either a bold move to mobilize voters or an ingenious excuse for taking the day off, the staff of the popular indie rock website Pitchfork Media has shut down for the day. Visitors to the site will find a message reading, "Today, we request that our U.S. readers take the time they usually spend reading Pitchfork to do something more productive - Vote." It remains to be seen whether the move will result in a surge of voters rushing to the polls clad in ironic 80's rock t-shirts, white belts, and tight slacks.

NO ONE disses Rip -- you're a dead man, Raposa.

http://www.du.edu/~jcalvert/hist/wh9j.jpg

Also do we really want another Hunter S. Thompson? One seemed like enough for me.

In terms of length, no it wasn't. RS, like most mags back then, ran LOOOONG-ass pieces as a matter of course. That's what you were expected to write if you were a feature journalist. Or a reviewer, some of the time, for that matter.

(This is related to the same thing I was complaining about on the Regina Spektor thread, though I have maybe slightly come around to Steve's suggestion that that wasn't the best place for it.)

Anyhoo.... Shine on you crazy diamonds.

Not to sound like a pretentious asshole, but: Should we really worry about those torch-wavers' opinions? Put another way: Back when you yourself were critical of Pitchfork, was *that* what bothered you, or was it something else? Would you have ever worded your critique in "think they're cool" terms?

As for me, I'm inclined to listen to our many, many reasonable, articulate dissenters, because I was one of them myself once. People who have legitimate disagreements are interesting, and people who point out factual errors are helpful. They make us better, and they really care about having a source for decent music writing. But what about the mouth-foaming "those fucking hipsters" contingent? What are they really thinking?

I've said this before but what really bothered me about Pitchfork was that when PF contacted me (among others to be sure) about the possibility of writing for you, I asked whoever wrote a couple of questions re:copyright and other matters, and then never heard back at all! So frankly I thought, "Hey, YOU wrote me first and if you're not willing to respond to a follow-up, what the hell does that tell me about you all as an organization?" I trust you've all improved the approach on this front nowadays.

Tim, the news and reviews teams are separate, so I couldn't really say. I'd imagine any publication has to cover both what's newsworthy and what its writers are passionate about, though ideally the two should interlap.

This must be why the mouth-foaming "those fucking hipsters" contingent tells me I'm incoherent.

thanks in advance

Now personally speaking, in this imaginary situation where we publish new-journalism classics, I'd much rather we were publishing stuff like Terry Southern's piece on the Dixie National Baton Twirling Institute, in part because -- hahaha -- it's looking for similar effects as the Kentucky Derby piece, only it doesn't have quite the same level of self-centered flailing or contempt, and actually uncovers something that's not "too easy" or "lacking in nuance."

And I imagine we could publish something like that without a single person saying "wow, they're publishing the next, umm, Terry Southern," so cheers to that.

Cool. Extending indie rock elitism to writing, cool.

I'm reading The Magic Christian this weekend myself.

a) Pixies

b) Mahjongg

c) Arcade Fire

d) Tapes N' Tapes

(This is related to the same thing I was complaining about on the Regina Spektor thread, though I have maybe slightly come around to Steve's suggestion that that wasn't the best place for it.)

Indeed. But I feel that any criticism whose main substance is an accusation of pretentiousness tends to be suspect, and to say more about the accuser than the accused.

2 : making demands on one's skill, ability, or means : AMBITIOUS - "the pretentious daring of the Green Mountain Boys in crossing the lake" -- American Guide Series: Vermont

And that second part is the sense in which we learn more about the speaker than the subject, because the speaker tends to reveal some sort of crossing point beyond which he or she just automatically deems things "pretentious." (Often on logic like -- for instance -- "I don't know what that is, therefore you couldn't possibly either.")

And like I said, most of the time that kind of a dismissal seems more born from the accuser's perceptions/worldview than any real feature of the accused. Some people will call something pretentious because it's too wordy or discursive. Some people will say something is pretentious if they perceive it as arty or self-absorbed. If a web site has some kind of mission statement that states "This is the single most important web site ever," then yeah, the accusation of pretentiousness is pretty cut-and-dried. But that's rarely the case.

"I feel that any criticism whose main substance is an accusation of pretentiousness tends to be suspect"

If by "main substance" you meant that the unsupported accusation is all there is to the criticism, then yeah, it's lazy. But if you meant that any criticism of something based on its perceived pretentiousness is inherently suspect (which is how I read that statement), then I certainly object to that.

Tim, I thought it was pretty clear: I'm suspicious of any criticism whose primary point is an accusation of pretentiousness because of how often such an accusation is used to stand in for an actual argument. If the accuser can support the accusation satisfactorily, my suspicion would be assuaged. I never meant to imply that the word "pretentious" should be off-limits or something.

That said I think that Pitchfork has gotten a lot better over the years (I suspect that Scott's involvement has something to do with it.) They have better reviewers and good articles (and they also write about music I care about more and more.)

"Pretentious" functions basically like "hipster," really. Everyone says it about someone else, and someone surely says it about you.

The "freshman creative writing" thing is another stereotype I'm kind of fascinated by -- I think people who say that are totally overestimating what college freshmen write like and about! Or else just pulling a nice little commonplace from some movie I haven't seen.

The sideline that would be interesting here would be to dig into why being pretentious is considered such a negative quality. By definition, it could be considered a fairly minor criticism, a kind of mild irritation. But I think it's been blown up beyond its pure denotative meaning to refer to a bunch of stuff that's actually scarily important to lots of people. (There's some aesthetic associated there in the indie world, but I could place it very handily beyond some kind of market of coolness and some kind of weird rule that you can't just earn cool or aspire to it or even display it, because those things are uncool.) (And one thing that's funny about that is how many of the bands I always think of as kind of the bedrock of indie thinking are totally "pretentious" in that sense, and that's half of the point.)

Which doesn't necessarily make the accusation untrue in all cases.

Being pretentious is negative because you can find alternatives (e.g. other record reviews) that accomplish the same task without putting their self-worth on display so much.

Okay, sure. But you know what he meant by it. It's not a stereotype either. It's a shorthand, a code for a piece of writing that tries to hard to be something it's not. Pieces that try to be too clever or talk about anything else besides the music. Sure it can be done. But too often the writer falls on his ass.

First paragraph of The Fiery Furnaces EP review from Pitchfork:

Okay, I'm done being a nice guy about this: If you don't like Blueberry Boat, I don't like you. It's no longer a matter of taste, other than the fact that I have good taste, whereas you, Fiery Furnaces-hater, do not. Don't have time to take in the full sweeping grandeur of Blueberry Boat's 80 minutes? I have no respect for your calendar priorities. To those who find their multiple-movement symphonies and keyboard-fetish arrangements overcooked, I feel only loathing, utter disdain, and approximately one tablespoon of pity! And for the few of you that cannot handle the frenetic uber-medley that is a Fiery Furnaces live set, I want to make provocative documentary films about your inept and offensive taste and take them on the festival circuit.

uber-medley, huh? What is an uber medley? Why should a writer feel loathing if people don't "get" or "like" the Furnaces? It's hostile.

Here's a middle paragraph that's decent:

If "Single Again", in a slightly expanded take, remains a bit cold in with its jump-rope chant refrain and stiff drums, reinstated bridge "Here Comes the Summer", is the perfect thaw, showcasing the duo's deft hand with electronic rhythms, guitar pedals, and swooning melodies. "Summer" seasonally segues into "Evergreen", the band's sweetest ballad to date, and the first that comes close to making the Carpenters comparisons more than just commentary on the Friedberger's slightly creepy sibling dynamics.

And finally, the last paragraph:

EP then comes off like a quick appendix to the band's work so far, concentrating their strengths in parts while elsewhere lovingly dumping the stray ideas that may not fit into their next conceptual flight. That it still manages to skirt the hazards of being a for-fan's-only release only deepens my stalker-love, not to mention the accompanying abhorrence for all who don't see the light. Honestly, how do you people wake up in the morning; you pathetic, mouth-breathing [the remaining 1,000 words of diatribe deleted by Pitchfork editors, who cordially apologize to the readership for Mr. Mitchum's unfortunate outburst -Ed.]

Um. Yeah.

I don't understand how you "support" an accusation of pretentiousness, though. Pretentiousness, especially where music criticism is concerned, is by definition a subjective insult--Pitchfork thinks Arcade Fire is "important," you don't; therefore, Pitchfork is "pretentious." Right? Steve is right on the money when he says that the accusation says more about the accuser than the accused because it reveals the accuser's own defintion of pretentiousness.

It's also sarcastic.

(P.S. the term "uber-medley," in that context, is pretty easily interpretable as saying that Fiery Furnaces shows don't just contain medleys, but become overarching whole-show medleys. I wouldn't personally put it that way, but I can't imagine why "pretentious" is the word one would choose for it. Do you consider use of the prefix "uber" to be some kind of affectation?)

So is he kidding or isn't he? And why can't I tell? Have I read the review wrong? Because if I have, I guess I'm not in on the joke? That's pretty lame.

I don't consider the user of uber an affectation, I just don't know what uber-medley (or over arching show medley) means. If something is a medley the writer should call it as such.

I think the review stands as a fine example of what people hate about Pitchfork.

And I won't deny that I've been called pretentious, but just because it is a quality I may occassionally embody doesn't mean it's a quality that I admire about myself.

As for pretentious being a minor criticism, sure it is. Calling someone a facist is a harsh criticism. Pretentious well, it's just something that's not fun to be around.

"Support" there just meaning clarity as to why someone is using the term.

Steve is right on the money when he says that the accusation says more about the accuser than the accused because it reveals the accuser's own defintion of pretentiousness.

And no common ground to be found anywhere? "Radical subjectivism?" Everyone an island?

"Says more about the accuser than the accused" is a generalization. Surely there are plenty of things that could be criticized for being pretentious where the main thing of interest in the statement would not be the issue of the accuser's personal definition of the term.

the joke is funny to fans of the Firey Furnaces because they can see that the writer is being an ironic uber-fan, yeah, but to outsiders, anyone who doesn't like the band in this case, it just comes off as hostile. textbook insider/outsider clique writing and pretty dismal stuff.

uh, people are defending it, dude. not me though, i think it's all rubbish, as is your invention of 'undefendable.'

Are you guys humor-impaired, or something? I mean, leaving aside the question of whether the joke is actually funny or not, do you actually believe that Rob Mitchum submitted that review with the word "mouth-breathing" followed by a full 1,000 words of abuse, which the editors of Pitchfork then excised and replaced with a cordial apology?

Cause seriously, if you can't perceive that as the guy making a joke of his own fandom, I have zero idea how you manage to read ILX.

I mean, geez, Que, the joke should not need much explanation: the dude likes the Fiery Furnaces a whole lot. He's also a critic, which means he's expected to be more even-handed and open to other opinions and whatnot. So he goes ahead and writes this clearly over-the-top "if you don't like this band you must be stupid" fanboy paragraph, basically admitting that he's a total fanboy for this band and making a joke out of it -- as opposed to writing some kind of dead-serious "the Fiery Furnaces are the most important band in history" opener. The levels of sarcastic complexity on this board routinely eclipse that a thousand times over, like every third post.

I get the joke. I bet you still can't tell me what uber medley means. It's still bad writing.

Also, I don't see what's so hard to understand about why people call things "pretentious". There's a set of about four interrelated core values of Western sociality that boil down to:

(a) in general, you shouldn't pretend to be something you're not;
(b) if you do, you have to make the act completely convincing, or else you're laughable;
(c) you need to convey the impression that your identity exists independently of what anyone thinks of you; and
(d) people who think they're better than other people -- particularly in terms of their intellect or socioeconomic status -- are to be despised.

In other words, (a) authenticity, (b) un-self-consciousness, (c) autonomy/don't-give-a-fuckness, (d) Everyman humility.

(i.e. how GWB got elected.)

Ergo, Derrida-quoting reviews are criticized because the reader tends to assume that the reviewer is violating rule (a) or rule (d). ("Either you don't actually know what Derrida means, or you're a pompous ass.") Pitchfork-style snark tends to break rule (d) with a dash of (c). But other review styles and idioms tend not to hit (d) because they valorize other forms of thinking-you're-better-than-other-people, ones that -- for whatever reason -- people are generally OK with. (I'm thinking in particular of heavily masculinist music like certain strains of hip-hop and metal.)

The thing is, I don't know if Pitchfork can be Pitchfork -- can accomplish its mission, can represent the music it primarily represents -- without, in the eyes of some, breaking at least one of these rules all the time! I mean, if you view the people behind it as fundamentally inauthentic -- and inherently pretending whenever they reach for more -- then they really can't win, can they?

(NB I am Pitchfork-agnostic: I read reviews of bands I like, and if there's one by N. or Mark R. I'll certainly read it, but otherwise I'm uninterested, and stuff like that Fiery Furnaces review is of no use to me at all.)

A friend of mine was involved with a very insecure girl who would get pissed off whenever he would use a word she didn't know, assuming that it was his way of reminding her how much "better than her" he was, or something. One day, witnessing this, a mutual friend finally snapped and said something to the effect of "Why don't you take half the energy you use to bitch at him, and go and look it up in the fucking dictionary instead? You might actually learn something instead of showing everyone how insecure and petty you are."

And you know, to her credit, she did!

otm

It's still just a very annoying review to read, and the band is even more annoying to listen to.

I realize I'm being a bit obtuse in my discussions of the review but the review is a classic example of what people have said upthread that bothered them about Pitchfork. The reviews often end up being about the writer instead of the music.

it's very simple. it's bad writing.

but the review is a classic example of what people have said upthread that bothered them about Pitchfork

Are we reading the same thread? People seemed to be complaining about typos, bad fact-checking and, yes, pretension. Not about plain ole' "bad writing". Pitchfork is hardly the pinnacle of bad music writing on the web - at least they're able to do quality control with their writers. 90% of music webzines (my own old one included) are literally written by college freshmen and their pals.

In all seriousness though Pitchfork had a lengthy history of reviews where the reviewer seemed only barely interested in talking about the album (or whatever)in question and far more interested in proving their own cleverness by jacking up the word counts with meandering stories, useless trivia or their own biographical information.

Its not so much that they are proving their own cleverness (Jesus- is that how they think they'd do it....?!)but rather to express just how pleased they are with themselves.

This is true. No matter how many "annoying" Fiery Furnaces reviews they put out, I'll keep coming back to Pitchfork. There are tons of sub-Pitchfork blogs written by ill-informed college students that are barely worth mentioning, let alone criticising.

On the flip-side,
far more interested in proving their own cleverness

Pfork has put out heaps of unreadable shite

OMG hahaha -- this is exactly what I meant about accusations of pretentiousness always having more to do with the speaker than the subject. In this case, it's your funny assumption that anyone who throws in a couple parentheticals must be trying to act like DFW in order to sound cool -- as opposed to that just being how they usually think, and the style in which they've been posting to ILX for the past half-decade.

But that's a great example, and I seriously, earnestly suggest that you go resurrect the I Love Books Wallace thread, where we talked a lot about that quality! (I mostly had this to say.)

The joke is not precious as I would define the word. Nor do I think that precious is the opposite of pretension. Or, as you so delicately put it: "kind of the opposite negative quality of pretensious."

I'm not saying, I've never said you are trying to act cool and be better than someone else. I'm trying to get you to tell me (without being cagey, without parentheticals) what you think of the review. And what you think of uber medley. And what you think of a reviewer who wishes to express himself in such a (fake) exasperated manner that he wants to make documentary films. Because he loves this band.

Reviews on Pitchfork are way too short (sort of the opposite negative quality of this long winded post) and the writers are not interesting enough to pull off that sort of shit.

I think if you start to think about this sort of thing, you'll see why people dislike Pitchfork.

To be fair, I dislike most written reviews of music. I think most of the time, writers miss the point. The point is: what does the music sound like? What does the music make the listener think or feel?

When I read Pitchfork, I would like to read what the writer thought of the band, not what the writer thinks of the reader or what kind of level of fanboy stardom the writer has reached.

What I'm "babbling" about (ya dick) is my sense that people like you -- above and beyond just saying "yeah, I didn't think that joke was funny" -- often seem to assume that any text posted on Pitchfork was written in a self-aggrandizing spirit of trying to be ultra-cool. ("Pretentious" or "trying too hard to prove their own cleverness" or whatever.) And I thought that Fiery Furnaces review was an interesting example, because it seems to me that the joke at the beginning is Rob trying to be cute and self-deprecating. ("Precious," not "hostile.")

I don't care either way whether or not you find it funny or annoying -- that's totally your business! What I'm interested in is the idea that someone would think it's trying to be clever at their expense, rather than trying to be funny for their entertainment. You think Rob's rhetorical strategy is somehow about him wanting attention or wanting to talk about himself, but a much simpler reading is that he really liked the EP but didn't want to write some earnest "the Fiery Furnaces are the most important band in the history of wizards' caps" review -- so he spent one out of seven paragraphs making it clear that he was just really enthusiastic about the band. (Information that's highly relevant to what he has to say about the EP!)

I really don't care whether you think it fails or succeeds -- I'm just saying that as a rhetorical strategy, it's a fairly simple, straightforward attempt to be entertaining and honest.

(P.S. the term "uber-medley," in that context, is pretty easily interpretable as saying that Fiery Furnaces shows don't just contain medleys, but become overarching whole-show medleys. I wouldn't personally put it that way, but I can't imagine why "pretentious" is the word one would choose for it. Do you consider use of the prefix "uber" to be some kind of affectation?)

What is an overarching show medley? Can you explain to me? I've seen them live, and what I saw was a medley. Not an uber medley, not an overarching show medley.

I've spoken of clear and interesting writing, not pretension or someone trying too hard to prove their own cleverness.

x-post

regular medley: a couple of songs masquerading as pieces of one song.

"uber-medley": the whole show consists of every song played masquerading as part of a single, long entity.

xpost

Your insistence that people are misunderstanding the article is a little presumptious, doncha think, nabisco? People have different perspectives on stuff. The article reads like an attempt to be funny for the entertainment of fellow fiery furnaces fans and not a general audience. Except it's not funny. If he had started his article "Think the Fiery Furnaces are awkward and annoying? This album's gonna change your mind..." I might read through it because it aligns with my tastes, whereas FF fans might sniff a bit thinking he'd got it all wrong. it's a question of who the article is aimed at.

with you on knife and final fantasy
ff should have gotten best new music
he wuz robbed

http://medicalcenter.osu.edu/images/greystone/up_0241.jpg http://medicalcenter.osu.edu/images/greystone/up_0241.jpg http://medicalcenter.osu.edu/images/greystone/up_0241.jpg http://medicalcenter.osu.edu/images/greystone/up_0241.jpg http://medicalcenter.osu.edu/images/greystone/up_0241.jpg http://medicalcenter.osu.edu/images/greystone/up_0241.jpg http://medicalcenter.osu.edu/images/greystone/up_0241.jpg http://medicalcenter.osu.edu/images/greystone/up_0241.jpg http://medicalcenter.osu.edu/images/greystone/up_0241.jpg http://medicalcenter.osu.edu/images/greystone/up_0241.jpg http://medicalcenter.osu.edu/images/greystone/up_0241.jpg http://medicalcenter.osu.edu/images/greystone/up_0241.jpg http://medicalcenter.osu.edu/images/greystone/up_0241.jpg http://medicalcenter.osu.edu/images/greystone/up_0241.jpg http://medicalcenter.osu.edu/images/greystone/up_0241.jpg

yet he still manages to make enough money to eat cocks. i don't get it!

And on the point of comparing PF to Rollingstone - even today I'd rather read a Rollingstone than a PF column. RS continues to publish articles that are interesting and relevant. Their music might be outdated (Frick and Sheffield are no longer arbitrators of taste), but they still write articles on topics that interest me. Tiabbi's beat coverage is interesting, despite its other problems (And Tiabbi is a clear case of RS looking for the next Hunter S. Thompson). I liked the Janet Reitman Scientology article, and the Robert F. Kennedy pieces. And though RS makes missteps (stories like the Johnny Depp piece that are basically retreads of a thousand other articles, or running the "I Am Charlotte Simmons" excerpt when it was clearly Wolfe's worst novel) it is still much more interesting than PF. The last PF article I remembered enjoying was the one that described the process of recording The Cloud Room's "Hey Now Now." Michael Idov "The Smash That Wasn't" was almost sublime. But that's the only thing I've really loved on PF. Everything else has been repetitive, boring, and run-of-the-mill. If anyone is responsible for making Indie look boring, it's PF, which writes about Indie music as though it were boring.

PF is safe. And safe is never interesting.

It's called Vice Magazine. I heard it's totally free.

-- a name means a lot just by itself (lfamula...), July 22nd, 2006 9:01 PM. (lfam) (later)

i already made this joke

It IS boring tho...

Is it just me or does Pitchfork's revamped search just not work, at least for finding album reviews?

I've tried searching for some reviews that I was absolutely certain were somewhere on the site, but the search couldn't find them. So the search is a bit icky, I guess.

I miss the hell out of days when you could just browse alphabetically. I used to find so much good stuff that way.

Stop trying to make "What's the dillio?" happen: Songs that hitch their wagon to slang of the moment

Is it just me or does Pitchfork's revamped search just not work, at least for finding album reviews?

i have better luck with Google these days! just type "pitchfork (artist name) (album name)"!

why does songs on the rocks get two reviews?

Stop trying to make "What's the dillio?" happen: Songs that hitch their wagon to slang of the moment [Started by Doctor Casino, last updated 48 minutes ago] 4 new answers

why do references to the "Stop trying to make "What's the dillio?" happen" thread get two posts?

Coz I didn't bother reading the thread.

I like how I finally decided to go back and read all the "This month in.." columns I missed, but the only way to find them is by googling the site for the column name since they don't know how to make past features browseable and can't get their search to a useful level.

Way to hide your key feature (album reviews) guys.

How's your website doing, abanana?

the page-filling ipod ad is a cause for concern...

How's your website doing, abanana?

― ⓔⓥⓞⓞ (Whiney G. Weingarten), Monday, March 9, 2009 5:08 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

really dude?

hahahahah

I'm just saying, the other thread is filled with critiques like "I don't like this redesign because..." and abanana is just dropping some YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE DOING backseat driving that I thought was silly, so i went for the easy zing

hang on - i could see how that could be taken the wrong way - i meant, really, the "if you're such a great critic how come you don't have a #1 album" criticism?

but ya, the sarcastic "way to go" criticism is kind of annoying i agree

abanana's gripe has been one of the more precise and reasonable ones about the resign that I've seen so far

reDEsign

>the page-filling ipod ad is a cause for concern...

It's covering up the pictures of babes in American Apparel tighty whities!

i already made that criticism and kenan told me to get an RSS reader

it was intense

I think it looks fine - just don't click on anything.

So far I've attempted to click or type in something 7-8 times, with only one success.

i'm assuming stuff like clickability is just technical issues still being worked out (whereas the front page layout is probably going to stay as it is right nwo)

it's covering up the pictures of babes in American Apparel tighty whities!

How do I get this ad? My ads want me to buy an iPod.

i'm assuming stuff like clickability is just technical issues still being worked out (whereas the front page layout is probably going to stay as it is right nwo)

― Diddyocracy (some dude), Monday, March 9, 2009 5:18 PM (23 seconds ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

interesting.

s1ock, and on top of lazy crit, he's RONG, since music criticism in general is increasingly less useful to internet users, and Pfork IS actually focusing on the new key features for 2k9: news, exclusive multimedia and Best New Music recommendations.

if you're gonna jump on typos i'm gonna have to volley a "really dude?" right back atcha

ya i agree with whiney, music criticism is gay and old

Oh No!
Server Error

Something has gone awry, but we've been notified and are (probably) working on fixing what broke.

intersting design choice, making the site not load at all; curious to see where this goes

Hay guys let's just focus on the larger threat here

http://www.comicbookmovie.com/images/users/uploads/8073/watchzsquid.jpg

guys i had a classic "you are" zing loaded up for max here and you're bringing in the cotdamn squid

if you're gonna jump on typos i'm gonna have to volley a "t-t-t-t-totally dude?" right back atcha

― Diddyocracy (some dude), Monday, March 9, 2009 1:19 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

couldn't find a way to work "yahhh trick yahhh" into that, huh

I didn't see the other thread. I stand by my complaint.

don't let the h8rs break ya, a banana!

hey so who likes skinny jeans?

eh?

if you're gonna jump on typos i'm gonna have to volley a "really dude?" right back atcha

― Diddyocracy (some dude), Monday, March 9, 2009 5:19 PM (8 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

my "new world order" jpg didnt appear :(

haha ok fair enough

My friend speculates that they rushed it out in order to get that ad up.

according to company who designed the new Pitchfork website, their marketing speak: Tangible Worldwide is an "Interdisciplinary design agency"

Tangible Worldwide
http://www.tangibleworldwide.com

New Pitchfork site and identity. Check out what we've been working on the last 9 months!

I am surprised Pitchfork / Tangible Worldwide haven't used one of the following social sharing services: Add to Any, AddThis, or ShareThis

also no sign of RSS

So Tangible Worldwide have spent 9 months working on developing a new website and they can't deliver basics like Social Sharing and RSS implementation at the launch

there is also some similarity in information design / user experience of:

Pitchfork
http://pitchfork.com/

and

DrownedinSound
http://drownedinsound.com/

Wait, when did Pitchfork bring back track reviews? Is that just with this redesign, or have I missed it?

pretty sure it was gone for a good long time before today. tbh i was hoping they'd stay gone but hopefully there's a different approach this time.

What was your issue with it as it existed in 2004-06 or whenever?

we did not receive warning of this!

i can't believe pitchfork redesigned and didnt bother to submit themselves over entirely to rateyourmusic

there's no way i could answer that question without igniting old 'lol crack rap' beefs.

Ah, that's sufficient. I always liked the idea of track reviews and was bummed when they were subsumed into the Forkcast. This new format of track reviews for songs that warrant commentary and the Forkcast for just random audio/video clips seems promising.

If 'best new music' is a major concern for the now, why is there an album reviewed newly for that category today that you would never know it without scrolling over some album cover thumbnails?

ugh while are people getting so focused on music criticism when theres an awesome ipod ad

why

probably because the dude with the ipod isn't watching the gratuitous sex scene from watchmen

lol you guys read pitchfork

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahayeah lol

can you imagine reading a HAHAHA Walkmen HAHAHAHA review on HAHAHAHA Pitchfork?

damn guys. you're killing me here!

ya, what goes on here is way better than pitchfork

saw the walkmen movie this weekend, pretty disappointing not as good as grpahic novel

who's walking the Walkmen?...(prolly Tim Wakefield)...

im too cool for pfork B-) what u think about THAT

If 'best new music' is a major concern for the now, why is there an album reviewed newly for that category today that you would never know it without scrolling over some album cover thumbnails?

I was wondering that too. Probably because it's a reissue/comp?