Central Scrutinizer Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Jules Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 OK, so here's the story: we're going to get a lot of new posters in the next few weeks, here to talk about the new album, the lawsuit, whatever. New people: please try not to antagonize folks right off the bat. We're a generally friendly group (with a few exeptions ), so please try to make your first few posts at least somewhat constructive and sincere. Old-timers: please try not to jump right into a pissing contest with the new guy. Do your best to be welcoming, and if possible, steer the conversation in a constructive and reasonable direction. I'm not saying that people can't disagree, but it would great to see people making an effort to get off on the right foot with each other. Thanks for playing along.This really wasn't much of a story. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
gogo Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 Once upon a time, a moderator was drunk with power... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Wendy Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 Oh, and don't think I won't delete bullshit posts. Because I will. Have a drink, gogo! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
watch me fall Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 Once upon a time, a moderator was drunk with power... Got the whips and chains handy? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Jules Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 This is what frustrates me about forums, the poster merely commented that Pitchfork reviews based on the "hip scene," but of course people find room for criticism in order to make themselves seem intelligent, mature, and loyal to the band. The poster never stated that he or she seeks approval for their own musical taste in pitchfork. they were just commenting on an often frustrating aspect of a music reviewer. Don't question whether or not someone's love of the band needs to be validated, because that is NOT WHAT THEY SAID. Pitchfork's influence is undeniable, it is just unfortunate that they approach music, or music scenes rather (in general) the way they do.I'm imressed you figured all this out in 5 minutes. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Kalle Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 I actually think PFork will give it a good review this time though! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
gogo Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 Have a drink, gogo!I haven't even had my coffee yet! Yeah, I need to be caffeinated before I pull out the whips and chains. I actually think PFork will give it a good review this time though!Ha! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Three dollars and 63 cents Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 Oh, and don't think I won't delete bullshit posts. Because I will. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
mfwahl Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 I actually think PFork will give it a good review this time though!I hope they like the music better than the title. Their response to that was "Hahahahahahahahahahahaha" Quote Link to post Share on other sites
cloudsofhiss Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 I am calm, however, you said it depends on what they value. The thing is, Pitchfork only values what they think is "cool" at the time, and they turn on the artists that have been around (Radiohead excluded). If this is an example of "value," then that alone invalidates Pitchfork. I don't feel like they've turned on Wilco. It seems like they still have Wilco related news stories quite frequently. I would guess that many of their writers are still Wilco fans. There is a lot of pandering to what's "cool", but I still get the impression when reading the site that most of them still have a genuine love of music. Cokemachineglow.com for example is a music site I used to read, but over the last year or so it seems like they devolved into rating anything anyone else likes poorly, and only liking what's too obscure and cool for anyone else to like. What gives Pitchfork (or Rolling Stone or any rock critic for that matter) the authority to determine what records are good and what aren't? That's the $64,000 question. Pretty good article just written on criticism here: Hypercritical It's more about software/consumer electronics design, which is much less subjective than music, but it still covers the difference between those who criticize and those who create pretty well. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Speed Racer Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 I actually think PFork will give it a good review this time though! Well, because Feist is on the record that means PFork either has to give it a 9-something, or give all future Feist records 6's. She's HAWT to them right now. You know, yesterday they said that the lyrics to Peaches' "Fuck the Pain Away" showcased complex and conflicting emotions. Have you EVER heard that song? That got my quota for the day. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
tugmoose Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 I cannot believe I just spend 5 minutes of my life trying to figure out the point of this thread - the anticipation of a review? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
dondoboy Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 This is the only pitchfork in my book Quote Link to post Share on other sites
adl6690 Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 I'm imressed you figured all this out in 5 minutes. What do you mean? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bjorn_skurj Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 What gives Pitchfork (or Rolling Stone or any rock critic for that matter) the authority to determine what records are good and what aren't? That's the $64,000 question. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
u2roolz Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 I couldn't find any of those funny Naked Gun (Dodger game umpired by Frank Drebin) mailman/dog and Jewish/Palestinian shaking hands/hugging pictures. Kristofor Edit: Guys if you're out there leak the album. So we can argue about that. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bird jam Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 Ha. Ha. You also missed mine... Pitchfork can write what they want, but it is frustrating that they have such an influence. For example, it is common knowledge that Pitchfork has a make or break factor in up and coming bands. A review can be a blessing or a curse. It is just unfortunate that a reviewer that reviews music through factors having nothing to do with the music itself commands such influence. Who are they influencing? I could see your point if we were talking about Rolling Stone or Entertainment Weekly or something, but does Pitchfork really move units? Does Wilco or their label give a damn what Pitchfork thinks? I'm guessing they don't. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
adl6690 Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 Who are they influencing? I could see your point if we were talking about Rolling Stone or Entertainment Weekly or something, but does Pitchfork really move units? Does Wilco or their label give a damn what Pitchfork thinks? I'm guessing they don't. They are influencing those who rely on their reviews when buying albums... They are known to have an effect on the sales of artists (See The Airborne Toxic Event). Wilco doesn't give a damn at all.... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
rhino4evr Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 Well, because Feist is on the record that means PFork either has to give it a 9-something, or give all future Feist records 6's. She's HAWT to them right now. You know, yesterday they said that the lyrics to Peaches' "Fuck the Pain Away" showcased complex and conflicting emotions. Have you EVER heard that song? That got my quota for the day. No Fesit is already old news. The next album gets a 6 tops. Looking forward to them making a joke about Apple and VW getting together for a new song.. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bird jam Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 They are influencing those who rely on their reviews when buying albums... They are known to have an effect on the sales of artists (See The Airborne Toxic Event). Wilco doesn't give a damn at all.... And why does this worry you? We are going in circles. It all boils down to: if you really care that much what other people think about something/someone that you happen to like, I am asking why. What is the actual impact of that opinion on the world, other than offending you for some reason? Are you in a band that got a bad review from Pitchfork and you blame your band's inability to "make it big" on that review? (Actually, that would at least make sense...) Quote Link to post Share on other sites
adl6690 Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 And why does this worry you? We are going in circles. It all boils down to: if you really care that much what other people think about something/someone that you happen to like, I am asking why. What is the actual impact of that opinion on the world, other than offending you for some reason? Are you in a band that got a bad review from Pitchfork and you blame your band's inability to "make it big" on that review? (Actually, that would at least make sense...) I'm not saying those things at all.... I was just making an observation... I love Wilco and other bands that I enjoy no matter what, It is just sad that some people can't simply love the music, you know? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
jff Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 Who are they influencing? I could see your point if we were talking about Rolling Stone or Entertainment Weekly or something, but does Pitchfork really move units? Does Wilco or their label give a damn what Pitchfork thinks? I'm guessing they don't. In Atlanta the main place where people go to get the new releases by "cool" bands is Criminal Records. I read an article about Criminal and the state of the music retail economy a year or so ago. They said when Pitchfork gave something a high score, sales went through the roof. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
adl6690 Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 In Atlanta the main place where people go to get the new releases by "cool" bands is Criminal Records. I read an article about Criminal and the state of the music retail economy a year or so ago. They said when Pitchfork gave something a high score, sales went through the roof. That's what I'm saying, It does have influence, a "Pitchfork Effect," if you will.I know this is from Wikipedia, and all of my high school teachers would be mad, but... Some publications[3] have cited Pitchfork in having played a part in "breaking" artists such as Arcade Fire, Sufjan Stevens, Clap Your Hands Say Yeah, Interpol, The Go! Team, Junior Boys, The Books, A Place To Bury Strangers, Broken Social Scene, No Age, Wolf Parade, Tapes 'n Tapes and Titus Andronicus. Conversely, Pitchfork has also been seen as being a negative influence on some indie artists. As suggested in a Washington Post article in April 2006, Pitchfork's reviews can have a significant influence on an album's popularity, especially if it had previously only been available to a limited audience or had been released on an independent record label. A dismissive 0.0 review of former Dismemberment Plan frontman Travis Morrison's Travistan album led to a large sales drop and a virtual college radio blacklist. On the other hand, as one Washington Post reporter wrote, "an endorsement from Pitchfork Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Wendy Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 That's why bands hire managers like Clell Tickle. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.