"What site are you on right now? The Economist? Nah, bro: Pitchfork. Of course we’re psyched about new AnCo."
What P4K con ten have you cringed the hardest at lately? Old classics also welcome
Because some of them are masterpieces of cringe. Like this classic:
I've always hated the review of Momus' Little Red Songbook. Not because of the score, or because I'm especially fond of LRS, but because of how bad the review itself it. It almost feels more pretentious than the fucking album.
The image isn't all of it.
Could they have written a more pretentious review?
Also this should be pasta
Also the OK Computer review from the same list is pretty cringey.
Yep. His last review is hilarious as well, spends the whole time bitching about being a critic and Pitchfork.
"Still, my interaction with music goes well beyond simple, academic analysis of sound. Nostalgia, emotional context, the continued story and history behind the artist, the packaging, and everything else matters in my love and fascination with music. This is why writing for Pitchfork, which prides itself on discovering unknown underground artists, means so little to me anymore. Listening to music as some form of continued, insular experiment with recording driven by faceless, MP3-based rock bands bores me. I was immediately prepared to love To the 5 Boroughs from my history with the band-- from listening to Ill while playing Atari with Andy Eberhardt, to mowing neighborhood lawns with Gregg Bernstein and Paul's Boutique in a walkman, to holding my portable CD player off the front cushion of my Buick Century to keep Check Your Head from skipping as I passed over the speed bumps in the Marist parking lot every day after my Junior year, to shooting bottle rockets from poster tubes at passing trucks on 400 off the roof of the AMC multiplex I worked at when Ill Communication came out. It is not mentally possibly for me to switch on apathy towards the group."
Only a real autist would put this in a music review
Remember, you are racist if you thought Kanye interrupting Taylor Swift was bad
lmao who gives these fuckheads permission to talk on behalf of blacks all the time anyway. The amount of times that Meaghan Garvey has done it is ridiculous too.
Pitchfork used to be an indie site that also touched on hip-hop
It is now a hip-hop/R&B site that touches on indie while using all the "indie cred" they baked over the decade for hits
even steve buscemi does it too though, look at him hanging out with this guy from the latest pitchfork buzzband
Hit the nail on the head
It's pathetically obvious. Every indie band that comes along gets a decent, but not impressive grade, and bands that abandon indie and rock in favour of R&B are favoured (look no further than Tame Impala)
2009 was the last year Pitchfork was the Pitchfork we used to know.
Kanye's 10.0 in 2010 was the official nail in the coffin and the catalyst to what it (and all sites like Stereogum, etc.) have turned into today.
Like it says at the bottom, it's a reference to the book Gödel, Escher, Bach, but I think they failed at recreating the logical fallacy that the original dialogue illustrated.
It also fails as a review since there are literally 3 sentences about the actual music.
2009 was also the shittest year of music (arguably ever), especially for indie. MPP was the only redeemable album released that year and the last nail in the coffin for the indie hype-machine.
Fortunately 2010 onwards ushered in a renaissance of hip-hop that is often referred to as the meme-rap movement.
Well, it doesn't really. I do like music reviews that take into account the listeners/reviewers experience as well as taking into account the underlying contexts and place in culture - I have no problem with reviews that reject formalism in music.
This review was lazy though. It pretty much only touches on the dichotomy of Autechre's older melodic style of music v. their more experimental and "challenging" music and whether or not their intellectual side is more valuable than their danceable/innately relatable side. As far as I'm concerned, it's a very stale conversation, as it's framed the discourse about them since LP5 was released.
I don't understand the point of music reviews aside from stuff like RYM which can give you an idea of what the artist's best albums are.
If you like or dislike the music, what is a review supposed to do? Change your opinion? If you really cared about the music why would you let the review influence you?
WOW 3 GOOD ALBUMS IN ONE YEAR HOLY SHIT
Nowadays there's an abundance of great music. Every year this decade (probably except for 2014) there have upwards of at times 50 great albums released a year.
I really don't see a problem with it to be honest. Other than that brilliant line. Dude's trying to focus on the music. Says Nevermind wasn't popular because of the trends of the day, but because it was a classic album. After that he points out they had punk roots (true), promoted obscure artists (true), and were good (true).
/mu/ could probably stand to read that last line a few thousand times.
>wasn't popular because of the trends of the day
>Nirvana's most accessible album
holy shit i didn't think pitchfork was that bad but wtf
This is objectively false
>first record since 2012's Centipede Hz
>Centipede Hz came out in 2012
holy shit does this time fucking go. thats 4 fucking years ago. if you asked me I would have said like 13 months ago or some shit.
yknow now that i think about it ive never seen a guy use 'problematic'. personally the word pisses me off because ive seen it get applied to people making fun of otherkin, and people who have raped someone. its a vague and arbitrary term and doesnt need to exist
>its a vague and arbitrary term and doesnt need to exist
um, what. it's a perfectly valid term. and language itself can be vague - "bad and "good" can be just as subjective, thus can also be considered arbitrary.
i got that bad and good can be subjecitve, but if 'bad' already exists then whats the need for 'problematic'? why cant people just say 'x believes/said/did [__]' instead of 'x is problematic'?
well, certain words denote to what degree you feel something, for example: I feel bad doesn't have the same connotation as I feel awful. But yeah, I agree, alot of the words in the English language are pretty useless
well that goes back to "problematic" - it's popular to use it to denote something that's controversial/contentious/"un-pc" nowadays, but it's actually a very useful word when you use it in the context of something that's challenging or presents a problem (which used to be the more common usage before tumblr got ahold of it). it's not just "bad."
>but it's actually a very useful word when you use it in the context of something that's challenging or presents a problem
thats true but thats not what it gets used for, 90% of the time
>plus certain words just make more sense in different situations than others, even if they are similar in meaning
well yes, and that's why i don't think "problematic" is unnecessary despite the fact that other words share it's same general meaning. there are contexts where it's the best fit imo, though i agree that it's not in the way people are using atm.
well, certain words go through trends and cycles - signs and their signifiers evolve all the time - and while right now it's popular to use problematic in that circumstance, i don't think that discounts it's more ubiquitous (or "academic", if you like) usage before it became a buzzword on the internet.
And that the most significant thing about her is she's black. I mean she's an unfathomably successful business woman with hundreds of hits and millions of fans an- HOLY SHIT SHE'S BLACK! HEY EVERYBODY LOOK!
>implying i read centre-left multiculti shilling newsoutlets
came to post this. I fucking hate the perfunctory, mind numbing political correctness of P4k. I won't go there again
I'm not saying I agree with him, I'm just saying it isn't "pretentious" like the other user said.
I do agree with him, though. There were 100s of albums released at that time that fit with the general mindset. Nevermind topped them all by a landslide for a reason: it was better.
Can't believe no one's posted this yet. White guy tries to sound black to review John Coltrane. So bad they took it off the site
>The Village Vanguard. New York City. 1961.
>We was sittin’ there watchin’ the stage. Waitin’ for the man they called Coltrane to come out and do his thing. It was me and my four droogs. Them bein’ Peter, Georgio and Dim; Dim being really Dim.
>‘Round an hour’d passed and the place was packed straight through to the back. I’d just dropped some dollars for ‘Trane’s Giant Steps six months back. Now was the time, this was the place. The Village Vanguard. New York City. 1961.
>I was only there for the first night, see, but them cats at Impulse! just made my life complete. They put out four CDs of all that sound ‘Trane put out those nights. But you know my type, man. Can’t afford to eat, let alone spend some heavy cash on music. So I only got the essential. Live at the Village Vanguard: The Master Takes is one disc, makin’ it one-fourth the cost of the box set. And you only get the best stuff.
>Man, the opening beauty of “Spiritual…” It’s like a dream I had: I floated on the River Nile, smokin’ some fresh weed, relaxin’. But I ain’t ever gonna see the Nile anyhow. This track’s as close as I come, and it’s close enough. Best of the best, though, has gotta be “India.” It’s only when you listen to a perfect old jazz tune like this that you realize how much drum-n-bass is derived from this music. ‘Trane takes it to heaven and back with some style, man. Some richness, daddy. It’s a sad thing his life was cut short by them jaws o’ death.
>Shit, cat. It don’t make a difference. The man produced enough good music to last me a lifetime. This Village Vanguard thing’s just another example of the genius of Coltrane.
I love how they never actually explain what the damage is, they just say "you're causing damage to our community."
No one ever actually explains how a band name is cultural appropriation or hurtful to others or whatever.
A Pitchfork album rating is completely dependent on the particular reviewer in question. They all have weirdly different opinions. You niggas need to stick with Scaruffi, he reviews every album himself and his library is far more vast:
Truly staggering. He's obviously a genius but he's also a loon so it's usually entertaining stuff.
Kinda. Pitchfork ratings are a general consensus they come to on their messageboards, and then they pick the reviewer who agrees with that exact score. Old staff members have talked about what the process was like. So while there is variety of opinions among the staff, the score is an average of whichever staff members have listened to the album.
Meaghan Garvey is a hero. She looked and dressed like a typical suburban white girl until a couple years ago, earning all that great white privilege, and then changed her tone when that was no longer trendy. Truly aspirational!
They didnt mention swans at all who for sure have an album coming out soon but they had to talk about SJW victory over a band that as far as I know hasnt even mentioned anything about new material.
ffs this website
I adore this album and can't stand this review.
Fuck this guy, seriously. Even Scaruffi praised this album.
>The sound overwhelms to such an extent that multiple listens are unnecessary and taxing.
>multiple listens are unnecessary
How can reviewers like this even begin to evaluate and discuss albums based on actual musical merit?
That's actually not true. There were a lot of people in viet nam whose lives were directly negatively affected by the viet cong, and I remember reading somewhere about how they felt about it, which is to say not good. And in light of that, I think it was very mature of them to make the decision to change their name. Otherwise, I'd totally agree with you, for the most part SJW's are a plague that pretty much exists to antagonize people who mean well and usually don't actually produce anything that should rightly be offensive (see pic).