Active Member
Hate on Pitchfork all you guys want, but I've found that their recommendations beat the shit out of anything that's touted on this board (new NIN album, Manson, APC, Puscifer, Tool, any NIN side project). I'd rather listen to the new Arcade Fire album, Wavves, or CHVRCHES than the other bands I mentioned. It's become hip and cool to bash hipster culture now, and those doing it are becoming just as daft and annoying as those associated with the culture.
tempus est umbra in mente
I'm not a big fan of Tool side projects or Marilyn Manson either, but it's not like I have to pick either/or. I tried to listen to the Arcade Fire's new disco rock magnum opus, and I got to the part where he asks (in something that I guess approaches a warbly pitched Dr Seuss voice) "Do you like rock n roll mussssssssic? Because I'm not sure that I dooooooooooooooo."Originally Posted by Kid Charlemagne
What kind of bullshit is this? Yes, I like rock and roll music, I guess I just don't like costume disco rock with props and empty theatrics. Here's the part of the song where the girl gets into a mirror box and does her mime routine! How precious!
I swear, the good people over at Pitchfork are laughing their asses off at the people who are defending them. They have to know this stuff sucks.
Active Member
I don't disagree with you a lot, but this is where I will differ.
I think Arcade Fire have made an exceptional album that shows artistic growth from them. It doesn't sound like Funeral or Neon Bible where they tried to sound as big as possible, it doesn't sound like The Suburbs which found the band trying to get the last drop of their "sound" out by way of bemoaning suburban life. This is an album that takes chances, is produced by one of the best musical minds of the past decade, and is more optimistic and clear headed than their previous output.
I'm not crazy about the theatrics and props and costumes either, but I think with them utilizing this look, it shows that they're taking themselves as seriously as they had in the past. They're having fun for the first time in ages, and I can't fault them for that. In fact, I applaud them for going in this direction now instead of rehashing and working off the success of The Suburbs which exposed them even more to a broad audience. They easily could've made a half assed sequel to it and cashed in, but they've put together a strong effort and for the first time since Funeral, I'm excited to see what direction the band goes in now.
Add Violins
I think people rolled their eyes at Pitchfork giving the new Arcade Fire a 9.2 because it seemed so obligatory. They're one of Pitchfork's flagship legacy bands, so it felt like, oh of course they had to give it a huge score. It's just so tired and obvious. And given that most people seem to find the album fairly underwhelming, it also seemed totally unearned. Any other band would have gotten a 7-point-something for that album. It's like when Rolling Stone give that last U2 album five out of five stars.
Active Member
See, that's another "theory" people have that can be put to rest. I happened to think Arcade Fire deserved that score. If you said that Pitchfork giving them a high score was obligatory, then how do you explain average scores for the last LP's by Radiohead and Animal Collective, bands who have benefited as much as any in the past decade for the rating system? They've even given somewhat low scores to Thom Yorke's solo albums, and they cover him as much as they do with Best Coast or Pixies, both who have received low scores from Pitchfork for their material as well.
The Pitchfork debate is like Pete Rose or BCS standings fodder sports fans, in other words, when there's nothing else to talk or complain about, we'll just bring these subjects up. It's not going to change, and a better opinion could be formulated if you read their stories and articles more than just occasionally glanced. If you want half assed biased hipster writing that'll really piss you off, you could always go to Flavorwire, Tiny Mix Tapes or Stereogum, those sites have more pretentious and ass backwards writing that'll easily feed your hate.
Matador de Froot Loops
...tha fuck???
Active Member
Fucking vegitarians...tha fuck???
Add Violins
Yeah, but even the most corporate publications like Rolling Stone will still give their legacy artists mediocre reviews from time to time. That doesn't change how hilarious and pathetic they are to give that U2 album a perfect score. Anyway Pitchfork's problems aren't just about whether their scores are fair (although some of their writers seem to think it's an issue). They're being chewed up by the same cancer that's dragging down all online journalism. They're not the worst of the bunch, there's no fucking slideshows yet, but still, their news feed is atrocious. Just an endless vomit-stream of shallow TMZ-esque clickbait.
- "check out these heated email exchanges between the guys in GBV!"
- "steve albini calls amanda palmer 'an idiot' on some message board!"
- "azealia banks made a mean tweet about someone!"
- "hey everybody, grimes just made another tumblr post!"
It's hilarious given how they always push this "integrity" angle. I remember this old interview with Ryan Schrieber where the interviewer was grilling him about whether their festival (which has become their primary source of revenue) compromised their ability to review albums objectively, and he was like "Well, ordinarily I would agree that it would be a conflict of interests, but in our case, we just have so much integrity and sincerity that it won't be a problem." I was just crying with laughter when I saw that.
The whole site has become this well-oiled PR-machine. They try not to be as shameless and crude about it as some of those truly awful fuckface websites, like Buzznet and garbage like that, but still, at the end of the day, they're a just another content farm. And whether it's fair or not in this specific instance, the Arcade Fire review has been cast as proof of that larger trend. Pitchfork used to fashion themselves as ruthless and unforgiving, burning sacred legends to the ground, giving Sonic Youth a 0.0, trolling NIN fans, etc. Today they're just another boring, established institution forced to fulfill their business obligations to all the publicists and PR boutiques that they've established relationships with.
Active Member
I agree on the RS front. That year they gave a perfect review to Springsteen's "Working on a Dream" which is as bad as an album as I've bought. I do agree the way they cover some artists gets annoying (we sure as hell don't need to know what Morrissey is doing every day), but they have some features on there that make it redeemable. Their streaming feature has been good for listening to decent rips of albums, The Pitch is funny and insightful for other topics, their interviews are usually good, and if you haven't read the oral history on Elliot Smith, it's one of the site's finest moments. I get why people dislike Pitchfork and understand it, but I just feel it's just become something to say and do. Not calling you and Jinsai out, since you two are spot on with your reservations, but I think there's other sites that the hate could be for. They've changed with the culture of music, for better or worse.
Stubby Member
I'll agree with you that their news feed often descends into paparazzi bullshit, but honestly believing that Pitchfork is some contractually bound PR machine means ignoring most of their review content at large. I can see where some people might get this idea given the popularity of some of the artists they've given the "Best New Music" stamp to (Arcade Fire, Vampire Weekend, Janelle Monae), but that same stamp is still given to artists every so often who are so unknown that they've yet to necessitate a wikipedia entry. They chose MGMT for their Cover Story feature, but wound up giving their new album a 6.
Their days of "burning sacred legends to the ground" and handing out 0.0's were motivated by their need to appear as outliers more so than actually introducing people to new music -- this is exemplified by the fact that most of their praise went towards indie rock (a safe, go-to genre whose sound was the easiest to associate with counterculture at the time). They're much more professional nowadays. Introducing people to new music seems to be a higher priority as well. The range of genres they cover is much wider than before and their staff is now made up of a variety of writers that are well-versed in specific styles of music.
Last edited by Aladdinsanity; 11-11-2013 at 08:36 PM.
Now I'm 0000
I had a totally freaky experience on the way home tonight. I was listening to Steve Winwood's Arc of a Diver album, and the whole time I was thinking "Thank God no one will ever make an album that sounds like this ever again." Weak-ass disco drums, squeaky synths, meh. The production ruined most of the songs for me.
And right after that, Reflektor starts up.
Active Member
Hey, now! That's part of their aesthetic.
Active Member
I don't hate Pitchfork but I'm not crazy about them. I don't like how they rate some albums 1/10--like the new Pixies EP for example. They can give something a bad review--but 1/10 is a little extreme and should be reserved for something really bad.
desperately chilled
i'm so glad witch house's 15 minutes are up... some of the worst music associated with a genre i otherwise love.
Now I'm 0000
How do you even pronounce "GR†LLGR†LL" — and does it make any sense if you do?
I have nothing against pretentious indie rock in general, but I'm just not getting into Reflektor. The disco déjà vu did wear off after the first couple of songs, but I think that was the interesting part of it in the end.
Active Member
I am so alone with the witch house love!
Active Member
LOL. I was in a grindcore band that opened for these guys back in 2006....tha fuck???
Captain Rustleboots
Haha what was it called?
Matador de Froot Loops
Cattle decapitation? lol
Active Member
Wait. Are you talking about Pitchfork or Stereogum?
Active Member
I love Azealia Banks…can't wait for her album.
FATUM NOS IUNGET
So true. The new Arcade Fire is so bad. I mean 'We've reached that level of fame with the hip crowd that we can do whatever the fuck we want and they'll hang off the nuts until they fall off' bad. Also see: Death Grips. (spoiler: it's fucking awful).
Active Member
Dick Ford!
Remember that FOX 2 News Anchor? We named our band after him...haha.
Agree to disagree here.
Active Member
One of my favorite Black Sabbath albums is Born Again, the one album that they made with Deep Purple's Ian Gillian. I'd take it over the mediocre crap Ozzy released after RR died and Paranoid, which I feel is overrated.
Matador de Froot Loops
"Born Again" is a great underrated album, "Zero the Hero", "Disturbing the priest", "Trashed" and "Keep it warm" are all awesome songs... i even like the "murky" production on the album (that was an accident by the way... still, a "happy accident")
desperately chilled
while i've never heard born again, i can agree that paranoid is my least favorite of the original ozzy run. favorite being vol. 4 or sabbath bloody sabbath...
desperately chilled
their stunt on halloween in new york really pissed me off. as much as i appreciate a little cheekiness, rewarding people who showed up late with a front row spot is a pretty dick move. i've never been a fan anyway, but that sort of thing just rubs me the wrong way.
Active Member
I also really liked Technical Ecstasy and Never Say Die!, the final two albums from the Ozzy-era (before the new one). I never got why some people think that Sabotage was the last good album from the original line-up. The Dio-era was great, loved the Gillian album and The Seventh Star, with Glenn Hughes on vocals. The only Sabbath-era that I'm not crazy about are the Tony Martin years. Some of the music is good, or even great, but I could never get into Tony Martin as their lead singer. He's a good vocalist, but there's just something about him that I don't like--perhaps it's because he seems generic and comes off as a third-rate Dio. Cross Purposes was a good disc though.
Now I'm 0000
I wasn't even aware of that album until you guys mentioned it. Great stuff.
House Always Wins
Personally, I love the Headless Cross even though it's regarded as a missed opportunity and meh.
On topic of a post mentioned above, I also think Death Grips is okay but nothing ground breakingly amazing as lots make them out to be here.
Likes: 
Faceplams: 
Reply With Quote
