pitchfork

how did kanye dress? i don't think anyone is going to dress like the famous picture

dave coulier http://i.imgur.com/zi7hd.gif

The #1 song of 1969 was "Sugar Sugar." Doesn't anyone dress like the Archies at these things?

you don't find it at all troublesome that for you, this means that these people's tastes are somehow more worthy of coverage & narrative centrality than people of lower economic standing

― I Love Pedantry (D-40), Saturday, January 21, 2012 12:14 PM (46 seconds ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

i wouldn't use the word "worthy". i think it's unsurprising that privileged white kids listen to and write about music made by privileged white kids (speaking very generally here - i'm aware that there are countless counter-examples). i'm intentionally refraining from passing any kind of judgment on this tendency.

personally, i think it's unsurprising that any group self-defines and chooses to value their own cultural products. of course, this becomes hugely problematic when we expand our consideration of this tendency to include conflicts between different cultural groups, especially when one cultural group is culturally/politically/economically dominant.

i prefer, however, to maintain a clear conceptual line between the issues under consideration here. there's nothing intrinsically "wrong" with privileged white kids listening to and writing about privileged white music (or with any group being especially interested in its own cultural doings). that said, to the extent that we conceive of ourselves as working in opposition to the social structures that perpetuate white privilege and power, we might critique or even oppose this tendency for purely pragmatic reasons.

i hope i don't come across upset, but i just said three times that every retro party/event i've been too, people dress like generic music fans not actual musicians. some dude, et al, i'm sorry if i didn;t make myself clearer. Sometimes I type too fast! http://i.imgur.com/zi7hd.gif

no i know that was what you were mainly saying, i was just going back to your original point of people dressing like hippies instead of marvin gaye types or whatever

i've never been to a '90s party' but i'd be surprised if there were no hammer pants though!

xxps to contenderizer, who said anything about whether or not its 'surprising' -- these things arent set in stone and basing taste on arbitrary biological myths like 'race' is a fairly arbitrary, constructed one

guys i think we're about to see what happens when 2 people try to filibuster each other at the same time

This gets at something I actually miss about the old Pitchfork, for all its flaws and "embarrassing" reviews: I sense that the n+1 guy and I would agree that criticism is at its most dull and its most insidious when it occupies this perfect middle space between consumer reporting and serious criticism. One thing I loved and valued about ILM in the early days was its prizing of the individual's response to music, its dogged insistence on the essential subjectivity of the listening experience. Criticism that pretends toward objectivity ignores these things, and I would always (and I sense I'm not alone here) rather read the highly opinionated, unafraid-to-be-ridiculous, risk-taking writing of a strong-voiced individual than the carefully calculated, restrained, compendium-style "reporting" of a typical Pitchfork review these days.

OTM. one of the points made in the n+1 piece that i most strongly agree with. tried to say something similar upthread.

i prefer, however, to maintain a clear conceptual line between the issues under consideration here. there's nothing intrinsically "wrong" with privileged white kids listening to and writing about privileged white music (or with any group being especially interested in its own cultural doings). that said, to the extent that we conceive of ourselves as working in opposition to the social structures that perpetuate white privilege and power, we might critique or even oppose this tendency for purely pragmatic reasons.

― Little GTFO (contenderizer), Saturday, January 21, 2012 2:26 PM (5 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

why are you putting it in terms of 'right' or 'wrong'? who said anything about that? we're talking about how these artists are covered and you said that you thought it made sense that the music of the privileged class would be central. I disagree, i don't think that's a 'natural state of things' and that if the privileged class is in any way educated they should recognize the inherent myopia of that perspective

its fine that people listen to whatever is in their immediate vicinity. it's not fine that people who have a responsibility as journalists to cover music are unaware that this is what their default setting might be

these things arent set in stone and basing taste on arbitrary biological myths like 'race' is a fairly arbitrary, constructed one

agree completely. to that extent, we're on the same page.

[/filibuster]

it's not fine that people who have a responsibility as journalists to cover music are unaware that this is what their default setting might be

agree with that, too. i'd even go farther, to suggest that what often passes for "unawareness" might be defensive denial. that's why i'm inclined to call the white & privileged nature of indie culture on its demographics and implications.

One thing I loved and valued about ILM in the early days was its prizing of the individual's response to music, its dogged insistence on the essential subjectivity of the listening experience. Criticism that pretends toward objectivity ignores these things

gtfo

Just noticed this comment, some dude: "the age of instant feedback and scrutiny hasn't stopped critics and bloggers from saying flowery, extravagant, ridiculous things all the fucking time, maybe not in much on music sites as on other kinds of sites but still. and "safe" as pejorative always makes me wonder what kind of "danger" someone is romanticizing, especially a fucking record review."

Why shouldn't people say these "flowery, extravagant, ridiculous" things? Nobody is romanticizing actual "danger," they most likely just want to feel the person behind the critical mask when they read record reviews. Also, thinking of something as just "a fucking record review" feels, I don't know, somehow disrespectful of the form.

One thing I loved and valued about ILM in the early days was its prizing of the individual's response to music, its dogged insistence on the essential subjectivity of the listening experience. Criticism that pretends toward objectivity ignores these things

go read a blog

GRAB

"One thing I loved and valued about ILM in the early days was its prizing of the individual's response to music, its dogged insistence on the essential subjectivity of the listening experience. Criticism that pretends toward objectivity ignores these things"

do you really think that current pitchfork 'pretends toward objectivity'?

I suspect a few readers will be confused by the writer's use of "consumer guide" -- like consumer guides are supposed to be objective or something.

do you really think that current pitchfork 'pretends toward objectivity'?

no, not at all. but relative to the bang-style vomiting of undigested thought that some still romanticize (and relative, too, to the endearingly eccentric pfork reviews of yesteryear), the current pfork house style does tend to a dry, authoritative, professional tone. it sometimes strikes me as defensive, as though critical stances are chosen and reviews written so as not to be mocked online as much as anything else. that's probably unfair, though. it's probably just ambitious professionals trying to do their job in a professional manner.

lol "bang-style"

bangs-style

"do you really think that current pitchfork 'pretends toward objectivity'?"

I honestly haven't read it with any regularity in years, aside from the review here and there of a record I really care about, or the individual columns by guys like Mark Richardson, Nitsuh, Tom, etc., which I really love. The spark is gone for me. It's hard to articulate... The reviews just feel so much more restrained, more professional, more composed, more smoothed-out, afraid to shock or to be bold or ridiculous. It feels like criticism that's afraid to really go out on a limb for fear of getting called out or made fun of. Also, the way Pitchfork covers so many genres now feels like it should to be exciting for its broad-mindedness, but it actually comes across to me as numbing--and maybe that's what I mean by "pretends toward objectivity"... It's almost like those early-ILM pop-ist tendencies have ossified into just another critical stance--broad-mindedness as orthodoxy rather than as the gumption to say "fuck you and your rockism, I like this song."

so your review of current-day Pitchfork would be less "5.4" and more "monkey peeing into its own mouth"

"that's probably unfair, though. it's probably just ambitious professionals trying to do their job in a professional manner."

This sounds like Steely Dan without Fagan and Becker...

lol some dude

"I suspect a few readers will be confused by the writer's use of "consumer guide" -- like consumer guides are supposed to be objective or something."

How are they not supposed to be objective? I mean, the very framing of something as a "guide" seems to me to heavily suggest that we as the audience are supposed to see it as presenting things in a fairly objective manner.

for me the most contentious point scottpl made in that whole p&j thread rant was the very confident assertion that PF already covers everything non-indie that's remotely worth covering ("What don't we cover that is so great in the real world? Is it John Mayer? Is it BEP? What are we missing that is so good that appeals to 'the real world'?"), that was the only thing that really struck me as hubris.

To clarify, we all know that an individual record review is not actually objective and can never be, but can we agree that a collection of reviews presented in a certain way ("unified editorial front"-style) feels like it's trying to be taken as more objective than not?

sure, sure. but it's the kind of 'illusion' that most people knowingly consent to not quibbling over without necessarily buying into, like when movie dialogue is more articulate or expository than the way people really talk.

no!

xpost

Human beings with prejudices assemble consumer guides. Some of them have brains.

I work in wine, and the oft-maligned but hugely popular Wine Spectator is similar to P-fork in a lot of ways: 100-point scale, many different reviewers, columns on specific topics, etc. Wine is something that is emotionally and aesthetically resonant to a ton of people, and to see these responses in the form of numerical scores with dry, adjective-heavy, authoritative writing to accompany them is both stultifying and infuriating--it comes across as dishonest. We all know that each score/review represents a radically subjective point of view; the trouble is, when the writer masks that subjectivity, it actually becomes *less* useful to us as consumers. If I know a person's biases--if they're honest and vivid in their visceral aesthetic responses to things--I can understand their reviews and writings as representing a unique individual, one to whom I have the ability to compare my own self and my own quirks and predilections. If I feel like I'm being written to as "Joe Average Consumer" from some vantage point of calculated, faux-objective professionalism, I recoil. That goes for wine writing and music criticism alike.

Imagine 1997-era PFM reviewing wine.

at every 90s-themed party ive been to most ppl either dressed like the fresh prince or the cast of friends ca. 1997

"Human beings with prejudices assemble consumer guides. Some of them have brains."

Sotosyn, I realize this, I do. I just don't listen to music as a "consumer," and I tend not to like writing that takes as its intended audience those who listen as "consumers." I realize this is a personal preference, and I do see the value in writing that tries merely to point people toward things they might like to investigate/purchase. I just wish that sort of writing didn't so often take on a dry, impersonal tone.

when the writer masks that subjectivity

i don't agree that this is what is happening

"Imagine 1997-era PFM reviewing wine."

Haha, that's frightening... But I actually wish there were more people writing irresponsibly inflammatorily about wine! People play it too safe.

I really want to know what kinds of parties you people hit and if it's okay to wear a Cliff Huxtable sweater.

i think you're treating juvenile knee jerk writing as if it has some larger or more resonant truth to it but really its just poorly articulated

how can you hide subjectivity? It's like hiding my dick.

It always amuses me to try to think of my own writing as part of a "unified editorial front" with some of the other writers when I think of our styles and tastes as so fundamentally different. But then I guess the people who write long think pieces about pitchfork are probably not reading any of my (or many of, say, deej or j0rdan's) pieces - no surprise that if you're only reading the reviews of the big X indie albums of the year then they're gonna sound the same - and in fact were probably all written by about 5 of the writing staff.

xpost alfred don't worry, you're really, really, subjective.

once i dj'd an amer1c4n app4r3l party that was 90s themed and someone was wearing hammer pants i was p impressed

this is gonna be the thread where i brag abt things that are actually deeply shameful

then ill apply to law school

"i don't agree that this is what is happening"

My initial phrasing wasn't well-put, and it worked against my larger point: I don't mean so much that the writers themselves mask that subjectivity (they embody it, necessarily), but that the larger scope of P-fork has resulted in the feeling that that subjectivity, which should be prized in my opinion, is underplayed and backgrounded. I connect with individual writers, not with the POV (whether carefully curated or accidental) of a magazine.

this article was good because it was like a greatest hits of p4k's early years

missin u brett D, or was his name brent D: