Pitchfork runs Rollie Pimperton review of same song Mullah Omar reviewed 6 months ago

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

wtf and they both overrate it

http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/wearetheworld/singles/c/cassidy-hotel.shtml

http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/wearetheworld/04-04-20.shtml#song2

― Al (sitcom), Tuesday, 20 April 2004 15:21 (twenty-two years ago)

I mean shit at least review that ok remix w/ Trina or something.

― Al (sitcom), Tuesday, 20 April 2004 15:22 (twenty-two years ago)

Insert witty anecdote about an indie rock website employee being grilled by his co-workers over his push last year to take the site in a more accessible direction by featuring contributions from pop r&b/hip-hop artists, only to have the site end up losing credibility and the staff getting frequently labeled as cheeseballs and poseurs. Make sure story includes lame attempt by employee to show up co-workers by rewriting reviews of tracks already covered.

"That's so ignorant. You guys are ignorant..."

― Beyonce! Ya Don't Say?, Tuesday, 20 April 2004 16:15 (twenty-two years ago)

"more accessible" direction? Do you mean "more comprehensive"?

I'll steer clear of the question of whether or not they are cheeseballs though.

― djdee2005, Tuesday, 20 April 2004 16:23 (twenty-two years ago)

"losing credibility"

― Al (sitcom), Tuesday, 20 April 2004 16:24 (twenty-two years ago)

I feel like I should understand this but I don't.

― Mark (MarkR), Tuesday, 20 April 2004 16:26 (twenty-two years ago)

Ironically, ILM has reported on this twice.

― Chris Dahlen (Chris Dahlen), Tuesday, 20 April 2004 16:28 (twenty-two years ago)

yes, it's surely part of a campaign to erase all of Mullah's reviews from the site...either that or an honest mistake.

― scott pl. (scott pl.), Tuesday, 20 April 2004 16:33 (twenty-two years ago)

haha that's great, Dahlen. where's the other mention of it on ILM?

anyway clerical errors happen, but still, this song is so old! the follow-up single/video's already in rotation! I mean jeez.

― Al (sitcom), Tuesday, 20 April 2004 16:42 (twenty-two years ago)

The chorus is fun. The rest of the song is awful.

― djdee2005, Tuesday, 20 April 2004 16:43 (twenty-two years ago)

what is mouth-licked proof?

my favorite m.o. review: http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/wearetheworld/singles/f/fabolous-nowride.shtml

― ww, Tuesday, 20 April 2004 16:56 (twenty-two years ago)

Fabulous is the new Big L? He's okay - and the song is alright - but Big L...

― s>c>, Tuesday, 20 April 2004 17:40 (twenty-two years ago)

This wouldn't happen on Stylus.

― Nick Southall (Dom Passantino), Tuesday, 20 April 2004 17:41 (twenty-two years ago)

haha that's great, Dahlen. where's the other mention of it on ILM?

Someone (Mullah?) mentioned it in the "Curious case of R. Pemberton" thread today.

And Nick, you guys have done those "double reviews" - I know you claim they're on purpose, but I'm betting they're just Todd Burns speed binges ... the next morning he probably wakes up and goes, "I ran two reviews of Hail to the Thief? What the fuck?"

― Chris Dahlen (Chris Dahlen), Tuesday, 20 April 2004 17:54 (twenty-two years ago)

that wasn't Nick, but sidekick, Dom.

once again butting stylus up against pfm for no apparent reason.

why oh why...

― goal, Tuesday, 20 April 2004 18:03 (twenty-two years ago)

Also today Christopher Sebela identifies the pressing problem of too many rap artists writing about growing up poor & calls the RZA out for wasting 4 minutes of his life on it.

― andrew s (andrew s), Tuesday, 20 April 2004 18:16 (twenty-two years ago)

once again butting stylus up against pfm for no apparent reason.

It's healthy ribbing. I know I dig Stylus.

― Chris Dahlen (Chris Dahlen), Tuesday, 20 April 2004 18:32 (twenty-two years ago)

Yeah, when Stylus runs double reviews that say the same thing, we make sure to do it on purpose, but for no good reason.

― Naive Teen Idol (Naive Teen Idol), Tuesday, 20 April 2004 18:32 (twenty-two years ago)

Stylus has an inhouse style sheet now, though. That's the final push we needed to overtake Pitchfork's hitcount.

― Dom Passantino (Dom Passantino), Tuesday, 20 April 2004 18:47 (twenty-two years ago)

am i just blind or is there no thread about the front page for www.somethingawful.com ?

― Felonious Drunk (Felcher), Tuesday, 20 April 2004 19:30 (twenty-two years ago)

ok, maybe it doesnt warrant a whole nother pfork thread, but have any older ones been revived to discuss this?

― Felonious Drunk (Felcher), Tuesday, 20 April 2004 19:35 (twenty-two years ago)

Far be it for me to defend Pitchfork (and I haven't actually looked at the reviews, since the links didn't work for me), but what, exactly, is automatically WRONG with reviewing a record a few months down the line? Or with having two different people (one of whom, judging from those URLs, seems to have included it in a singles column) give their own opinions about it? The idea that records should only be reviwed the week they come out is stupid, and always has been. And when I had a singles column at the Voice, that didn't mean nobody could write about the same song in an album review; likewise, just because Christgau puts something in a Consumer Guide doesn't mean it's off limits for everybody else. Why should it be?

― chuck, Tuesday, 20 April 2004 19:36 (twenty-two years ago)

NEWS FLASH: CHUCK EDDY HAS DEFENDED PITCHFORK! HE IS, AS A POINT OF FACT, A PITCHFORK SYMPATHIZER! TAKE HIM OUT BACK AND SPANK HIM WITH A FALL RECORD

― Naive Teen Idol (Naive Teen Idol), Tuesday, 20 April 2004 19:41 (twenty-two years ago)

If I were going to take a shot at answering Chuck's question, I'd say first that of course no, there's nothing automatically wrong with it, but specifically with pitchfork (a) people are probably assuming they're doing it unintentionally & you've probably noticed before that people do like to try and put themselves into a superior position over editors of widely read publications and then (b) if they're only going to review 2 to 3 hip hop songs a week, why not try and find something new to talk about?

― andrew s (andrew s), Tuesday, 20 April 2004 19:45 (twenty-two years ago)

I see Pitchfork has today changed its name to Richdork.

― Momus (Momus), Tuesday, 20 April 2004 20:05 (twenty-two years ago)

I wonder where the "rich" part comes from? You know when Brent wrote reviews where he talked about having a private jet and stuff he was just kidding around.

― Mark (MarkR), Tuesday, 20 April 2004 20:14 (twenty-two years ago)

Oh, don't pretend Pitchfork writers have a sense of humour.

― Dom Passantino (Dom Passantino), Tuesday, 20 April 2004 20:17 (twenty-two years ago)

well theyre not 100% factual, it is SA after all. still damn funny. the band names are my favorite.
xpost

― Felonious Drunk (Felcher), Tuesday, 20 April 2004 20:18 (twenty-two years ago)

Indie Rock = The New Protest Music of the Downtrodden

― Naive Teen Idol (Naive Teen Idol), Tuesday, 20 April 2004 20:46 (twenty-two years ago)

I concede that this probably isn't worth another PF thread, if I'd remembered about the 'curious case of Rollie' thread I'd have took it there.

as for the timeliness nitpicking, Chuck, maybe it's just my own skewed perspective, I'd say if you're going to publish something about a single that's all over the radio, go ahead and do it early on, instead of after months of saturation (unless of course the months of saturation have some kind of effect on the content of the review, which in this case, I don't think it does).

― Al (sitcom), Tuesday, 20 April 2004 21:42 (twenty-two years ago)

I don't even like that song anymore.

FYI, I sent it into Ryan early January. Mix-ups happen.

― Rollie Pemberton (Rollie Pemberton), Tuesday, 20 April 2004 22:39 (twenty-two years ago)

Rollie's repeat review bothers me a lot less than the completely idiotic review of that admittedly pretty average RZA song.

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Tuesday, 20 April 2004 22:43 (twenty-two years ago)

yeah, I was wondering if maybe you wrote it a long time ago and it was just thrown up today, Rollie, thanks for the clarification.

― Al (sitcom), Tuesday, 20 April 2004 22:54 (twenty-two years ago)

On what planet does Architechture in Helsinki sound new?

― C0L1N B3CK3TT (Colin Beckett), Tuesday, 20 April 2004 22:55 (twenty-two years ago)

(in ref. to a different Pfork review today)

― C0L1N B3CK3TT (Colin Beckett), Tuesday, 20 April 2004 22:56 (twenty-two years ago)

Yeah, it's all good, Al. The weird thing is they have like four other writeups of recent, more relevant songs from me and they just stumble upon the first thing I sent when I first moved to Virginia, lol.

Regarding the RichDork thing,

I don't get what would make anyone think we're affluent. Because we use big words every now and then? I can't even afford a Capri-Sun at the corner store. And I want one. Desperately.

I think I only laughed at the ad for Slapshot Dreamers As Deep As The Cuts You Give Yourself and Billy Bayou Chicken In A Trashcan. Oh and Radiohead President Bush, More Like President Push (Him Off a Cliff).

― Rollie Pemberton (Rollie Pemberton), Tuesday, 20 April 2004 23:05 (twenty-two years ago)

Colin otm. They sound like Elf Power, at least on the one track I heard.

― Tim Ellison, Tuesday, 20 April 2004 23:12 (twenty-two years ago)

Rollie, I think it may have more to do with the rich dorks i.e. hipsters who are the apparent audience of pfork rather than the writers.

― djdee2005, Tuesday, 20 April 2004 23:34 (twenty-two years ago)

You may have a point, djdee.

― Rollie Pemberton (Rollie Pemberton), Tuesday, 20 April 2004 23:35 (twenty-two years ago)

Just keep fooling yourselves.

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Tuesday, 20 April 2004 23:37 (twenty-two years ago)

the pitchfork slamming is old. move on people (www.moveon.org). theres a good chance your clever criticism has already been covered. blah.

― hhhh, Wednesday, 21 April 2004 02:37 (twenty-two years ago)

Can there be an I Love Pitchfork board? Maybe then here we can discuss the latest Iron & Wine record. Or the new Elf Power album or Clientele or Calexico EPs.

― otto, Wednesday, 21 April 2004 02:42 (twenty-two years ago)

OK But Guys who read that Rapture piece on Stylus a week ago?

― Rolf, Wednesday, 21 April 2004 20:01 (twenty-two years ago)

what, exactly, is automatically WRONG with reviewing a record a few months down the line? ... The idea that records should only be reviwed the week they come out is stupid, and always has been

Um, I generally think that when yr given promo copies by labels/promoters, they're not doing it out of the kindness of their hearts and are expecting the review to run as soon as possible for their marketing plans. You (Christgau, whomever) aren't exactly creating art, Chuck.

― Vic Funk, Wednesday, 21 April 2004 20:43 (twenty-two years ago)

writers don't work for publicists vic!

― s1ocki (slutsky), Wednesday, 21 April 2004 21:02 (twenty-two years ago)

(i hope)

― s1ocki (slutsky), Wednesday, 21 April 2004 21:02 (twenty-two years ago)

"Um, I generally think that when yr given promo copies by labels/promoters, they're not doing it out of the kindness of their hearts and are expecting the review to run as soon as possible for their marketing plans. You (Christgau, whomever) aren't exactly creating art, Chuck."

This is utter horseshit. We owe the labels and publicists NOT A GODDAMN THING. Why should I give a fuck about their marketing plans? Their marketing plans have nothing to do with me. If I want to ignore release dates, that's my business. And sorry, but what I do and what Christgau does have a LOT more to do with art than most of the shitty promo copies (and press releases) that I get in the mail every day.

― chuck, Wednesday, 21 April 2004 21:24 (twenty-two years ago)

its not fucking chekhov, is it?

― well, Wednesday, 21 April 2004 21:32 (twenty-two years ago)

So Vic, do you think we should only do positive reviews, as well, since negative ones might mess up the marketing plan? Hell, why don't we just REPRINT the press releases? It'd save us a lot of work!! And the labels and publicists can pick the lead reviews and the photos, too, to match their priorities! Do you think they'd write captions and headlines for me? Maybe I'll ask!! Fitting 500 new CDs (the approximate number I get in the mail) into the section every week might be tough, but hey, where there's a will there's a way, right?

― chuck, Wednesday, 21 April 2004 21:34 (twenty-two years ago)

I disagree — the best critism is most DEFINITELY art. It's the stuff that tries to be that isn't.

― Naive Teen Idol (Naive Teen Idol), Wednesday, 21 April 2004 21:45 (twenty-two years ago)

chuck I must take exception to the idea that there's something wrong with running only positive reviews - I only review stuff I like because I don't have the time or energy to waste on shit I don't dig

― J0hn Darn1elle (J0hn Darn1elle), Wednesday, 21 April 2004 22:00 (twenty-two years ago)

I don't think he's questioning the premise of a particular publication deciding to do that for a reason such as the one you bring up.

― Tim Ellison, Wednesday, 21 April 2004 22:04 (twenty-two years ago)

point taken

― J0hn Darn1elle (J0hn Darn1elle), Wednesday, 21 April 2004 22:06 (twenty-two years ago)

Well, or what if an artist you've long admired releases an album that feels sub-par? You wouldn't want to investigate it, work out in words why it isn't connecting with you?

― Broheems (diamond), Wednesday, 21 April 2004 22:08 (twenty-two years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.