For those of you who don't understand the hate for Pitchfork...

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Please take the time to read this:

http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/record-reviews/l/louis-xiv/best-little-secrets-are-kept.shtml

― Jack Landis, Wednesday, 30 March 2005 14:34 (twenty-one years ago)

Their single cracks me up, because the singer sounds vaguely like Mark E. Smith, but looks vaguely like the old vocalist from Grim Reaper (same haircut, even). A bad, bad combination.

― pdf (Phil Freeman), Wednesday, 30 March 2005 14:41 (twenty-one years ago)

ok....

now heres the goddamned thing. I happen to support all sorts of lunacy, but it better be good. and this ...

this is just poor.

its bad meltzer. thats all.

cheap.

good for the fork to consider trying new options, bad for never ever editing.

― b b, Wednesday, 30 March 2005 14:45 (twenty-one years ago)

however...

to those of you that have heard more of the music: can mr. sylvester's fantasy situation function something like a script for a video to the music? if that works, i can be less put-off.

but i still think its cheap...he could have worked up the whole gag to a higher level. this seems a bit to easy.

― b b, Wednesday, 30 March 2005 14:49 (twenty-one years ago)

Okay, I don't know what it is about Nick's writing style, but it seems like I "get" it. The review is gratuitous and offensive but it does so in service of supporting a point about the album/band.

The Daft Punk review was better.

― The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Wednesday, 30 March 2005 14:52 (twenty-one years ago)

What I want to know is how they earned the 1.2 points.

― Tim Ellison (Tim Ellison), Wednesday, 30 March 2005 15:04 (twenty-one years ago)

I like how it gets real heavy at the end when it takes that M. Night Shyamalan twist:

"-Then what's wrong?
-You don't have one."

WHOA. (Mind explodes).

I miss the days when Nick Sylvester was all in a huff about the mean popular kids from Los Angeles who think they're so cool.

― Waking Up Onstage at Jumbo's (Bent Over at the Arclight), Wednesday, 30 March 2005 15:05 (twenty-one years ago)

I dunno, man, I like Nick's reviews.

― jaymc (jaymc), Wednesday, 30 March 2005 15:07 (twenty-one years ago)

(But then I liked Ethan and Brent, too.)

― jaymc (jaymc), Wednesday, 30 March 2005 15:07 (twenty-one years ago)

What I want to know is how they earned the 1.2 points.

Um. By being a spineless, dick-swaggering caricature of better bands would be my guess.

― The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Wednesday, 30 March 2005 15:16 (twenty-one years ago)

I think by now I "understand" the hate for pitchfork, although I don't see why the haters keep reading it just so they can moan about it.

― sleep (sleep), Wednesday, 30 March 2005 15:17 (twenty-one years ago)

(ie, the swaggering presented was good enough to keep them from being completely blanked out but it still isn't very good)

― The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Wednesday, 30 March 2005 15:17 (twenty-one years ago)

Wait, maybe I answered my own question.

― sleep (sleep), Wednesday, 30 March 2005 15:18 (twenty-one years ago)

(hahaha sleep!)

― The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Wednesday, 30 March 2005 15:20 (twenty-one years ago)

i don't know how you guys know reviewers by name. i never look at a reviewers name. i figure if they're writing for an online site like Pitchfork, they don't have real skills to pay the bills, ya heard meh? surely a talented writer wouldn't be caught slumming it for a low-paying, shit job at an online website. Print is still "Where It's At", right? It validates these bozo's when you call them by name rather than saying, "Do you remebmer that asshole who wrote the piece on Daft Punk?"...don't feed their ego's by naming names. "That dude" and "Some prick" work very well for me when referring to people who write reviews online.

― biznotic, Wednesday, 30 March 2005 15:35 (twenty-one years ago)

Biznotic is so spot on, joking or not, but forgot to mention 'some band' and 'those losers', the usual subjects of reviews by 'some prick' and 'that dude'. What kind of retards think giving marks to records is valid anyway, let alone to the decimal point?

― snotty moore, Wednesday, 30 March 2005 15:42 (twenty-one years ago)

Probably teh same type of wetodds that think it's kewl to post to a bulletin board & indiscriminantly slag a bunch of people off while hiding behind a pseudonym and/or a truncated version of their actual name.

― David R. (popshots75`), Wednesday, 30 March 2005 15:45 (twenty-one years ago)

I thought Rob Mitchum's Beck review was good. I mean, well-written and consistent, and sensible to concentrate on a problem Beck has with personae.

― Momus (Momus), Wednesday, 30 March 2005 15:50 (twenty-one years ago)

That review is grebt.

(note: I have never heard anything by Louis XIV)

― MindInRewind (Barry Bruner), Wednesday, 30 March 2005 16:09 (twenty-one years ago)

I actually read this review, and was entertained by it.. then again, I've directly experience the "San Diego outside the San Diego", if that makes any sense, and -- sadly -- Nick is not using hyperbole.

The worst Pitchfork reviews, to me, are the ones that just randomly assign adjectives to older bands as references/comparisons, yet don't bother to explain the context, but do so in the name of trying to be clever or sound like they know what's up (but sound retarded instead.)

You actually get an idea of what the band sounds like in this review, if you get far enough.

― donut debonair (donut), Wednesday, 30 March 2005 16:15 (twenty-one years ago)

I, too, am wondering how Louis XIV were able to gain a 1.2, myself.

― donut debonair (donut), Wednesday, 30 March 2005 16:16 (twenty-one years ago)

maybe it's their "INCH OF FURY"!

― donut debonair (donut), Wednesday, 30 March 2005 16:16 (twenty-one years ago)

a T.Rex it's a rip-off is always good for some points, methinks.

― Beta (abeta), Wednesday, 30 March 2005 16:18 (twenty-one years ago)

i thought the review was funny!

― s1ocki (slutsky), Wednesday, 30 March 2005 16:22 (twenty-one years ago)

donut d is the OTM voice of reason. the review gives a good account of a terrible band's terrible album, including much of the substance as to why it is terrible, in a fairly entertaining fashion. good review, godawful band.

― Lee F# (fsharp), Wednesday, 30 March 2005 16:24 (twenty-one years ago)

I thought it was funny and I actually like the album.

― Johnny Fever (johnny fever), Wednesday, 30 March 2005 16:24 (twenty-one years ago)

I think this review services people who have HEARD the album, and/or know something about the band.

― Vestigal Appendages, Esq. (King Kobra), Wednesday, 30 March 2005 16:29 (twenty-one years ago)

I think it's justified--taking the point of view, as Nick clearly does, that the band is both horrible and kind of dangerous in that its influence could spread to the uninformed, he doesn't want to impart any information that would actually drive people to want to listen to the band, and so instead paints them in the worst possible light, which of necessity omits any mention of the CD etc.

This is a pretty benign instance of PF giving in to its id and writing something purely "for the family"--it's really only a comprehensible review if you're already familiar with the discourse surrounding the band, so it's not for everyone. But within those parameters, it succeeds. I mean, at least it's actually critiquing the band's music in some way, not just harping on the image or "reviewing the reviews."

― Eppy (Eppy), Wednesday, 30 March 2005 16:31 (twenty-one years ago)

Maybe I know the names of Pitchfork writers because they have a lot more personality and style (whether you actually like it or not) than 90% of newspaper critics?

― jaymc (jaymc), Wednesday, 30 March 2005 16:37 (twenty-one years ago)

it's really only a comprehensible review if you're already familiar with the discourse surrounding the band, so it's not for everyone.

Um, that's not true at all. The only thing I knew about the band before reading that review was their name; I haven't read any of the discourse surrounding them (and I don't count their name being mentioned in passing on an ILM thread as "discourse surrounding the band").

― The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Wednesday, 30 March 2005 17:09 (twenty-one years ago)

I don't think you're exactly the best test case, Dan.

― Eppy (Eppy), Wednesday, 30 March 2005 17:10 (twenty-one years ago)

Are you saying Dan's overqualified, Eppy?

― David R. (popshots75`), Wednesday, 30 March 2005 17:11 (twenty-one years ago)

i like some of nick's writing. i was ultimately annoyed by their review of beck's latest, though. kitsch city with ironic suburbs.

― katie, a princess, Wednesday, 30 March 2005 17:15 (twenty-one years ago)

Yeah. Anyone who reads ILM on a regular basis is in "the family" whether they want to be or not. I'm talking about the thousands of people for whom PF is their main source for discovering new music, and whose first exposure to the band was through that review.

Of course, they've been on the OC, so maybe Dan is right. But that just adds to my actual point, which is that the review was pretty justifiable.

― Eppy (Eppy), Wednesday, 30 March 2005 17:19 (twenty-one years ago)

while i agree with Eppy, i think the piece is weak because it fails to really trancend to a less informed audience. as i havent had enough experience with the band, i was willing to give the piece a chance because i think the writer's intent was a good one.

it seems that the approach was fair, but the exectution is somewhat thin. nick wrote a piece a little while ago about the MV & EE record. in this instance i felt the same. i didn't argue with his choice of format but with the actual writing. (in this acase a lot of personal information that wasn't crafted well enough to make a case for including it.)

i like that pitchfork is willing to go after different takes on music writing. but it does seems badly edited.

― b b, Wednesday, 30 March 2005 17:20 (twenty-one years ago)

Um. So it's a review "for the family" because it will only make sense to people who are capable of drawing inferences from the dialog and applying them to the record (it's macho, it's juvenile, it's been done better by many other bands, it's ultimately spineless and tedious)?

― The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Wednesday, 30 March 2005 17:28 (twenty-one years ago)

Membership has its privileges!

― David R. (popshots75`), Wednesday, 30 March 2005 17:30 (twenty-one years ago)

I haven't heard a note of the record or the band ever, and I enjoyed the review; and, now, I have an idea of what the record might sound like. Whether the band descriptions mentioned in the bottom of the review are accurate is something I've yet to comfirm... but I have to assume they are accurate, until I hear otherwise -- as with any review written by someone who has shown more than 0% competence...(which is rarer than one might think)

I think this one is 10 x better than the Weezer single review. (I didn't think that review was bad at all, although it was a bit mean for my tastes.) Not quite the Daft Punk Daft Club review, either -- but not too many folks can top that one.

― donut debonair (donut), Wednesday, 30 March 2005 17:37 (twenty-one years ago)

And screw this whole membership bidness... People who regularly read Pitchfork see reviews in this format commonly. I don't see what "membership" has to do with any of this at all.

― donut debonair (donut), Wednesday, 30 March 2005 17:38 (twenty-one years ago)

It's funny how Nick Sylvester is now becoming the Voice of Pitchfork, at least when it comes to people deriding the site.

― jaymc (jaymc), Wednesday, 30 March 2005 17:40 (twenty-one years ago)

I can pretty much see where the family/membership argument is going to go, so I'm not getting into it. But as I already friggin' said, I was probably wrong to say that this review is particularly insular given that the band was prominently featured on the OC.

― Eppy (Eppy), Wednesday, 30 March 2005 17:48 (twenty-one years ago)

Theres nothing wrong with this review, i wouldn't single it out as a great example of the future of internet journalism but its amusing and gets its point across.

― djdee (djdee2005), Wednesday, 30 March 2005 17:51 (twenty-one years ago)

Remember that the young and impressionable Pitchfork readership might embrace a record with a 1.2 rating ala Wolfie (or something similarly shat upon by Pitchfork) and actually help popularize it. Especially when the sex factor is as inflateed as it is with Louis XIV. It's "funny" to like it, and it'll help you to get laid. If the modus operandi of the bad review was to keep kids away from the record, I'm not so sure it'll work out as planned.

A 5.6 rating might have attracted less attention and therefore may have been a wiser call.

― ath, Wednesday, 30 March 2005 17:52 (twenty-one years ago)

nick sylvester's great.

― j blount (papa la bas), Wednesday, 30 March 2005 17:53 (twenty-one years ago)

is this the louis xiv song that's basically the rock is back version of 'tip drill'?

― j blount (papa la bas), Wednesday, 30 March 2005 17:55 (twenty-one years ago)

DD, I was being a wee bit sarcastic w/ that "membership" quip.

And where is this fancy pants candyland where buying ANY record - let alone a record jobbed by a webzine - will get you laid?!?!? (If you say "college", I say "horn a potroast, Spanky".)

Blount, take yr pick!

― David R. (popshots75`), Wednesday, 30 March 2005 17:56 (twenty-one years ago)

If the modus operandi of the bad review was to keep kids away from the record, I'm not so sure it'll work out as planned.

I'm guessing Nick's M.O. was to write a review that exhibited the his feelings for the record, describe it in a particular style, and get paid. *shrug*

Usually, that's the case with any Pitchfork review. (I stress "usually". I'm still suspect about the whole 0.0 rating that Travis Morrison's solo album got.)

― donut debonair (donut), Wednesday, 30 March 2005 18:00 (twenty-one years ago)

predict the pitchfork rating for the bravery album

― DJ Martian (djmartian), Wednesday, 30 March 2005 18:04 (twenty-one years ago)

6.3

Having never heard them, of course.

― Eppy (Eppy), Wednesday, 30 March 2005 18:10 (twenty-one years ago)

6.3

good guess

― scott pl. (scott pl.), Wednesday, 30 March 2005 18:12 (twenty-one years ago)

Skipping 11 messages at this point... Click here if you want to load them all.

>>surely a talented writer wouldn't be caught slumming it for a low-paying, shit job at an online website. Print is still "Where It's At", right?

you really think it's harder to hack reviews for some print rag? you really think the quality of reviews (PR blurbs) in say Revolver or AP or Spin is higher? Really?

um really?

― william fields, Wednesday, 30 March 2005 21:07 (twenty-one years ago)

If you don't like Pitchfork, DON'T FUCKING READ IT!! You think I read that shit???

― Mr. Snrub (Mr. Snrub), Wednesday, 30 March 2005 21:29 (twenty-one years ago)

I agree with Spencer, I started reading the review and gave up after the first few lines (and I HAVE heard the band, have a whole EP, blah blah).

I dunno, it seems like making fun of a band for machismo and sexism is a little dumb (since it's present in 90% of rock music anyway, albeit usually to a lesser degree). I'd rather read exactly what about the music makes it bad, not making fun of the stereotype the band emulates. Plus criticizing the people behind the music is a little "holier than thou" and self-indulgent anyway. Meh.

― Jessie the Monster (scarymonsterrr), Wednesday, 30 March 2005 22:17 (twenty-one years ago)

Oh come on, Louis XIV aren't PARTICULARLY RIDICULOUS with their stupid lyrics?

― Tim Ellison (Tim Ellison), Wednesday, 30 March 2005 22:45 (twenty-one years ago)

The question isn't whether 'print rags' are better or worse. It's whether they pay more. All reviews are PR blurbs, just as actual PRs only care whether they get coverage, not what it says. So you might as well get paid for them. Or you'll end up in your thirties nowhere, but with a great record collection.
But as soon as formal ratings appear, then all they do is tell the uncommitted reader not to bother unless its a praise or grumble. They render the writer's work worthless and most likely unread and reduce possibly years of effort to a glib 3/5. Any writer who believes in their worth is surely lying or mad (but not good mad). Pitchfork is so amusingly arcane I guess they have to print clues as to what the writer was trying to say, but they could at least put the scores at the bottom of the page.
Incidentally that Beck review wasn't too bad, if a bit heavy handed, like someone trying to translate a joke into another language.

― snotty moore, Wednesday, 30 March 2005 22:49 (twenty-one years ago)

You like to generalize about a lot of stuff.

― Tim Ellison (Tim Ellison), Wednesday, 30 March 2005 23:02 (twenty-one years ago)

Yaeh, you got me there. But reviewers are still part of the PR business. I don't have a problem accepting that. The 'business' is going on elsewhere.
I really really hate 'star' ratings though. If they have to be there print a row of five or ten stars, with a tiny number in them representing the 'score'.

― snotty moore, Wednesday, 30 March 2005 23:40 (twenty-one years ago)

"Fuck rhymes with rock. Which rhymes with dick. We're also a dick band."

I do not know why I can't stop laughing at that line a good eight minutes after first reading it. (Maybe it is because I am picturing it recited in the voice of Master Shake.)

― Stupornaut (natepatrin), Thursday, 31 March 2005 00:41 (twenty-one years ago)

That's funny - I hear Capt. Murphy saying that line. No, wait, Stormy.

― David R. (popshots75`), Thursday, 31 March 2005 02:00 (twenty-one years ago)

"this is a good beat--why aren't you dancing?"

― irrigation can save your people (irrigation can save your peopl), Thursday, 31 March 2005 02:33 (twenty-one years ago)

The review makes me want to hear one of their songs just to find out how bad it is.

― milozauckerman (miloaukerman), Thursday, 31 March 2005 03:05 (twenty-one years ago)

I dunno...the review is a bit obnoxious, but the reviewer's got the essence of the band right there. Nowhere near as bad as the Guero one.

And it is so very definitely Stormy saying that line.

― Telephonething, Thursday, 31 March 2005 03:18 (twenty-one years ago)

man, old-ilm would rip on pitchfork for good reason -- ignorance, smugness, badly written and thought-through trendsterism, etc. now ilm rips on pitchfork as sort of a grudge against creative music criticism in general.

bleh.

i thought the punchline *was* weak, and some of the setup could have been better executed. but other parts were v. funny.

― Sterling Clover (s_clover), Thursday, 31 March 2005 03:20 (twenty-one years ago)

This review has so many memorable lines in it. Louis XIV should probably just adopt Sylvester's mock-up of them- they'd be better off.

― cdwill, Thursday, 31 March 2005 05:26 (twenty-one years ago)

call me a capitalist, but how much money do you get if you do a review/s for pitchfork?

― JD from CDepot, Thursday, 31 March 2005 05:47 (twenty-one years ago)

I saw this band recently for free and I still want some money back!
Horrible....
I cry from laughing every time I read the review, especially "Doc, I'm sexually active as we speak!"
It almost makes me glad I saw them.

― Amy Meacham, Thursday, 31 March 2005 06:09 (twenty-one years ago)

Nick Sylvester is the shit, but this piece just mediocre. I'm not offended by it or anything. I mean, reading his other reviews, I can't imagine him sitting there and going, "Hah. That part's great." Poor Nick. He probably wrote that in five minutes at the deadline or soemthing. Although it's not half as good as the stuff he does on Riff Central, and that's just him dicking around. The fake Diplo Interview is great. Something like...

Diplo: We mixed a couple of tracks that night.
Riff Central: Right. And then M.I.A. came.
Diplo: Yes.
Riff Central: I'm just saying.
Diplo: ?

hehe

― poortheatre (poortheatre), Thursday, 31 March 2005 06:13 (twenty-one years ago)

I guess you didn't read the last line of the review.

― donut debonair (donut), Thursday, 31 March 2005 08:16 (twenty-one years ago)

"Plus criticizing the people behind the music is a little "holier than thou" and self-indulgent anyway."

er, yeah! that makes a LOT of sense. it's so 'holier than thou' to criticize people. and talking about the people who made the record in the course of a review of same is just well self-indulgent.

― N_RQ, Thursday, 31 March 2005 08:27 (twenty-one years ago)

Louis XIV is so much better than The Arcade Fire or The Fiery Furnaces it's not even funny. I bet the Pitchforked can't even understand why. Oh well.

― the disabused, Tuesday, 5 April 2005 16:18 (twenty-one years ago)

You wanna tell us why?

― jaymc (jaymc), Tuesday, 5 April 2005 16:37 (twenty-one years ago)

non sequitor thread...to thread!

― blackmail.is.my.life (blackmail.is.my.life), Tuesday, 5 April 2005 16:38 (twenty-one years ago)

I'll try. It boils down to the album is too fun for those snits. Too easy to like, maybe. And unlike any single song on Blueberry Boat, "Ball of Twine" really does sound like The Who, an accurate comparison too obvious for people inclined to chase after authority by promoting spurious compound-comparisons, e.g., 'Blueberry Boat is chock-full of kitchen-sink Who-like mini-operas.' (I know they didn't write that, but that was the impression their review left me with, which spurred me on to buy The Blueberry Boat, a truly horrible 1.2 album I've come to regard as the lastest soundtrack for our Emperor's New Clothes culture.)

― the disabused, Tuesday, 5 April 2005 16:47 (twenty-one years ago)

not funny

― RJG (RJG), Tuesday, 5 April 2005 16:48 (twenty-one years ago)

COME COME COME NUCLEAR BOMB

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 5 April 2005 16:49 (twenty-one years ago)

too true

― the diabused, Tuesday, 5 April 2005 16:49 (twenty-one years ago)

The reason that I don't like Regis and Kelly is that it is too fun and easy to like for me.

― Tim Ellison (Tim Ellison), Tuesday, 5 April 2005 16:53 (twenty-one years ago)

you can do better than that

― the disabused, Tuesday, 5 April 2005 16:56 (twenty-one years ago)

no. that was the best

― Tim Ellison (Tim Ellison), Tuesday, 5 April 2005 17:02 (twenty-one years ago)

I agree with this fellow about fun. This is the best album ever for those reasons:

http://lovestarz.com/discoMuppets.jpg

followed closely by Louis XIV.

― Gear! (can Jung shill it, Mu?) (Gear!), Tuesday, 5 April 2005 17:09 (twenty-one years ago)

HAVE MILEAGE-VARYING EASY-TO-LIKE FUN, KIDS!

"I said sing ... sing me a song
And bang me like the girls in Hong Kong
I know I ... I know I, I ain't correct
But politics are so much better when they're sex."

If I misquote, my bad. Lead dude's drunken wanna-be-Stoned drawl kinda mulches some of the lyrics.

― David R. (popshots75`), Tuesday, 5 April 2005 17:13 (twenty-one years ago)

how has this band drawn comparisons to The Fall elsewhere? those lyrics make me fear for humanity!

― blackmail.is.my.life (blackmail.is.my.life), Tuesday, 5 April 2005 17:20 (twenty-one years ago)

I think Louis XIV is one of the most promising nu-wave acts out there, but the context-free misogyny in the lyrics is depressing enough for me to understand those who dismiss them outright. If their porny enthusiasm wasn't hung up on domination this'd be in my top 5 of the year so far.

― miccio (miccio), Tuesday, 5 April 2005 17:24 (twenty-one years ago)

I don't even know how they get called "nu-wave", except for who they're (accidentally on purpose) lumped in with, but, yeah, Anthony OTM to a point. My fondness for the loopy brazen all-nite-long horny horn in the singer's delivery, coupled w/ the nu-blooze moovez on display was worn down real quick after the 2nd run-through (& I started paying attention to those dastardly lyrics).

― David R. (popshots75`), Tuesday, 5 April 2005 17:34 (twenty-one years ago)

they're nu wave for the same reason Bowie rippers were called "new wave" in the 80s

― miccio (miccio), Tuesday, 5 April 2005 17:35 (twenty-one years ago)

and like the bizarre conglomo of bands that got THAT title, I'm quite fine with all the accidentally-on-purpose associations of today.

― miccio (miccio), Tuesday, 5 April 2005 17:36 (twenty-one years ago)

plus I'll err on the side of excess with this terminology cuz "nu" is one fun prefix.

― miccio (miccio), Tuesday, 5 April 2005 17:40 (twenty-one years ago)

Ah, see, that's your Limp fandom talking.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 5 April 2005 17:42 (twenty-one years ago)

yo!

― miccio (miccio), Tuesday, 5 April 2005 17:47 (twenty-one years ago)

Snarf.

(My own chief annoyance with Louis XIV is the idea of them instead of Rocket et al getting more attention as the San Diego band of choice, which while understandable in the 'new fresh young thing' scheme of the universe, is still galling. That Louis XIV seem to be outright jerks to boot makes it easier to hate.)

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 5 April 2005 17:50 (twenty-one years ago)

Ned, you're on the Interweb! This is where nu stars are born! Start pimping out bands already!

― David R. (popshots75`), Tuesday, 5 April 2005 18:32 (twenty-one years ago)

I'll yet make Odelia famous.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 5 April 2005 18:37 (twenty-one years ago)

Well, Pinback seem to be overtaking Rocket From The Crypt right now as the San Diego superstars.. interestingly enough.

Louis XIV will be remembered as much as Soulcracker.

― donut debonair (donut), Tuesday, 5 April 2005 18:44 (twenty-one years ago)

I'll guess 5.3 never having heard them.

-- Tim Ellison

CORRECT, AND WELL-PLAYED, SIR!

― sleep (sleep), Tuesday, 19 April 2005 12:18 (twenty-one years ago)

uh wow

― jaymc (jaymc), Tuesday, 19 April 2005 12:24 (twenty-one years ago)

Sweet.

― Tim Ellison (Tim Ellison), Tuesday, 19 April 2005 15:56 (twenty-one years ago)

FLICKERSTICK HAS A POSSE (but I'm not a member)

― David R. (popshots75`), Tuesday, 19 April 2005 15:59 (twenty-one years ago)

Hahahah. Time for the formal betting pools.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 19 April 2005 16:02 (twenty-one years ago)

I think it would be completely awesome if Adam read this thread and based his review on a 5.3 score as metahumor.

― The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Tuesday, 19 April 2005 16:30 (twenty-one years ago)

I think by now I "understand" the hate for pitchfork, although I don't see why the haters keep reading it just so they can moan about it.

It reminds me of people who bitch about the Simpson's decline but will still go so far as to tape it every Sunday and continue to ridicule it. I'm not much better myself though.

― Cunga (Cunga), Wednesday, 20 April 2005 05:18 (twenty-one years ago)

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