pitchfork is dumb (#34985859340293849494 in a series.)

You have completed your learning of life's lessons. Now, you suck ass just like all the other bores before you. Kylie, Alanis? Whatever, bitch. I am sure you already have the defense mechanisms in place so, this will mean nothing but, another exercise in...oh, who cares. Looking elsewhere for reality...or maybe I can pretend to be a rubber worm like pitchwhore.com...here big fishie, look, I rounded 'em up for you in a arrel. A whole demographic!

Not Funny

Y'know sometimes they really are asking for it:

"White Williams issues a debut album layered with impeccable influences-- including Roxy Music, Beck, and T. Rex-- and a sense of calculated disaffection."

Well shit SIGN ME UP.

Yeah, that was a bit of a repellant blurb if I ever saw one.

Wait, are you saying that doesn't seem accurate?

I read 'White' as 'While' and thought "The Saul Williams album sounds like that?"

it's more that they used that as their _hook_

x-post

The front blurbs are always stripped/condensed summary descriptions from the review inside -- in this case

His songs are thin and languorous, with impeccable influences and the sort of calculated disaffection that comes from an MFA in design and a good weed connection.

omg that is horrorshow

The blurb >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the article quote

I assume that's an article quote; nabisco, if you just made that up then SHAME ON YOU.

why would a critic ever try to guess where a song comes from?

I'm more bothered by beck as impeccable influence

Wait, are you saying that doesn't seem accurate?

The description of "a sense of calculated disaffection", a combination of words that makes me imagine the shittiest band of all time, followed by "recommended" was repellant for me. I guess I like my disaffection to be natural, not carefully planned, so I would never recommend something like that.

Then again, I've never heard it so what do I know and so on.

b-but someone at pfork said "hm, how can we get people to read this review? I know! we'll mention the artist's impeccable influences and calculated disaffection! that'll reel 'em in!"

RIP satire etc

they could have collaged+mis-used _anything_ from the article, and they collaged+mis-used that

The White Williams album reminds me much more of late 10cc and Bread than of Roxy Music. That bit was like the classic "Let's over-hip our influences" review.

The description of "a sense of calculated disaffection", a combination of words that makes me imagine the shittiest band of all time, followed by "recommended" was repellant for me.

See, this sounds like the blurb WORKED for you -- i.e., efficiently let you know you would probably not like this act.

I agree, though, it looks kind of weird to have such a neutral-to-disparaging summary blurb on a recommended album.

I like how they gave the new Babyshambles, which is actually tuneful and a good all around album, a 4.0, but gave the first one, which is dreadful and hard to listen to / bloated, a 7.3,

Yeah, it was definitely TWICE as good as the new one. Fuckin' morons.

ugh, "impeccable influences" is really repulsive.

(xpost) was that a parody or are you really getting worked up about an internet score for babyshambles

He was worked up?

wait, i thought the grading scale was logarithmic. like 5 is twice as good as 4. somebody email ryan schreiber to find out.

shit, now i need to reevaluate all my purchases of the last five years.

It's actually modelled after the Richter Scale, hence the superlative designations of various well-reviewed albums as either "Reccomended," "Best New Music," or "Whole Lotta Shakin' Goin' On."

"White Williams issues a debut album layered with impeccable influences-- including Roxy Music, Beck, and T. Rex-- and a sense of calculated disaffection."

if anything, that reads like a good reason not to check out the album....

richter scale is logarithmic xpost

but kudos nonetheless

yeah sorry the "actually" sounded like I was disagreeing when it more of an "yeah and" thing

No band has marked indie's prog revival more definitively than Battles: Their debut, Mirrored, took rock for a set of puzzle pieces, but was ultimately defined by its pictorial sensibility-- each song felt like a cartoon soundtrack-- and the incorporation of jokes into the most historically humorless music in the known world.

wtf, wtf -- wtf? -- wtf!

the incorporation of JOKES

ya i saw that too... pretty lazy writing

How can you get paid to write if you don't know what "but" means?

jokes?!?!? has dude ever read the back of a don cab/a minor forest/whoever cd?

That bothers me more in a semantic sense: I think the album has a sense of humor, sure, but I don't know what "jokes" refers to in a largely instrumental piece of work.

joeks, bruv

You can here an interpolation of classic knock-knock jokes in "Atlas".

<i>jokes?!?!? has dude ever read the back of a don cab/a minor forest/whoever cd?

-- YGS, Friday, 2 November 2007 19:53 (10 minutes ago) Link</i>

"jokes" was horrible word choice on my part--john is right--but come on, do you really think that having a punny song title is the same as making music that is formally and sonically <i>humorous</i>? eh. don cab always struck me as definitively unfunny, they just tried to compensate with SURREAL HEADLINES.

Ha, I didn't even read the review, so I didn't know it was you, Mike.

There is a strong semantic difference between "humor" and "jokes"; they shouldn't be used interchangeably and, based on your followup here, you definitely meant the former.

Also, why did you use "but" as your conjunction? The second clause does not invert, negate, contradict or palpably change the meaning of the first clause (Mirrored being defined by pictoral sensibility and humor is not a condition that lies in opposition to it viewing rock as a set of puzzle pieces), so your sentence winds up not making any sense; you've either left out a critical piece of information or just flat-out used the wrong word.

There is a strong semantic difference between "humor" and "jokes"; they shouldn't be used interchangeably and, based on your followup here, you definitely meant the former.

Also, why did you use "but" as your conjunction? The second clause does not invert, negate, contradict or palpably change the meaning of the first clause (Mirrored being defined by pictoral sensibility and humor is not a condition that lies in opposition to it viewing rock as a set of puzzle pieces), so your sentence winds up not making any sense; you've either left out a critical piece of information or just flat-out used the wrong word.

-- HI DERE, Friday, November 2, 2007 8:19 PM (4 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

you're right, 'but' wasn't a great choice. i think the idea was to say that though it had this puzzle-like quality--you could talk about how the parts fit together, like everyone does in a math-rock review--it was, for me, defined by these more abstract qualities: its sense of humor, its ability to be pictorally evocative. sure, i get what you're saying.

but seriously--human being here, willing to engage, bristles as asinine comments like the "knock-knock joke" one. furthermore--and i'd never slag scott or mark because i know they're incredibly busy guys--i think you bring the same charges to an editor. just saying.

sorry, you *could* bring the same charges. lord i grow weary of life's endless ironies.

I'm just glad you're writing regularly.

I think I'm pretty much firmly on record as someone who thinks there are a lot of editors out there who aren't doing what they should. This mostly stems from a desire to be an editor (ha).

Also I think the egregious misspelling of "hear" is more offensive than the actual knock-knock joke comment (which was an allusion to a recently-revived ILE thread).

Joke: pretending "Atlas" has a different lyric when he is very clearly singing

people like to
people like to
eat a sandwich

Also I think the egregious misspelling of "hear" is more offensive than the actual knock-knock joke comment (which was an allusion to a recently-revived ILE thread).

-- HI DERE, Friday, November 2, 2007 8:35 PM (44 seconds ago) Bookmark Link

and there i thought you were just aping my ignorance and carelessness.

(xpost - that's not actually funny, of course: people do like them some sandwiches)

https://i.imgflip.com/1amtvd.jpg

I thought I was going crazy today when they had the news feature on the Dreamville lineup announcement and there was no Nicki link, nor did any of her reviews show up when I searched her on the site. I was starting to think I was crazy like surely Pitchfork has reviewed Nicki albums and then I finally found one of her most recent album on its wiki page.

https://slate.com/culture/2024/03/pitchfork-oral-history-music-festival-conde-nast-review.html

it's weird that this had zero mentions of any list that pitchfork ever did. the year end lists couldn't drive attention week to week like best new music could, but they felt like an important part of building and maintaining a pitchfork editorial voice.

why do we have two "pitchfork is dumb" threads?

ilx is dumb

It's a series

this one is gigantic and ancient so a sequel thread was made at some point but people keep using this old one anyway

thread names are too similar

i feel like having to ask demonstrates the reason. in the original thread there was a discussion about it being too big and being impossible to go back to if you're after anything but the latest few messages. but that message is buried forever because the thread is too big and is impossible to go back to if you're after anything but the latest few messages.

(and obv i do know this is the original thread i haven't lost my mind just yet)

Condé Nast should buy out this thread.

this one is gigantic and ancient so a sequel thread was made at some point but people keep using this old one anyway

lol I thought this one *was* the sequel and that the earlier discussion of the Slate oral history was on the original. ah well.

Thread names too similar

https://pitchfork.com/reviews/tracks/future-metro-boomin-like-that-kendrick-lamar/

As exciting as it is to finally have a full-length from the duo, “Like That” doesn’t show either at the peak of their powers. In fact, it’s boilerplate by their standards, Future boasting about nameless one-off flings and endless supplies of drugs over a so-so Metro beat that splits the difference between modern Atlanta and vintage California and Memphis.


the beat is literally "Everlasting Bass" by Rodney O and Joe Cooley

That was not good.

I haven’t listened to the song but rap nerd internet seems to be pointing out that the beat is sampling Three 6 Mafia sampling Rodney O

Or referencing or whatever, again, I haven’t listened to the song

I dont buy the three 6 thing. idk maybe he was inspired by how they flipped it. but metro flipped rodney o and joe cooley on the 21 savage album too hes not like ignorant of them

I just saw an article where Rodney O said Metro approached him about it

The cut up vocal sample is from Three 6's 'Ridin Spinners', no? Not sure where it was from before that.

you mean the Eazy E sample?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdf_GIV9Svo

that's the one

chops up vocals from eazy e's "eazy duz it"

right

that little chant has been sampled in duz-ens of songs through the years

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKQTHxGdWv4

A lot of people sampled Gumby's hightop fade

I feel like lazy/obvious sampling in current hip hop could be a thread of its own