I Abhor Pitchfork.com And All It Stands For - Page 4 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Lemonade Stand > Just the Bang and the Clatter
Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 11-24-2009, 06:04 PM   #46
you are what you is
 
Salome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 22,016
Local Time: 10:47 AM
I don't doubt you could find some good albums by going to Pitchfork, as you could just about anywhere

they are hilariously predictable in every way
they would score 3.1 on their own scale
__________________

__________________
“Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe.”
~Frank Zappa
Salome is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2009, 06:39 PM   #47
Blue Crack Supplier
 
lazarus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Los Angeles, California
Posts: 38,005
Local Time: 01:47 AM
That's about the most reductive and cliched post in what's actually been a pretty fair discussion up til now.

__________________

__________________
lazarus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2009, 06:47 PM   #48
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
iron yuppie's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Chicago
Posts: 9,446
Local Time: 03:47 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lazarus View Post
Well, I don't know how most magazines or big websites like this work, but I would imagine there'd be some kind of editorial board where the various members all throw in their opinions, and then someone is chosen to write the review whose views are closest to the consensus.
I wonder about the editing as well. The individual end-of-year lists are usually quite similar, which makes me think that the staff is fairly homogeneous in terms of taste. Then again, I don't really understand how an album like Alligator can get a 7.9 upon initial review and then jump into the top fifty of the decade list a few years later. I understand that some albums age well, yet I also wonder if the individual reviewer was simply an anomaly among the staff in reviewing it in less than stellar terms.
__________________
iron yuppie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2009, 06:50 PM   #49
Refugee
 
Slapnutz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Under Your Bed
Posts: 1,121
Local Time: 09:47 AM
Never heard of them.
__________________
Slapnutz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2009, 06:52 PM   #50
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 30,343
Local Time: 04:47 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by iron yuppie View Post
I wonder about the editing as well. The individual end-of-year lists are usually quite similar, which makes me think that the staff is fairly homogeneous in terms of taste. Then again, I don't really understand how an album like Alligator can get a 7.9 upon initial review and then jump into the top fifty of the decade list a few years later. I understand that some albums age well, yet I also wonder if the individual reviewer was simply an anomaly among the staff in reviewing it in less than stellar terms.
I recall the Boxer review mentioning that Alligator had aged incredibly well.
__________________
phillyfan26 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2009, 07:15 PM   #51
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
If you shout...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 5,377
Local Time: 03:47 AM
I've always liked the way that CMG does it (oft-insane editorial stances notwithstanding), giving a reviewer's score along with the staff average (when applicable). In some cases, they even run "Counterpoint" reviews, wherein somebody contests what one writer may have had to say about a given release.

Case in point:

Radiohead: In Rainbows (Self-released; 2007) | Record Reviews @ Cokemachineglow.com

Radiohead: In Rainbows (Self-released; 2007) | Record Reviews @ Cokemachineglow.com (counterpoint)

or

http://www.cokemachineglow.com/recor...le-treize-2009

http://www.cokemachineglow.com/recor...-treizeCP-2009 (counterpoint)

The counterpoint reviews would never be practical on a site like Pitchfork, that reviews five records every single day, but I've been asking them for the average staff scores on those surveys that they sometimes put out for literally 7 or 8 years, now. When the fuck will they listen?
__________________
If you shout... is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2009, 07:24 PM   #52
Blue Crack Addict
 
Lancemc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Ba Sing Se
Posts: 17,665
Local Time: 05:47 AM
I never got the impression Pitchfork went by any sort of consensus for their individual reviews. But I thought the case for most critical outlets was to give assignments (albums, films, dvds, whatever) to individual writers and that the ensuing reviews are meant to be representative of that particular author's opinion? Common, right?
__________________
Lancemc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2009, 08:36 PM   #53
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Imperor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Austin
Posts: 9,043
Local Time: 03:47 AM
That's the impression I was under too, Lancelot, which would make an album more or less at the mercy of its particular reviewer.

This actually might well explain the No Net review so many folks were up in arms about. Clearly there are one to many Pitchfork staffers who are keen to the Shuttlecockings. The reviews of the remasters and continual focus on big 'Cock news kind of proves that. So the No Net review might have been given to someone who was already not a fan. I mean the guy said some of the tunes sound like Cockropa b sides, and we all know that's not even close to true. Now I'm not fan of the album, but it seems to me that a different, maybe much betters core might have been given if it were assigned to another staff member.

Of course, this is all conjecture, so take it with a grain of salt the size of a Lance's Mom pustule.
__________________
Imperor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2009, 08:43 PM   #54
ONE
love, blood, life
 
indra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 12,689
Local Time: 05:47 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lazarus View Post
That's about the most reductive and cliched post in what's actually been a pretty fair discussion up til now.

__________________
indra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2009, 09:31 PM   #55
Blue Crack Supplier
 
lazarus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Los Angeles, California
Posts: 38,005
Local Time: 01:47 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Imperor View Post
That's the impression I was under too, Lancelot, which would make an album more or less at the mercy of its particular reviewer.

This actually might well explain the No Net review so many folks were up in arms about. Clearly there are one to many Pitchfork staffers who are keen to the Shuttlecockings. The reviews of the remasters and continual focus on big 'Cock news kind of proves that. So the No Net review might have been given to someone who was already not a fan. I mean the guy said some of the tunes sound like Cockropa b sides, and we all know that's not even close to true. Now I'm not fan of the album, but it seems to me that a different, maybe much betters core might have been given if it were assigned to another staff member.

Of course, this is all conjecture, so take it with a grain of salt the size of a Lance's Mom pustule.
Well it's hard to say whether they intentionally gave the review to someone with an axe to grind. I guess the bigger crime would be someone uninformed about the band reviewing it, and not even knowing what the hell they're talking about. Because yeah, the only song you could make a case for sounding like Cockropa is Courts of Lebanon.
__________________
lazarus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2009, 02:34 AM   #56
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Jive Turkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 13,646
Local Time: 04:47 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Imperor View Post

Of course, this is all conjecture, so take it with a grain of salt the size of a Lance's Mom pustule.
Is that what that thing is in the Lance's Mom Inspired Art page??
__________________
Jive Turkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2009, 03:29 AM   #57
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
intedomine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 7,950
Local Time: 07:47 PM
I do wonder what the criteria are for selecting which albums Pitchfork reviewers shall review.

Take this "review" of Jet's Shine On:
Pitchfork: Album Reviews: Jet: Shine On

Copped a 0.0, but why did they choose to "review" this album, yet not Jet's previous or next album?

Was it simply to take a not-so-subtle dig at Jet? Or would the reviewer have genuinely listened to Shine On objectively?
__________________
intedomine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2009, 05:14 AM   #58
The Male
 
LemonMelon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Hollywoo
Posts: 65,810
Local Time: 01:47 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bono_212 View Post
Wasn't it Pitchfork that had that terrible review of Boxer and they left it up, but went ahead and had someone write a more positive review later? Maybe it was a different site.

I bring this up because of you talking about an editorial board, Laz. It doesn't seem like the website as a whole agreed with the rating Boxer was given (Unless I'm talkingabout a different site, in which case this whole post is a waste).
You're thinking of Popmatters' two reviews of Alligator:

The National: Alligator - PopMatters Music Review
The National: Alligator - PopMatters Music Review

Hardly a waste of a post though, as Laz and I weren't just speaking about Pitchfork, but online music mags at large.
__________________

__________________


Now.
LemonMelon is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:47 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com