Pitchfork Is Wack (and notes on the refined delicacy of MBV)

m_thomp · Post by **m_thomp** » Wed Jun 05, 2013 11:36 am

I've always been intrigued by exactly what separates, say, a 7.1 review from a 7.2 review. What, musically or critically, does 0.1 constitute?

FernieCanto · Post by **FernieCanto** » Wed Jun 05, 2013 1:36 pm

noby wrote:
OverTheHorizonRadar wrote:"Writing about music is like dancing about architecture."

There's only one sentiment from Brian Eno I disagree with, and it's that one.

I'm pretty positive Eno never said that. The quote is often attributed to Zappa, who also never said it. I think it's just a random quote that stuck, and people keep looking for mouths to put it in. The closest Zappa said to that is "Rock journalism is people who can't write interviewing people who can't talk for people who can't read". Any similarities to Pitchfork are purely coincidental.

FernieCanto · Post by **FernieCanto** » Wed Jun 05, 2013 1:38 pm

m_thomp wrote:I've always been intrigued by exactly what separates, say, a 7.1 review from a 7.2 review. What, musically or critically, does 0.1 constitute?

Mark Prindle once made a funny remark on that. When reviewing Stereolab Chemical Chords, to which he gave an 8/10, he mentioned Pitchfork giving it an 8.1 and said "I must vehemently disagree with that extra .1".

noby · Post by **noby** » Wed Jun 05, 2013 3:04 pm

FernieCanto/mono: Well I'm not sure about it, but I've always heard that quote being attributed to Eno.

A_Northern_Soul · Post by **A_Northern_Soul** » Wed Jun 05, 2013 3:34 pm

I always thought the "dancing about architecture" line was Elvis Costello. May be talking nonsense.

Pitchfork is alright; I don't mind a bit of pretension sometimes ;)

Agree that a well written review can be really interesting - pulling in references that you might otherwise miss.

The "7.3" reviews on Pitchfork are pretty pointless - you're effectively scoring an album out of 100 - how do you justify some scores next to others? Pitchfork is responsible for my favourite album review ever though - I *think* the album was by Jet and the review consisted solely of an embedded YouTube video of a monkey peeing into it's own mouth.

The Telepathic Kid · Post by **The Telepathic Kid** » Wed Jun 05, 2013 4:08 pm

even if you don't like their reviews, that's only one aspect of Pitchfork now.

they do lots of really nice live performances, great documentaries, and also, great as a news resource.

and I'm on side with the decimal points, but they've always been like that so who cares. It's their way of differentiating themselves, just like how The Needle Drop gives light-decent-strong (number).

of course it's not about the number, but don't let that bother you, let the people who just look at the number be uneducated and not expand their mind with other opinions.

Elephant Face · Post by **Elephant Face** » Wed Jun 05, 2013 7:13 pm

caldrax wrote:I use Pitchfork to find out about music that I otherwise wouldn't, but I never rely on them to tell me whether something is good or not, it's just a "new band name" resource for me. They have often turned me on to good albums, but they have never made me think something was bad, because I discount their opinion in those cases.

The Telepathic Kid wrote:when the first thing you say about a website which gives opinions about music is "I hate them because I think they're way off"

that's not a good start.

I mean you eventually did have some points, but when you just disagree with a website it doesn't make them any less valid.

I like them because they offer a different/similar point of view on albums I like/dislike.

I really don't care about reviews anymore, I just like reading opinions.

These two.

Elephant Face · Post by **Elephant Face** » Wed Jun 05, 2013 7:19 pm

The Telepathic Kid wrote:even if you don't like their reviews, that's only one aspect of Pitchfork now.

they do lots of really nice live performances, great documentaries, and also, great as a news resource.

'

Over/Under is one of my favorite video series. Nothing to do with music, just insight into an artists worldview and sense of humor. it's really great.

Treefingers · Post by **Treefingers** » Wed Jun 05, 2013 8:03 pm

caldrax wrote:I use Pitchfork to find out about music that I otherwise wouldn't, but I never rely on them to tell me whether something is good or not, it's just a "new band name" resource for me. They have often turned me on to good albums, but they have never made me think something was bad, because I discount their opinion in those cases.

Largely agreed here. They cover a lot of stuff I like, and - whether you like them or not - you can't deny the fact that they've played a big role in helping a lot of good music get some deserved exposure.

Also, writing about music is great (at least when driven by a passion for music, anyway).

b0qurant · Post by **b0qurant** » Wed Jun 05, 2013 10:14 pm

caldrax wrote:I use Pitchfork to find out about music that I otherwise wouldn't, but I never rely on them to tell me whether something is good or not, it's just a "new band name" resource for me. They have often turned me on to good albums, but they have never made me think something was bad, because I discount their opinion in those cases.

This is exactly what I do.

machinea · Post by **machinea** » Fri Jun 07, 2013 9:10 pm

b0qurant wrote:
caldrax wrote:I use Pitchfork to find out about music that I otherwise wouldn't, but I never rely on them to tell me whether something is good or not, it's just a "new band name" resource for me. They have often turned me on to good albums, but they have never made me think something was bad, because I discount their opinion in those cases.

This is exactly what I do.

same here. They often get it wrong in my opinion on reviews.. some of the stuff they are giving album of the year or 9.5 and up to I really scratch my head. Seriously Kayne West? A 10!!!??

GH · Post by GH » Sat Jun 08, 2013 1:12 am

machinea wrote: Seriously Kayne West? A 10!!!??

This