Pitchfork (indie, album)

sweet_nothing · 08-11-2008, 05:44 PM

I thought the new album was actually good.

cardboard adolescent · 08-11-2008, 06:02 PM

Really good. Post-punk remastered for the 21st century.

sweet_nothing · 08-12-2008, 12:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cardboard adolescent

Really good. Post-punk remastered for the 21st century.

Agreed. Also I will be seeing them in Houston in December I'm looking forward to it.

Brad Stengel · 08-12-2008, 07:16 PM

Its really odd, every music site Ive been to everyone ****s all over pitchfork specifically. Maybe its because its probably the biggest indie record review site, but still, I dont get it.

If pitchfork rates an album well, and its a genre Im a big fan of, 98% of the time when I pick up the record, Im not dissapointed. When they give a record a great review and its a genre Im NOT familiar with, I download some stuff first, and then decide whether or not to actively listen to them. Using this system pitchfork rarely fails me (not that I only go to pitchfork for record reviews, mind you, although I feel it is one of the most in tune with my tastes) and I have nothing but praise for a website that introduced me to LCD Soundsystem, Deerhunter, Battles, Art Brut, No Age, and ****tons of more bands I may or may not have winded up listening to.

Neil Loots · 03-25-2009, 09:31 AM

Yes, I agree with Brad, above. There is so much anti-Pitchfork sentiment at almost every music site on the web, much of which amounts to fans of certain indie bands who feel that these bands have been unfairly maligned or ignored by the indie music media, the most prominent manifestation of which is Pitchfork, in favour of what they feel are "over-hyped" indie bands. Curiously, though, one gets the impression that if these other bands were to be "over-hyped" by Pitchfork, they would suddenly become unfashionable with the anti-Pitchfork crowd simply because they had attained this form of prominence. Since Pitchfork is deemed to be "faux-anti-mainstream", the TRULY cool kids, in order to maintain their level of anti-Pitchfork cool, have to like what the "douches" at Pitchfork don't like or ignore. So this whole issue ends up revolving around "peer pressure to rebel against the opinions at Pitchfork", despite claims that the "douches" at Pitchfork are in fact the ones who try to impose a sense of "anti-mainstream cool" on the music-loving populace. Crowd mentality.

debaserr · 03-25-2009, 03:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neil Loots

Yes, I agree with Brad, above. There is so much anti-Pitchfork sentiment at almost every music site on the web, much of which amounts to fans of certain indie bands who feel that these bands have been unfairly maligned or ignored by the indie music media, the most prominent manifestation of which is Pitchfork, in favour of what they feel are "over-hyped" indie bands. Curiously, though, one gets the impression that if these other bands were to be "over-hyped" by Pitchfork, they would suddenly become unfashionable with the anti-Pitchfork crowd simply because they had attained this form of prominence. Since Pitchfork is deemed to be "faux-anti-mainstream", the TRULY cool kids, in order to maintain their level of anti-Pitchfork cool, have to like what the "douches" at Pitchfork don't like or ignore. So this whole issue ends up revolving around "peer pressure to rebel against the opinions at Pitchfork", despite claims that the "douches" at Pitchfork are in fact the ones who try to impose a sense of "anti-mainstream cool" on the music-loving populace. Crowd mentality.

TLDR
who cares anyway

Piss Me Off · 03-25-2009, 03:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neil Loots

Yes, I agree with Brad, above. There is so much anti-Pitchfork sentiment at almost every music site on the web, much of which amounts to fans of certain indie bands who feel that these bands have been unfairly maligned or ignored by the indie music media, the most prominent manifestation of which is Pitchfork, in favour of what they feel are "over-hyped" indie bands. Curiously, though, one gets the impression that if these other bands were to be "over-hyped" by Pitchfork, they would suddenly become unfashionable with the anti-Pitchfork crowd simply because they had attained this form of prominence. Since Pitchfork is deemed to be "faux-anti-mainstream", the TRULY cool kids, in order to maintain their level of anti-Pitchfork cool, have to like what the "douches" at Pitchfork don't like or ignore. So this whole issue ends up revolving around "peer pressure to rebel against the opinions at Pitchfork", despite claims that the "douches" at Pitchfork are in fact the ones who try to impose a sense of "anti-mainstream cool" on the music-loving populace. Crowd mentality.

And then there's those who rebel against rebelling against Pitchfork. They really get me riled up.

Neil Loots · 03-25-2009, 03:49 PM

And then there are those who rebel against those rebelling against those who rebel against those rebelling against Pitchfork. Who would be the same as those rebelling against those rebelling against Pitchfork. And then there are those who rebel against those rebelling against those who rebel against Pitchfork. Who would be the same as those rebelling against Pitchfork.

?

Neil Loots · 03-25-2009, 04:06 PM

All I meant to say, essentially, is that there seems to be a general notion out there that if Pitchfork likes something it must be pretentious and rubbish. If certain people don't like a music purchase, but Pitchfork gives it a high rating, they say "Pitchfork gave it a 9/10: I should have known", as if that means something. Moreover, in certain instances it seems to be a knee-jerk reaction. I would venture, then, that reviews should in large part be ignored. So what if Pitchfork likes or doesn't like an album or artist? Why hold Pitchfork against an artist? If there are reasons for disliking an album or artist, elaborate them instead of simply stating something like: "those 'douches' at Pitchfork got it wrong yet again."

Rainard Jalen · 08-15-2008, 02:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lucifer_sam

Jesus Christ man, how many bands are you going to knock off in one sitting? Do you have anything GOOD to say about bands that get generally good reviews?

Yes. All the ones that I like.

Quote:

but when good artists like Fleet Foxes and Bon Iver come along you shouldn't automatically reject their music because of some idiotic presumptions you have about listening to what the critics have to say.

Which idiotic presumptions? You probably don't have a clue who you're talking to. I'm practically a PITCHFORK FANBOY~! Get it? FANBOY! I visit the site religiously every working day of the week. I download all of their best new music recommendations. The whole f'cking lot. 90% of my favourite albums in my top 20 for this year I heard about first from Pitchfork. It is my favourite indie music news and reviews site bar none. But if I feel that either THEY or the generality of reviewers get something wrong, then I will goddamn say so.

In fact you misunderstand me to such an extent that the fact is, I'm MORE likely to like something if it DOES get good reviews and IS critically acclaimed. That might be a bad approach, admittedly, but it is how my personality works, and above all it goes to show just how poorly you've managed to judge me on the basis of a mere couple of comments.

Quote:

Fleet Foxes were critically praised across the board, not overhyped by Pitchfork and indie mags.

I know. That's what I find so abominable. If it were just Pitchfork I probably wouldn't have said anything. It's the point that they have been so widely praised that annoys me so much.

Quote:

And their debut album was impressive by any standards.

That is, by any low standards.

Quote:

If you don't like it, that's fine, but it wasn't uckin' overhyped by Pitchfork.

It was. It received a 9. 9 or above is an extremely rare occurrence on Pitchfork. I should know. I had the geekiness to follow them for so long.

Quote:

They gave it a good review, but they stopped short of calling it an American classic (which The Guardian failed to do) and they certainly didn't herald it as an album of the year (which plenty of other sources chose to do).

So others hyped it more than Pitchfork did. Whoop-te-do. What does this prove? Only that the indie hype machine's been licking its own a$shole pretty damn ferociously lately.

Quote:

Please, if you're going to trash these bands, find a legitimate reason -- not your hatred for Pitchfork.

Seeming as we've now established that your supposed premise of mine was not entirely accurate, I'll end by saying that I DO have a perfectly legitimate reason for trashing Fleet Foxes: it's just not a particularly good album. Good for a debut, maybe. Signs of promise, perhaps. But much good in and of itself? Surrrrre.

03-25-2009, 03:49 PM	#8 (permalink)
Neil Loots Music Addict Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: South Africa Posts: 51	Yes And then there are those who rebel against those rebelling against those who rebel against those rebelling against Pitchfork. Who would be the same as those rebelling against those rebelling against Pitchfork. And then there are those who rebel against those rebelling against those who rebel against Pitchfork. Who would be the same as those rebelling against Pitchfork. ?

08-11-2008, 06:02 PM	#2 (permalink)
cardboard adolescent ;) Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: CA Posts: 3,511	Really good. Post-punk remastered for the 21st century.

08-12-2008, 07:16 PM	#4 (permalink)
Brad Stengel This Space for Rent Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Boston, MA Posts: 815	Its really odd, every music site Ive been to everyone **s all over pitchfork specifically. Maybe its because its probably the biggest indie record review site, but still, I dont get it. If pitchfork rates an album well, and its a genre Im a big fan of, 98% of the time when I pick up the record, Im not dissapointed. When they give a record a great review and its a genre Im NOT familiar with, I download some stuff first, and then decide whether or not to actively listen to them. Using this system pitchfork rarely fails me (not that I only go to pitchfork for record reviews, mind you, although I feel it is one of the most in tune with my tastes) and I have nothing but praise for a website that introduced me to LCD Soundsystem, Deerhunter, Battles, Art Brut, No Age, and **tons of more bands I may or may not have winded up listening to.

03-25-2009, 09:31 AM	#5 (permalink)
Neil Loots Music Addict Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: South Africa Posts: 51	Yes, I agree with Brad, above. There is so much anti-Pitchfork sentiment at almost every music site on the web, much of which amounts to fans of certain indie bands who feel that these bands have been unfairly maligned or ignored by the indie music media, the most prominent manifestation of which is Pitchfork, in favour of what they feel are "over-hyped" indie bands. Curiously, though, one gets the impression that if these other bands were to be "over-hyped" by Pitchfork, they would suddenly become unfashionable with the anti-Pitchfork crowd simply because they had attained this form of prominence. Since Pitchfork is deemed to be "faux-anti-mainstream", the TRULY cool kids, in order to maintain their level of anti-Pitchfork cool, have to like what the "douches" at Pitchfork don't like or ignore. So this whole issue ends up revolving around "peer pressure to rebel against the opinions at Pitchfork", despite claims that the "douches" at Pitchfork are in fact the ones who try to impose a sense of "anti-mainstream cool" on the music-loving populace. Crowd mentality.

03-25-2009, 04:06 PM	#9 (permalink)
Neil Loots Music Addict Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: South Africa Posts: 51	All I meant to say, essentially, is that there seems to be a general notion out there that if Pitchfork likes something it must be pretentious and rubbish. If certain people don't like a music purchase, but Pitchfork gives it a high rating, they say "Pitchfork gave it a 9/10: I should have known", as if that means something. Moreover, in certain instances it seems to be a knee-jerk reaction. I would venture, then, that reviews should in large part be ignored. So what if Pitchfork likes or doesn't like an album or artist? Why hold Pitchfork against an artist? If there are reasons for disliking an album or artist, elaborate them instead of simply stating something like: "those 'douches' at Pitchfork got it wrong yet again."