Pitchfork

Zombeels · 11-13-2008, 12:15 PM

Getting reviewed on Pitchfork means exposure for new artists. Word of mouth works at a slow pace but once you've hit pitchfork your record/digital sales go up higher. Bands still want recognition and Pitchfork is a springboard for some.

Rainard Jalen · 11-13-2008, 12:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anteater

And finally, I could care less how appealing their approach is to those who indulge themselves this sort of trash: anyone who writes off King Crimson, ELP, and everything Yes did after Close to the Edge as "grotesque", yet acknowledges such groups' influences on the musicians they adore isn't worth piss in my book.

Pitchfork has always been down on the prog acts of the 70's. Just like the snotty nosed punkers of the late 70's early 80's. I think it's a reactionary stance because they know they never could be as talented.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anteater

And finally, I could care less how appealing their approach is to those who indulge themselves in this sort of trash: anyone who writes off King Crimson, ELP, and everything Yes did after Close to the Edge as "grotesque", yet acknowledges such groups' influences on the musicians they adore isn't worth piss in my book.

I agree with the bulk of your post, though would like to point out that they did actually include two King Crimson albums in their 1970s Top 100, and at any rate did after all mark the first three important Yes albums very highly. Aside from that, they also included four Pink Floyd albums in their 1970s Top 100. So it can hardly be alleged that they spit in the face of prog entirely. Even Pitchfork try to be fair, probably more so than the hipster crowd who purport/try to follow them.

Did you mean ELO, by the way? I'm not sure what ELP is (I'm sure you didn't mean El-P!!!).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zombeels

Pitchfork has always been down on the prog acts of the 70's. Just like the snotty nosed punkers of the late 70's early 80's. I think it's a reactionary stance because they know they never could be as talented.

See above. It's not quite so cut and dry as one might assume.

adidasss · 11-13-2008, 12:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anteater

True, but don't you find the whole thing kind of pathetic? Instead of seeking out things for themselves, people would rather have someone else (AKA Pitchfork or some other publication) put an opinion in their mouth, followed by brazenly wearing it on their sleeve as evidence that their taste is music is superior to someone elses. It's always been that way I know, but that's no excuse for folks to sit on their asses and rally behind crappy biases. I mean, Christ, where did the desire to learn and experience things for oneself disappear off to? Loving them or hating them isn't even worth the effort involved when you could be listening to something interesting instead.

I'm not sure I understand this sort of reasoning. Does anyone here actually know someone whose opinion on music is based solely on reading Pitchfork's reviews?

I agree with everything Rainy said, in the indie community they have no equal. I still read them because I need some some way of filtering the incredible amount of music being released these days on line. I disagree with them on most accounts, but I'll still check out anything they praise because once in a while they put the spotlight on some spectacular artists which could have gone under the radar...

Anteater · 11-13-2008, 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by adidasss

I'm not sure I understand this sort of reasoning. Does anyone here actually know someone whose opinion on music is based solely on reading Pitchfork's reviews?

I agree with everything Rainy said, in the indie community they have no equal. I still read them because I need some some way of filtering the incredible amount of music being released these days on line. I disagree with them on most accounts, but I'll still check out anything they praise because once in a while they put the spotlight on some spectacular artists which could have gone under the radar...

I knew people back in high school who literally worshipped Pitchfork, so I assure you guys that yes, people do exist out there who form their opinions solely on Pitchfork's verdicts.

Rainard: I noticed those lists also, but when you are making any top 100 lists of the 1970's when you are a publication like Pitchfork, it doesn't seem feasible not to include any prog. at all (considering the genre's prevailence for most of the decade).

Also, don't diss Emerson, Lake and Palmer! They had killer live performances, plus Jimmy Hendrix wanted to form HELP with them before his untimely demise...

Rainard Jalen · 11-13-2008, 01:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anteater

Also, don't diss Emerson, Lake and Palmer! They had killer live performances, plus Jimmy Hendrix wanted to form HELP with them before his untimely demise...

lmao! I honestly didn't know what ELP was! I thought it was a typo and you meant Electric Light Orchestra (ELO).

I'll check out Emerson Lake & Palmer.

Anteater · 11-13-2008, 01:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rainard Jalen

lmao! I honestly didn't know what ELP was! I thought it was a typo and you meant Electric Light Orchestra (ELO).

I'll check out Emerson Lake & Palmer.

Oops. Yeah, wasn't talking about ELO, though they certainly had their time too...

Have fun with ELP.

Brad Stengel · 11-13-2008, 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anteater

I'm in full agreement here. They're Indie's Rolling Stone. = /

True, but don't you find the whole thing kind of pathetic? Instead of seeking out things for themselves, people would rather have someone else (AKA Pitchfork or some other publication) put an opinion in their mouth, followed by brazenly wearing it on their sleeve as evidence that their taste is music is superior to someone elses. It's always been that way I know, but that's no excuse for folks to sit on their asses and rally behind crappy biases. I mean, Christ, where did the desire to learn and experience things for oneself disappear off to? Loving them or hating them isn't even worth the effort involved when you could be listening to something interesting instead.

And finally, I could care less how appealing their approach is to those who indulge themselves in this sort of trash: anyone who writes off King Crimson, ELP, and everything Yes did after Close to the Edge as "grotesque", yet acknowledges such groups' influences on the musicians they adore isn't worth piss in my book.

How does one seek out music 'for themselves' without reading music publications? When you're like me, and had no friends who listened to indie until a year ago, you rely on stuff like allmusic and pitchfork, because they're the only other ones out there that share musical taste.

After I got bored of the radio, I searched around allmusic taking reccomendations from music I liked, and it was reading reviews about bands like My Bloody Valentine and Neutral Milk Hotel that led me into 90% of what I listen to now. The only way I hear about music from places that aren't music websites is from labels that already have bands I like on them. To your 11th grade Brad Stengel, who's only non-radio albums were 'Meat Puppets II' and 'Smile', my musical curiosity could only be quenched by reccomendations for those who liked similar bands; i.e. music journalists.

And honestly, people bitch constantly about supposed 'pitchfork worshippers' who write off anything they hate. Id say the ratio of people who try to write off stuff pitchfork likes to people who write off stuff they hate is about 5:1. Why be an elitist and worship Pitchfork when you can be an uber-elitist and call it trash, while never heralding any other source to find music? At least give us another good resource to discover new music (besides this website of course, where I've also found a shitton of good bands).

Rainard Jalen · 11-13-2008, 01:32 PM

There's no doubt that, if somebody were exclusively to use Pitchfork and nothing else, then that in itself would give them a huge and substantial (albeit biased) education on alternative music, both past and present. That can't be a bad thing.

Brad Stengel · 11-13-2008, 01:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rainard Jalen

There's no doubt that, if somebody were exclusively to use Pitchfork and nothing else, then that in itself would give them a huge and substantial (albeit biased) education on alternative music, both past and present. That can't be a bad thing.

That as well.

Let's keep in mind that, while commercially Pitchfork may be the 'Rolling Stone' of indie, they still do praise alot of great bands.

Zombeels · 11-13-2008, 01:42 PM

I was reading Pitchfork when they first came out and along with CMJ, Mojo and Puncture (now defunct) it was a great place to find great new artists.

11-13-2008, 12:15 PM	#71 (permalink)
Zombeels Music Addict Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 339	Getting reviewed on Pitchfork means exposure for new artists. Word of mouth works at a slow pace but once you've hit pitchfork your record/digital sales go up higher. Bands still want recognition and Pitchfork is a springboard for some. __________________ What It Is

11-13-2008, 01:42 PM	#80 (permalink)
Zombeels Music Addict Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 339	I was reading Pitchfork when they first came out and along with CMJ, Mojo and Puncture (now defunct) it was a great place to find great new artists. __________________ What It Is

11-13-2008, 01:32 PM	#78 (permalink)
Rainard Jalen Music Addict Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 2,221	There's no doubt that, if somebody were exclusively to use Pitchfork and nothing else, then that in itself would give them a huge and substantial (albeit biased) education on alternative music, both past and present. That can't be a bad thing.