Music Banter

Music Banter (https://www.musicbanter.com/)
-   General Music (https://www.musicbanter.com/general-music/)
-   -   Pitchfork (https://www.musicbanter.com/general-music/57631-pitchfork.html)

Sparky 07-18-2011 10:22 PM

Pitchfork
 
Seemingly the most influential alt music news outlet currently. Has always had much uproar and criticism over their reviews, many finding them pretentious and giving out radical scores just for the sake of being different.

The go-to site for hipsters and elitest d-bags, however, i feel like as of late they have hired sold writers and done really cool video interviews, performances etc.

How do others feel about the site?

ThePhanastasio 07-18-2011 10:30 PM

The thing about Pitchfork...is that I seriously go to the site, don't read the reviews, and just make the albums they mention into lists to go download and listen to.

That's what I use them for. And yes, I ended sentences with a preposition, which Pitchfork would certainly have pointed out.

Nosferatu Man 07-18-2011 10:36 PM

I've watched one or two cool videos on Pitchfork of late, there is a fantastic one with The Antlers and Neon Indian playing together.

I'd agree with ThePhantasio, I just go there for a list of a few albums to download, if nothing else they make it easy for you to find recently released stuff.

Alfred 07-18-2011 11:07 PM

I do frequently read Pitchfork, but I always keep in mind that they cater primarily to elitist hipsters (and impressionable entry-level hipsters, for that matter), and I view being outside of their audience and spectating their power to alter people's music tastes as kind of an in-joke.

That being said, I've made a habit of paying attention to Pitchfork when they review punk or metal albums (real punk, not that Jay Reatard/Wavves lo-fi shit), because as far as those go, Pitchfork writers do usually have a good sense of what has artistic merit. I also read Pitchfork for their news, tour updates, and interviews.

Janszoon 07-19-2011 07:02 AM

It's funny, quite a few years ago I used to literally read Pitchfork every day but I feel like at some point around 2006 or so they started veering into reviewing a lot of stuff I had very little interest in, which caused me to drift away. Now I can't even remember the last time I visited that site.

CanwllCorfe 07-19-2011 07:19 AM

They actually give quite a few of my favorite albums a good amount of praise. Das Racist was the first group that I really enjoyed in Hip-Hop, and they gave Sit Down, Man (my favorite of theirs) a fantastic score. Amesoeurs - Amesoeurs, The Tallest Man on Earth - Shallow Grave, Xasthur - Subliminal Genocide, Burial - Untrue, Antony & the Johnsons - I Am a Bird Now, How to Dress Well - Love Remains, etc. all got good reviews. Am I a hipster? Oh no oh god oh no oh god oh no oh god.

Amphiptere 07-19-2011 07:46 AM

meh, I agree with about 60% of pitchfork reviews. I use allmusic a lot more though if I want reviews.

Urban Hat€monger ? 07-19-2011 11:25 AM

I think I visited that site by mistake for about 30 seconds sometime in 2007

The Final Track 07-19-2011 11:34 AM

I have a hate love relationship with them; they like what I like, they hate what I like.

storymilo 07-19-2011 12:12 PM

Browsing their lists is pretty useful when looking for some new stuff to listen to but I don't pay much attention to their reviews. The fact that it's practically impossible for a new band/artist to get serious recognition without getting a 'Best new music' from pitchfork is pretty irksome.

swag 07-19-2011 12:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by matious (Post 1086582)
Seemingly the most influential alt music news outlet currently. Has always had much uproar and criticism over their reviews, many finding them pretentious and giving out radical scores just for the sake of being different.

The go-to site for hipsters and elitest d-bags, however, i feel like as of late they have hired sold writers and done really cool video interviews, performances etc.

How do others feel about the site?

Only reviewer i take seriously is Piero Scaruffi. He might be a pretentious dick, but i usually agree with him.

Mykonos 07-19-2011 12:39 PM

I'm not a fan of them. They're the kind of site that slaps an extra couple of points on an album's score if the band's from Montreal or if their bassist wears ironic sunglasses.

Alfred 07-19-2011 01:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by storymilo (Post 1086783)
The fact that it's practically impossible for a new band/artist to get serious recognition without getting a 'Best new music' from pitchfork is pretty irksome.

Haha, there seems to be a looooot of politics surrounding what qualifies for "Best New Music" on that website.

For example, here are 4 hardcore and metal albums that scored well within the "Best New Music"-qualifying range.

Pitchfork: Album Reviews: Baroness: Blue Record
http://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/...spiral-shadow/
Pitchfork: Album Reviews: Pig Destroyer: Phantom Limb
Pitchfork: Album Reviews: Converge: Axe to Fall

And here are 4 standard indie (whether it be synthpop, indie rock, whatever) albums that scored below all of these albums, yet still managed to snag the "Best New Music" tag. It's pretty obvious that Pitchfork will only give a BNM to albums that they know hipsters (their target audience) will eat up, at least up to the 8.5 or 8.6 range.

Pitchfork: Album Reviews: Liars: Sisterworld
Pitchfork: Album Reviews: Wild Nothing: Gemini
Pitchfork: Album Reviews: Broken Social Scene: Forgiveness Rock Record
Pitchfork: Album Reviews: The Pains of Being Pure at Heart: Belong

Sparky 07-19-2011 08:49 PM

Has anyone here been to the pitchfork music fest?

As painful as it would be to be squeezed in with teenie boppers in vans it's honestly the only music festival that interests me right now.

captaincaptain 07-19-2011 10:29 PM

Tour announcements. That is it.

zachsd 07-19-2011 11:44 PM

Quote:

As painful as it would be to be squeezed in with teenie boppers in vans it's honestly the only music festival that interests me right now.
Yeah, Pitchfork usually seems to have a pretty good lineup. All Tomorrow's Parties is usually far better, however.

And I pretty much never use Pitchfork, just Rate Your Music. Sometimes I'll look up a specific album on Pitchfork just to see how they view it, and to see if my expectation of their viewpoint fits the bill.

Mykonos 07-20-2011 04:47 AM

For reviews I use Uncut. They actually seem to listen to the album properly and base their opinion on absolutely nothing else, while Pitchfork will judge things like the band's image, Rolling Stones can be a bit... liberal with reviews, NME will give 5 stars to anything that sounds like Oasis and 1 to everything else and PopMatters have absolutely no music taste whatsoever.

James 07-20-2011 04:50 AM

I prefer Tiny Mix Tapes for that kind of website but Pitchfork isn't as awful as people make out.

The Final Track 07-20-2011 07:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mykonos (Post 1087003)
For reviews I use Uncut. They actually seem to listen to the album properly and base their opinion on absolutely nothing else, while Pitchfork will judge things like the band's image, Rolling Stones can be a bit... liberal with reviews, NME will give 5 stars to anything that sounds like Oasis and 1 to everything else and PopMatters have absolutely no music taste whatsoever.

I agree

Landon 07-20-2011 07:25 AM

I rarely agree with their album scores but I like the features, interviews and other stuff they have. I've noticed they seem to be reviewing a lot more hip-hop over the last year.

Surell 07-20-2011 11:33 AM

I do read their reviews, just to see what they have to say about albums i'm looking into getting. Usually they have good reviews. Their festival lineup was of the chain, btw.

hip hop bunny hop 07-20-2011 04:36 PM

Quote:

That being said, I've made a habit of paying attention to Pitchfork when they review punk or metal albums (real punk, not that Jay Reatard/Wavves lo-fi ****), because as far as those go, Pitchfork writers do usually have a good sense of what has artistic merit. I also read Pitchfork for their news, tour updates, and interviews.
I feel the opposite; they glorify trends, seem unable to differentiate between aesthetics and substance, and generally write about anything other than the music. See:

Quote:

Whether you self-identify as a metal-attuned hipster or a hipster-hating metalhead, and whether you scan Pitchfork's reviews or prowl the message boards of the American Nihilist Underground Society, you've likely considered the shifting sound of black metal during the last decade. In recent years, the bands that have earned the most attention and acclaim have generally used what began as Scandinavian misfit rock to springboard into something epic. Wolves in the Throne Room's atmospheric bombast, then, aligns with Alcest's haunted dreamscapes. Deathspell Omega's mean psychedelic crunch links with the scorched expanses of Horseback and Locrian. Sure, plenty of recalcitrant bands-- Watain, Akitsa, the intractable Immortal-- adhere to decades-old, fast-blasting strictures. But from the keys and strings Emperor used to the sense of grandiosity Mayhem promulgated, orchestral elements and widescreen scope have consistently been part of knotty ol' black metal. On their fourth album, Portland, Ore., quartet Agalloch peerlessly unify both camps. As atmospheric as it is aggressive, as reliant upon old-school bona fides as on imaginative flourishes, Marrow of the Spirit confirms Agalloch's place at the frontier of American metal.

Marrow of the Spirit begins, as have each of Agalloch's three previous LPs, with a reflective instrumental. A forlorn cello moans over field recordings of a brisk stream and chattering birds, mixed so that each element feeds into the others. Together, they offer an image of melancholy, energy, and beauty that serves as a prelude in the most proper sense. Agalloch deals in light and dark here, moving beyond simple damnation and apocalypse to consider escape and renewal, too. Through a series of sketches and scenes, frontman John Haughm offers desolation and collapse-- "I slumber in clouds of ice/ These are my hands... so it is done," he groans during the opener. The next hour is a tug of war between retreat and rebirth. "There are gods in the wake of the very flame," he sings at the album's other end, placing his hope in a hopeless void.

The music here mirrors that message, a trait that requires dynamic, diverse, and compelling arrangements. Introduction excepted, Marrow of the Spirit's five tracks range from 10 to 18 minutes in length, and, more often than not, one marathon simply segues into another. Though the album breaks well past the hour mark, Agalloch couple economy and pacing with imagination and ideas in a way that should make most black metal bands green with envy. The 12-minute "Into the Painted Grey", for instance, maneuvers with enough agility that its runtime feels appropriate. It transitions from ascendant guitar solos to relentless, howling stampedes, twisting the two again and again into blissful terror. A barely audible 12-string acoustic guitar laces much of the track, adding ballast to the blast. That guitar serves as the bridge into "The Watcher's Monolith", itself a perfect distillation of the breadth that's made Agalloch matter for the last decade. Spider-webbing from folk-rock smolder to mid-tempo thrash, from hair-metal guitar workouts to dirge-like chants, "The Watcher's Monolith" plays like an unpredictable, seamless mixtape of Agalloch's strengths.

And that's the key: Many of Agalloch's peers in bending black metal manipulate it one way or another, then simply revisit, retread, and retrench. For Agalloch, though, black metal is just the thread that ties together dozens of different looks, be it the industrial roar and mid-tempo climb that characterize "Black Lake Niðstång" or the saturating sustains that spread from one end of closer "To Drown" to the other. "Ghosts of the Midwinter Fires" sprints and twists like a lost take from Maserati or Mogwai, its chiseled guitar line leading the way through sharp turns. But just as Alcest did on this year's excellent Écailles de Lune, Agalloch almost always retain a stylistic placeholder, be it rolling blast beats or Haughm's lacerated exhortations. Black metal, then, becomes a compositional catalyst, not a stylistic restraint.

Agalloch don't tour much, picking and choosing their tour dates and bill-mates based on what they find interesting. In March, they flew to Romania to play two shows with Alcest for free, though they've barely played within their own country at all. The band seldom offers interviews, either. "We believe in having a spectacular experience rather than touring constantly and making a lot of money," Haughm told a Brooklyn Vegan writer who made that trip to Romania, too. "We're not interested in hype, or all this rock-star bull****. We're fine if we're at an underground cult base forever." Similar ideas have cultivated audiences for the formerly hermetic songwriter Jandek and veteran masked emcee DOOM. But black metal itself has started to seep closer to mainstream culture, both through its influence on other artists and in acknowledgment from big media outlets. Agalloch's cult status might not be so safe, then. On Marrow of the Spirit, Agalloch successfully springboard from a foundation of black metal to an intriguing sort of polyglot rock that never seems contrived or forced and always surprises. Very few records sound like this-- yet, anyway.
...that's not a ****ing album review. Thats (1) the reviewer touting off his credentials, (2) a biography of the band, (3) a discussion of the broader subgenre, and (4) a paragraph that describes how the album flows.

No discussion of what doesn't work on the album. No discussion of how the songs are constructed. No discussion of the type or style of production.

This is why I said, "seem unable to differentiate between aesthetics and substance," as this review doesn't delve into this particular album, but rather discusses the accomponying symbolism.

music_phantom13 07-20-2011 07:12 PM

That's why I don't like their reviews too much, I'll read them sometimes but don't really put any stock in what they say as it usually has very little to do with the album. That said, I'm glad Pitchfork doesn't get the same level of hate it used to around here, honestly it's a great site to find some new releases. I wish they did their best new music a little more fairly like someone earlier said, I don't even understand how they judge what makes the cut because some things that I would assume would be hipster music don't make it with over 8's. But overall, if you're willing to ignore the utter **** that comprises some of the reviews, it really is a good site to go to for news and lists of new releases. Oh, and their festival consistently kicks ass.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:59 AM.


© 2003-2025 Advameg, Inc.