motherfucking PITCHFORK | xltronic messageboard
 
You are not logged in!

F.A.Q
Log in

Register
  
 
  
 
Now online (2)
Hyperflake
big
...and 78 guests

Last 5 registered
Oplandisks
nothingstar
N_loop
yipe
foxtrotromeo

Browse members...
  
 
Members 8025
Messages 2609038
Today 8
Topics 127238
  
 
Messageboard index
motherfucking PITCHFORK
 

offline MachineofGod from the land of halo's (United States) on 2002-12-22 21:48 [#00488487]
Points: 3088 Status: Lurker



i want to hear that max tundra album but the cover
looks\makes me never want to hear it in my whole life, worst
cover ever.

anyways, i still dont get why the trail of dead album is
that good, id give it like a 7\7.5 out of 10, at the drive
in are waaay better anyways. but the books are great too. i
think they had a lot of great stuff on the list but they
missed gybe, exhaust, ganz graf, daedelus, vsnares, dj
shadow and some others i forget


 

offline CORTEX from Canada on 2002-12-22 21:50 [#00488489]
Points: 3346 Status: Regular | Followup to titsworth: #00488486



id be interested to hear your best of '02. did you post one
somewhere?


 

offline titsworth from Washington, DC (United States) on 2002-12-22 21:55 [#00488495]
Points: 14550 Status: Lurker | Followup to CORTEX: #00488489



all i'm waiting on is for "winter in the belly of a snake"
to get shipped to me (i preordered that mofo from bn.com in
november, wtf?!) and for me to find time to listen to the
new hrvatski album (i downloaded it but i'll buy it if it's
as dope as people claim). right now the mighty blackalicious
and talib kweli are battling it out for the top spot.


 

offline MachineofGod from the land of halo's (United States) on 2002-12-22 21:55 [#00488497]
Points: 3088 Status: Lurker | Followup to titsworth: #00488486



i havent heard that playthroughs album but it sounds great
from description. now obviusly those particularly the
hiphop albums were placed lower is because theyre umm less
"original" shall i say. now obviously the talib kweli,
blackalicious are solid albums but they arent anything else.
also realize that this isnt really what i think exactly but
more what i think about how they chose playthroughs that
high on the list and put the others lower. another thing we
alo must realize is that they are bias to more
independent\abstract albums thus grading the other albums
harder and rating lower as well as not giving most hiphop
that great of reviews.


 

offline MachineofGod from the land of halo's (United States) on 2002-12-22 22:00 [#00488509]
Points: 3088 Status: Lurker



that blackalicious song chemistry calastenics(?) is great,
we listened to it in biology class (because it was somewhat
related to the period table etc.)a few weeks ago it was
great heh.


 

offline MachineofGod from the land of halo's (United States) on 2002-12-22 22:04 [#00488515]
Points: 3088 Status: Lurker



titsworth, id also be interested in your top __ albums of
02, mainly the top 10 though if that would be possible.


 

offline titsworth from Washington, DC (United States) on 2002-12-22 22:07 [#00488518]
Points: 14550 Status: Lurker | Followup to MachineofGod: #00488497



well here's the thing, i actually downloaded and listened to
the album at least twice, and while i "liked" it, i didn't
get the same thing out of it that pitchfork (claim they)
did. to me it seems like they're just getting off on the
concept of an album that's just tones, despite the fact that
cats have been making experimental tone records since the
60s (and a lot of them have been a lot better; there's a
cool radio show that highlights music like this on WMUC,
univ. of maryland college park.. love that show). anyway it
was one of my least fave albums of the year, just cos it
wasn't that interesting.

and i see what you're saying about kwe and blackalicious, in
fact that's the point of this thread.. to talk about
pitchfork's biases and general bullshit. personally i think
both albums are really creative w/o going overboard, which
some underground hip-hop artists are prone to doing (to the
detriment of their album).


 

offline titsworth from Washington, DC (United States) on 2002-12-22 22:10 [#00488522]
Points: 14550 Status: Lurker



i have a top 20 albums in the works just wait a few days...
for now, these are my fave singles of the year (to qualify
they had to be released to radio or video outlets.. i don't
just mean "best songs")

singles of the year, no order:

truth hurts f/ rakim - addictive
j-live - satisfied?
clipse - grindin'
eminem - lose yourself
common f/ mary j. blige - come close
nas f/ jadakiss & ludacris - made you look (remix)

huh i didn't realize they were all hip-hop.. not one
"excellent" rock single released this year, interesting.


 

offline LeCoeur from the outer edge of the universe (United States) on 2003-02-06 14:19 [#00543782]
Points: 8249 Status: Lurker



B
U
M
P

for Mr. Pants =0)


 

offline glass_eater from a blind nerves area (Switzerland) on 2003-02-06 14:21 [#00543787]
Points: 4904 Status: Regular



eminem ahah
so its not just candies


 

offline fleetmouse from Horny for Truth on 2003-02-06 14:27 [#00543793]
Points: 18042 Status: Lurker | Followup to MachineofGod: #00488509



Another fun science song is Mammal by They Might Be Giants.
Biology teachers should play this one whenever circulation
is studied!

"So the warm blood flows
lacking nuclei
through the large 4-chambered heart...

maintaining the very high
metabolism rate they have..."

I have that song if anyone wants to snag it off me later on
Inverted's opennap server. Prolly be on by 6:00 EST


 

offline Xenotactics from Asheboro (United States) on 2003-02-06 15:24 [#00543883]
Points: 16 Status: Regular



Pitchfork Media is a wretched source of information for any
intelligent advocate of music. Their opinions are extremely
biased and trendy. They overlook many important, relevent
artists, all the while praising mediocre realeases.
Pitchfork Media scarsely skims the surface of interesting
music today.


 

offline magicant from toronto (Canada) on 2003-02-06 17:11 [#00543990]
Points: 2451 Status: Regular



pitchfork gave nine inch nails' 'the fragile' 1.9, tool's
'lateralus' a 2.0, and sasha's 'airdrawndagger' a
2.something....

after reading those, i figured they were just for comedic
purposes only.


 

offline titsworth from Washington, DC (United States) on 2003-02-06 19:35 [#00544115]
Points: 14550 Status: Lurker | Followup to Xenotactics: #00543883



Xenotactics: exactly; glad you realize that. too many people
here are fooled by pitchfork for some reason.

so anyway, i was off in my original guess for what they
would give the massive attack album (i figured they'd give
it a high rating just to show they don't slag off ALL
artists whose last album was praised as a masterpiece), but
the theory of it still stands: total bullshit. i guess it
wasn't massive attack's turn to get excused from their plan
to giving bad reviews to excellent but popular artists.

again: fuck pitchfork. if you want a laugh, read the onion.


 

offline Xenotactics from Asheboro (United States) on 2003-02-06 21:23 [#00544206]
Points: 16 Status: Regular



Pitchfork didn't even rank Front 242 in the 100 most
important artists of the eighties. I find that pretty
absurd, as to Geography is more than 20 years old, and still
sounds damned fresh.


 

offline titsworth from Washington, DC (United States) on 2003-02-19 20:18 [#00562323]
Points: 14550 Status: Lurker



DJ Krush - Rating: 4.2 ("trance"? wtf? and the xenophobic
haiku and manga references, not to mention the cliched
anticon propz..)
Cat Power - Rating: 8.9 (i predicted a lowly 8.8 for this
indie goddess... insightful comparison to liz phair.. NOT.
and the whining for a version of the album with less songs
is so typical of music reviewers who don't have to worry
about actually buying cd's...)

man, again... fuck the fork.


 

offline optimus prime on 2003-02-19 20:21 [#00562326]
Points: 6447 Status: Lurker | Followup to titsworth: #00562323



same feelings about that krush review.


 

offline earthleakage from tell the world you're winning on 2003-02-19 20:29 [#00562328]
Points: 27764 Status: Regular



however annoying and angry they make me, for some reason, i
still go back for more. why IS that? :)


 

offline optimus prime on 2003-02-19 20:31 [#00562329]
Points: 6447 Status: Lurker | Followup to earthleakage: #00562328



it might be because they're one of the few places that
reviews the music you like.


 

offline disasemble from United States on 2003-02-19 20:43 [#00562339]
Points: 1448 Status: Regular



whats with this radiohead thing....did you even read the
pitchfork reviews for radiohead? most are 9's and 10s,
except for that electronic tribute album

i cant complain about people for what they think about an
album. its their opinion. thats why reviews in general are
shit overall, since when it REALLY comes down to it, its
just a matter of personal opinion. i mean, if every review
was subjective to peoples taste it would just be

"well, this here album could appeal to some, and maybe not
to others. i rate this album 1-10, depending on your taste"

there, that takes care of about every single album released
in the entire world


 

offline optimus prime on 2003-02-19 20:46 [#00562340]
Points: 6447 Status: Lurker | Followup to disasemble: #00562339



mm, no. take into account production and songwriting
qualities, that type of jazz. there is something to review
in everything.


 

offline disasemble from United States on 2003-02-19 20:51 [#00562345]
Points: 1448 Status: Regular



thats completely subjective. i know someone who likes lo fi
muddled stuff and thinks its better than high end "quality"
production. its just a matter of what you think sounds
better. and we all hear things differently.

and as i just said, when it "really" comes down to it, its
just personal opinion.


 

offline optimus prime on 2003-02-19 20:54 [#00562352]
Points: 6447 Status: Lurker | Followup to disasemble: #00562345



fuck your utopian politically correct bullshit.


 

offline earthleakage from tell the world you're winning on 2003-02-19 20:54 [#00562353]
Points: 27764 Status: Regular



yes it is. and i'm right, and everyone else is wrong! :P


 

offline disasemble from United States on 2003-02-19 20:58 [#00562363]
Points: 1448 Status: Regular



its just a god damn review site. but hey, if you want to
argue about some stupid review site that you all hate
because they have different opinions than you, then go for
it. have fun!


 

offline xlr from Boston (United States) on 2003-02-19 22:54 [#00562461]
Points: 4904 Status: Regular



I like pitchfork. I agree with most of their reviews. You
don't like their reviews, start your own music critique
site.


 

offline DJ Xammax from not America on 2003-02-20 04:43 [#00562698]
Points: 11512 Status: Lurker



Yeah they are xenophobic twats, especially to us Brits. Just
read the review of Windowlicker


 

offline Ceri JC from Jefferson City (United States) on 2003-02-20 04:48 [#00562705]
Points: 23549 Status: Moderator | Show recordbag



"Writing about music is like dancing about architecture."


 

offline dariusgriffin from cool on 2003-02-20 04:57 [#00562723]
Points: 12165 Status: Regular | Followup to DJ Xammax: #00562698



Same for France.

"So I set about on my quest to create my own private
France. I didn't bathe for a week. I peed on the sidewalk. I
ate parts of a duck I didn't even know existed. I made
myself laugh at old Jerry Lewis movies. I wore a beret and
spat at tourists. I hung around fancy art museums all day. I
drank expensive wine. I made all my friends call me
"Mathieu." Finally, when I felt like I'd fully immersed
myself in the finer points of French culture, I popped 36
Erreurs back into my stereo, figuring that if Mathieu LeMay
didn't like it, nobody would.
"



 

offline martinhm from York (United Kingdom) on 2003-02-20 04:59 [#00562726]
Points: 1657 Status: Lurker | Followup to Ceri JC: #00562705



When I first read that quote it was attributed to Elvis
Costello, but a quick search reveals that a number of people
claim those words.

Re. Windowlicker review: What's a Hot Pocket?


 

offline DJ Xammax from not America on 2003-02-20 05:01 [#00562731]
Points: 11512 Status: Lurker | Followup to dariusgriffin: #00562723



Even I'M a little pissed off about that. Those pitchfucks.


 

offline martinhm from York (United Kingdom) on 2003-02-20 05:02 [#00562732]
Points: 1657 Status: Lurker | Followup to dariusgriffin: #00562723



That may not all be true about the French, but the bit about
MC Solaar certainly is in my experience.


 

offline DJ Xammax from not America on 2003-02-20 05:03 [#00562737]
Points: 11512 Status: Lurker | Followup to martinhm: #00562726



I haven't the first fucking idea. And what's this shit about
haggis??


 

offline jonesy from Lisboa (Portugal) on 2003-02-20 05:06 [#00562741]
Points: 6650 Status: Lurker | Followup to DJ Xammax: #00562698



I'm not sure they're being xenophobic there.

You may not always like what they say about albums but at
least they are honest and back up their arguments. And they
aren't filled with buzzwords and hyperbole.


 

offline martinhm from York (United Kingdom) on 2003-02-20 05:08 [#00562742]
Points: 1657 Status: Lurker | Followup to jonesy: #00562741



The only balanced reviews I have found are at absorb.org.
Pitchfork (mostly Ryan Schreiber actually) seems to hate
stuff for odd reasons, and the comments at Boomkat are full
of hyperbole.


 

offline DJ Xammax from not America on 2003-02-20 05:39 [#00562773]
Points: 11512 Status: Lurker | Followup to jonesy: #00562741



Yeah I didn't mean it in that way... just stereotypical.


 

offline titsworth from Washington, DC (United States) on 2003-02-20 10:33 [#00563273]
Points: 14550 Status: Lurker



fuck those stuck-up racist cunts and their bad taste in
music. seems like every artist or album i love gets panned
at pitchfork, and every trendy, sound-alike rock band or
white rapper gets praised.


 

offline earthleakage from tell the world you're winning on 2003-02-20 10:40 [#00563277]
Points: 27764 Status: Regular



i wouldnt be surprised if they get payed to write good
reviews about shit albums


 

offline nacmat on 2003-02-20 10:46 [#00563280]
Points: 31271 Status: Lurker | Followup to titsworth: #00563273



titsworth I miss lecoeur where is she?


 

offline titsworth from Washington, DC (United States) on 2003-02-20 10:52 [#00563282]
Points: 14550 Status: Lurker | Followup to nacmat: #00563280



what, you didn't miss me? ;)

dobbin, you're probably right.


 

offline nacmat on 2003-02-20 11:12 [#00563289]
Points: 31271 Status: Lurker | Followup to titsworth: #00563282



well yes... I really did, but now you are here... and though
you have been like 2 days out, she isnt here since 16th so
its longer...



 

offline titsworth from Washington, DC (United States) on 2003-02-20 11:13 [#00563290]
Points: 14550 Status: Lurker | Followup to nacmat: #00563289



true.. well, maybe she'll pop up soon :)


 

offline loaderror from kansas city (United States) on 2003-02-20 11:20 [#00563299]
Points: 165 Status: Lurker



why would the new autechre get bad reviews from them?
confield got 8.8, that's a fabulous score. I was thinking
about applying for a job there, they said they needed hiphop
writers a while back. maybe they still do. they like to play
the "sounds like" game quite a bit, and they're quick to
rant about a genre's problems instead of the album's
problems. i do hate pitchfork most of the time but i think
they're still a considerable resource as far as opinionated
websites go. as much as i get pissed at them i keep going
out of habit.


 

offline titsworth from Washington, DC (United States) on 2003-02-20 11:24 [#00563305]
Points: 14550 Status: Lurker | Followup to loaderror: #00563299



yea they need hip-hop writers cos right now all the people
reviewing hip-hop are indie rock fans, straight up. their
"rap reviews" are a joke, literally -- they have me rolling
on the floor laughing everytime.

as for why autechre will get a bad review, read page 1 of
this thread to get an insight into pitchfork's methodology
for giving bad reviews..

but yea i'm pretty much in the same seat as you, right down
to considering applying to review some joints since they
need my help pretty badly. that said, i doubt they'd hire me
(i can't play their snobby games, i love music) and as for
the last few months i've decided not to apply cos i wouldn't
be able to sleep at night, they suck so badly over there.


 

offline LeCoeur from the outer edge of the universe (United States) on 2003-02-20 11:43 [#00563327]
Points: 8249 Status: Lurker | Followup to nacmat: #00563289



herro nacho =0)

a lil birdy told me you were asking about me!

i hope you're doing well......it's been beastly weather over
here, snow up to my eyeballs.......i wanna stay home and
bang on ze drums all day......ehhehehe


 

offline LeCoeur from the outer edge of the universe (United States) on 2003-05-23 20:25 [#00712221]
Points: 8249 Status: Lurker



b
u
m
p

*trashes MF pitchfork*

t hee =o)


 

offline weatheredstoner from same shit babes. (United States) on 2003-05-23 20:32 [#00712224]
Points: 12585 Status: Lurker



I agree with AMG for almost everything except Drukqs and
Think Tank


 

offline MachineofGod from the land of halo's (United States) on 2003-05-24 08:02 [#00712717]
Points: 3088 Status: Lurker



I agree with the majority of reviews on pitchfork but some
of em I completely disagree with, giving blur - think tank a
9.0...Id give it like a 5.5, it has no flow and half the
tracks are weak, oh well. Its just one person's opinion
against another and I can't see how some of you can say
pitchfork has "bad taste." Since when were you(not talking
of anyone specifically) the know it all of what music is
good. A person can't have good or bad taste in music, they
can like\not like certain things but its not good or bad.
Of course people can be more open about what music they like
but thats for a different topic. On another note, I also
disagree that they praise all trendy bands, thats really not
true, they usually hammer the bands that are trendy and they
do review a lot of interesting and unique albums. And of
course they don't review everything because its literallt
impossible to. thats enough for me for now.


 

offline Ophecks from Nova Scotia (Canada) on 2003-05-24 08:43 [#00712763]
Points: 19190 Status: Moderator | Show recordbag



Their review of Pet Sounds is FUCKING AWFUL. I am willing to
personally beat the fudge out of whoever wrote it.


 

offline LeCoeur from the outer edge of the universe (United States) on 2003-10-23 23:14 [#00916040]
Points: 8249 Status: Lurker | Followup to Ophecks: #00712763



*watches you tear'em apart*


 


Messageboard index