[imo] Pitchfork | xltronic messageboard
 
You are not logged in!

F.A.Q
Log in

Register
  
 
  
 
(nobody)
...and 307 guests

Last 5 registered
Oplandisks
nothingstar
N_loop
yipe
foxtrotromeo

Browse members...
  
 
Members 8025
Messages 2614114
Today 0
Topics 127542
  
 
Messageboard index
[imo] Pitchfork
 

offline acrid milk hall from United Kingdom on 2004-06-24 09:52 [#01254333]
Points: 2916 Status: Lurker



the NME being the perfect example of this.

thats the kind of journalism i find so pitiful - when they
build someone unknown up, massively overhyping them. quite a
lot of people take the nme's opinions seriously - so it's
not long before the artist gets airplay, makes mtv & ends up
in all kinds of other mags. just as the hype is at its peak
& the band release their next album, nme turn on them,
accusing them of 'selling out'.
such a crass & unfair tactic



 

offline qrter from the future, and it works (Netherlands, The) on 2004-06-24 11:16 [#01254424]
Points: 47414 Status: Moderator | Followup to DeadEight: #01253999



oh everyone full well knows it's just opinion, but does it
have to be worded in such an awful way?

some of the worst writing I have ever seen is on that site.


 

offline earthleakage from tell the world you're winning on 2004-06-24 11:25 [#01254441]
Points: 27795 Status: Regular | Followup to qrter: #01254424



i wonder what pitchfork think about this site :)


 

offline hobbes from age on 2004-06-24 11:45 [#01254506]
Points: 8168 Status: Lurker



for acrid milk hall [#01253815]

oh right you know some people! super!

i maintain what i say, and the fact that i said
"mostly"....



 

offline qrter from the future, and it works (Netherlands, The) on 2004-06-24 11:46 [#01254507]
Points: 47414 Status: Moderator | Followup to earthleakage: #01254441



ha ha!

we can only imagine.. :)


 

offline Ophecks from Nova Scotia (Canada) on 2004-06-24 11:46 [#01254508]
Points: 19190 Status: Moderator | Show recordbag



The quote that will always stand out in my mind goes a bit
like this- Warp artists are the pirates that wear golden
eyepatches and bionic hooks and babysit your children, or
something like that. It was in some Plaid review, and I
couldn't make hide nor hair of it then or now.


 

offline earthleakage from tell the world you're winning on 2004-06-24 11:55 [#01254528]
Points: 27795 Status: Regular



i love reading pretentious claptrap if only to say it IS
pretentious claptrap! :)


 

offline DeadEight from vancouver (Canada) on 2004-06-24 22:24 [#01255341]
Points: 5437 Status: Regular | Followup to Ophecks: #01254508



what's not to get? i remember when that review came up and
everyone here was all up in arms like it was the most
confusing thing in the universe... sure the conceit might be
absolutely absurd, but it's also kinda funny...


 

offline happy cycling from berlin on 2004-06-24 23:01 [#01255382]
Points: 2786 Status: Regular



i really dislike, as a general rule, top-down critical
writing on music. it bores me half to death. when i read it,
i skim, and it's purely a means to an end (discovering new
music) rather than an enjoyable activity in and of itself.
that said, i visit pitchfork every couple of days, and
download some of the stuff that sounds interesting, and i've
discovered a lot of good music this way.. their notwist -
neon golden review got me into morr music and lali puna and
other artists i now really like, for one example. i don't
agree or disagree with their scores, methodology or
perceived pretentiousness.. i just don't care for it. i skim
through it like it's newspaper headlines.

for music discussion, i much prefer xltronic-time musings,
because they aren't, for the most part, trying to deny the
subjectivity of impressions and/or trying to cloak them as
absolute truths. it's just a bunch of people sharing music
experiences and some smiles.


 

offline DeadEight from vancouver (Canada) on 2004-06-25 00:23 [#01255461]
Points: 5437 Status: Regular



what do you mean when you say "top-down"? i'm sorry, i've
heard the expression before... i really shouldn't have to
ask... it's just that i'm stupid...

...did i ever mention how much i hate playing the role of
the pitchfork apologist here? i go to much more snobby
websites to find most stuff these days... :P


 

offline acrid milk hall from United Kingdom on 2004-06-25 04:11 [#01255677]
Points: 2916 Status: Lurker | Followup to hobbes: #01254506



err..

no need to be a cunt about it.. MATE

maintain all you like - based on my experience (which is all
we can do in these circumstances), your post was a massive
generalisation based on.. err.. nothing


 

offline hobbes from age on 2004-06-25 18:01 [#01256537]
Points: 8168 Status: Lurker



ok then MATE

didn't want to come across like that

maybe i was a bit to general in what i said but honestly i
didn't say that out of nowhere.
but sure, there are loads of journalists out there who do
not even "dabble" should i say, in music. yes i generalized
a tad.

and as for saying:

"...your post was a massive generalisation based on.. err..
nothing..."

how the absolute fuck do you know that?

the "nothing" bit i would describe also as "cuntish".

:) (:



 

offline acrid milk hall from United Kingdom on 2004-06-26 05:39 [#01256781]
Points: 2916 Status: Lurker | Followup to hobbes: #01256537



that's why i said it. ;)
solely because you didn't seem prepared to back up what
you'd said with any more than opinion - which is essentially
what journalists do.

i'm well aware that there are plenty of failed musicians who
take on journalism as a way of excorcising their demons.
their own music was so bad they try and carve a living out
of slating everyone elses hard work. they think they can
make & break people's careers based on their narrowminded
sayso..

a few years back i'd have even generalised as you did and
say that it was more or less everyone.

but in the last few years i've made some good friends who
are striving to pass constructive comment on the music they
love (in a more organised forum than this messageboard).
they're not failed musicians (and nor am i; as i've
gradually become more involved in this kind of work) and
they're well aware that what they say is only their
opinion.
everyone sounds off about the things they experience, it's
just that these people do it in a public forum.. the
finished artefact is only ever intended as a talking point:
an introduction to the uninitiated (we all have to start
somewhere), and a source of controversy for the veterans.

like i say, i can only speak for myself and the people i
know.

i just find it damaging to tar whole cross-sections of
people with the same brush.. under any circumstance.


 

offline hobbes from age on 2004-06-26 06:46 [#01256822]
Points: 8168 Status: Lurker



i thought in my previous post i admitted to over
generalising and i thought you got what i meant...... but
no, you're still on about me "tarring whole cross-sections
of people with the same brush.."

you seem to be trying to make a point with "experience"...i
could start but i just dont feel i have to explain my past
and present life on here.. wich you might think you have by
saying you have "mates" and stuff....... but yeah i was
hasty, it's fucking obvious it doesn't apply for all....
sigh.. yawn...pisss

but one last time just in case :

I OVER GENERALIZED AND I AM VERY SORRY



 

offline weltact from Taiwan on 2004-06-26 07:02 [#01256831]
Points: 1258 Status: Regular



i think pitchfork is one very serious and professional
e-zine, as far as music journalism goes..

in fact, i cant find a better one online...


 

offline JAroen from the pineal gland on 2004-06-26 10:10 [#01256899]
Points: 16065 Status: Regular | Followup to qrter: #01254424



not to mention the humor...


 

offline acrid milk hall from United Kingdom on 2004-06-26 11:34 [#01256943]
Points: 2916 Status: Lurker | Followup to hobbes: #01256822



no need to take it so seriously..

and less of the inverted commas please, i might start to
think you were being sarcastic.

;P


 

offline JAroen from the pineal gland on 2004-06-26 11:51 [#01256948]
Points: 16065 Status: Regular



yeah "right"


 

offline hobbes from age on 2004-06-26 16:58 [#01257213]
Points: 8168 Status: Lurker



hey acrid i was only answering back.

i'm pretty sure none of us took this seriously but when i'm
on here i can get bored and it seemed appropriate to answer
someone who is adressing me something.

:)




 

offline acrid milk hall from United Kingdom on 2004-06-26 17:17 [#01257223]
Points: 2916 Status: Lurker



ok.
fine.
no worries.
let's forget about it, eh?
it's not that important.

:)


 

offline hobbes from age on 2004-06-26 17:41 [#01257233]
Points: 8168 Status: Lurker



HAHA
you carry on with a "tone" implying i am taking this all
serious and you aren't.

why am i writing? coz i am bored and i dont think it's
important .

we just had a little conversation so why come across as a
tit and post [#01257223?

it's actually more of a laught to me, as it is to you but
then why the presumptuous tone?

if you honestly say i am paranoid in my interpretation
then i owe you one! :)

last one i promise, i'm sure this is tedious or something
to you but it shouldn't... yet i'm probably coming across
as an arsehole while desperatly trying not to.
but i must insist: " a bored arsehole"



 

offline hobbes from age on 2004-06-26 18:27 [#01257291]
Points: 8168 Status: Lurker



no in fact i just read the thread again and i think you are
the arsehole.
saying that i base my words on er...nothing. that i
generalise and most importantly that you know better as you
have mates and stuff.

me replying to these attacks then leads into me being a
cunt, even though i agree with you on having been a bit
harsh.

i stll wanna have my say but then suddenly none of this
matters and i should shut my trap or otherwise come across
as the weepy guy who takes things to
importantly.........when really all i'm doing is
replying...
so i take this as all rather insulting, MATE.
and before you say i take this way too seriously, i dont!
i have a laugh posting, dont we all?


 


Messageboard index