 |
|
You are not logged in! F.A.Q Log in Register |
 |
|
 |
 Now online (2)belb recycle ...and 162 guests Last 5 registered Oplandisks nothingstar N_loop yipe foxtrotromeo Browse members... |
 |
Members 8025Messages 2614110 Today 7 Topics 127542 |
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Based on my limited knowledge of Rolling Stone interviews, musicians are beset by mounds of corrupt execs, massive mergers, treasonous KaZaA-crazy toddlers, and the aesthetic discomfort of the new $20 bill. As if those mattered. All those afflictions were dropped into Malibu and Bel-Air by the CIA in the mid-80s to distract them from the actual problem: Warp Records. When will people learn? Between Autechre and Aphex Twin alone, this simple and poorly worded aphorism should have been memorized by kindergartners: If you have a new song, DO NOT send it to Warp. Wave after wave of demos and masters are quickly deposited in the clammy hands of madmen. If the original artists are a song's parents, Warp remixers are those babysitters with gold eyepatches, tracks down their arms, fu-manchus, and babies speared on meat hooks in the basement. - from pitchforkmedia.com's review of Plaid's "Parts in the Post" what? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
haha i wouldn't send a demo to a label that released "empty the bones of you" but thats just me i like warp a few years ago - like 3 or 4 mmmm |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
that must be some good shit that man is on...I want his dealers cell number. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
that must be some good shit that man is on...I want his dealers cell number. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
ah pitchfork weakly strikes again. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
They arnt very good lol |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Warp remixers are those babysitters with gold eyepatches wtf? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
yeah, I didn't much understand that... so, did they like the release or what? I sometimes find that with Pitchfork... they can have cool, different reviews which are interesting to read, but sometimes I can't even understand what the hell they're talking about... and if it's even related to the release the review is supposed to be about... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
is he saying that if you send them a demo they'll fuck with it and trample on your artistic vision just to make money? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Yeah, just like babysitters with golden eyepatches do. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
*looks blank* |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
money hungry corporate power mongers looking over your creations... i think i understand the comparison he's trying to make, but it's not very clear... and, at least from this little snippet, i would say he'd need to back it up with some examples. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
roflmao! just had to use that nerdy thing hahahaha o my god .. pitchfork sucks so bad.. if music is a parent then they are babysitters with golden eyepatches damn i hate those gonzos |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Most of that review is yet more of Pitchfork's pontificating nonsense. I'm glad they gave it a good score (although praising the Nicolette remixes in any form is a mistake) but why are they reviewing it now when it came out, what, six months ago? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
that would be neat if warp remixers manipulated my stuff. neat i tell you! NEAT! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I'll send them where I want thank you very much. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
*goes off to find himself some gold eyepatches* |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I dont get it... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
neitherr do i |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
im gonna send a turd wrapped in a newspaper to the warp hq .. cant wait to listen to the results! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
thats pretty funny :) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
that explains smojphace oh wait that was MEN sorry my mistake |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i think we need to stop wasting our time reading pitchfork.. let's list some good review and news sites: allmusic.com absorb.org themilkfactory.co.uk othermusic.com there's no reason to visit pitchfork.. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
cool, thanks for the links... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
22 We have too many users right now. Please try again in a few seconds. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
allmusicguide never update their artist infos. never. or then they only do it for superbly highprofile artists like, uhh, not a lot of people. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
true, they only update for new when new albums are released, then they only update the discography and nothing else. But its still a good site. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
they just crossed the line from pretentious bullshit to total incomprehensibility. that made no sense at all, and i actually attempted to make sense of it. www.allmusic.com all other music sites suck |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I'm going to keep reading Pitchfork because it's SO BAD. Ironically, I find it really useful though. I often totally disregard their opinions, except for a laugh, and try to eek out some useful information about the albums they review. Like when they compare this to that, or '' it sounds like this''. Because they DO review a ton of shit and they have a purrdy site. And there ARE some good reviews on there that genuinely make me laugh or are quite dead on. But some of the writers think they're like a Bizarro Lester Bangs. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
the kid a review is still one of the most pretentious things i've ever read. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
AMG's artist bios are good but you just have to remember the info you're reading will be outdated by either months or years. that said, the reason i recommend it is mainly for the album reviews. they have a huge staff of true experts who can write really well and don't make their reviews into works of fiction or glamorizations of themselves or their social circle/subculture like pitchfork. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
pitchfork rules. theyre clever enough to get you to talk about the fuckers everyday almost. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
it's sad, isn't it. that's why i said if people just stop going then we can stop wasting our time... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Hehe, yeah, they know what they're doing. And they've got me reading regularly to see what gibberish they'll spill out next. Now I almost get upset if I agree with them. And Allmusic is usually the first place I go to learn about artists, I always spend an hour here or there using the excellent crosslink system, discovering some new shit. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
funny, that was actually a very good review... but when you remove it from context it becomes ripe for pitchfork haters... you won't see that kind of creative intro anywhere else on the web... "oh but wait, he said don't send your demos to warp... how snobby... what a snobby review..." |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
what was so great about it? the majority of it makes no damn sense! speaking for myself alone, i don't hate pitchfork because they're popular with certain crowd, i hate them because they are BAD JOURNALISTS. i read mtvnews.com daily so it's not like i have something against what's popular (and mtv is still popular with most of the world, just not us). |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
oh come on! how is that creative!? it defeats the whole idea of reviewing - I don't want a piece of badly written fiction as an intro to a review - I just want the review! drop the bullshit! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
it's not bullshit... it's a creative response to the music... what about coming up with some extended metaphor is bullshit? would you rather some academic dissected it like a dead animal? (frankly i don't mind either technique) i hate having to advocate for pitchfork, because frankly, i'm more pissed off with them right now than i've ever been... but there's a difference between being angry at a reviewer for seeming less concerned with the music, than whether or not it is trendy and decidedly cool to like/dislike and being pissed off at the reviewer for attempting a creative response to the music... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
this has nothing to do with trends or whatever. I don't want an extended metaphore - I want to know what the reviewer thought of the music. that's all. I do not need it. this really is NOT creative writing - lots of music magazines have reviewers who write crap like that. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
as a creative concept it fails. it's muddled logically and just not entertaining. i've read some amusing reviews on pitchfork and that isn't one of them. it is a piece of crap review. a lot of their self-indulgent, self-obsessed, faux experimental reviews fail miserably in their execution if not design. they're wannabe lester bangs like jay said. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Admit it, it's a crap review. who ever did the review is trying to flex his literary muscles but it doesn't work. I'd prefer someone to say it's shit or nice over that tripe. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
it is a response to the music: the image evoked in the mind of the reviewer by the music is one of a shady looking fellow from the docks babysitting the music.... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Ok so why don't people send demos to warp again ? TV was my babysitter ... and it shows : ) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I've read some cool reviews on pitchfork though... one was this weird review remix or something... some of their reviews are just too hard to follow though... I usually just check pitchfork to see the scores they give to certain albums, rather then reading the review... Allmusic.com is the best though... it's my main reference for music reviews and such... whenever I want to read up about a new band or artist, I go there first... I just don't get how they picked lol, that's just wierd!! :) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I agree that it's poorly written. Perhaps I was influenced by the out of context quote here, but when I read the entire article I still thought for a moment that they were hinting that ae/afx just remixed the best demos mailed to warp and released them as their own. Unclear/abstract meaning in writing has its place, but it's not in something like a review that is supposedly factual with room for subjective opinion. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Seems to me all they're saying is that Warp artists are pretty merciless remixers, with the results often having no resemblance to the original, hence the parent remark etc. After lovingly crafting your song, your 'child', Warp artists remix/abuse it beyond all recognition. Seemed like a compliment anyway - don't expect Warp to provide you with radio-friendly remixes to pad out your chart-topping single. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
agreed. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
that's what I think he's going on about. but I'm wondering why this choice of words: "Do not send your new song to Warp." meaning an established artist with a new single (probably) or a new artist with a demo or something. it's all a bit unclear and I think that's the way pitchfork likes it |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
WHO THE FUCK GIVES A SHIT ABOUT REVIEWS?! they fucking suck, even good ones, cause I dont care about someone elses opinion on it, I know if ill like it or not, no matter what anyone ever says. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Seeing as though they're reviewing a remix album of deconstructed established artists' tracks, I'd wager they had established artists in mind when they made that statement. Agreed though - it's a pretty sloppy write-up. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Messageboard index
|
|||||||||
