TMT forever...

Haha everytime P4K is brought up it usually becomes an argument over who hates/likes them. They're fun to hate and to be honest I've been involved in some of that discussion as well.

P4K does have a purpose and I'm probably taking back all my criticisms of them since it's generally based on hating a few of their reviews.

They serve a purpose, in bringing to light some bands based on a review. Look at the Black Kids and the Fleet Foxes look like another band they are going to push.

I've come to realize that I tend to like the bands that get mediocre P4K reviews - typically the ones that get 7-8 - more than the super rave ones. For example, I'm really diggin' MGMT, but not so much Atlas Sound. Maybe I just have plebeian tastes. At any rate, I find P4K useful.

quote:

Originally posted by Moses, R.M.:
... I'm just saying that many on this site are claiming to like things completely independent of what p4k said about it, and i'm calling bullshit on those people. While I do find this board to made up of intelligent people, I don't agree that anyone here could write more eloquent, subversive, or witty reviews of albums than p4k does. Posters to this board owe a lot more credit to p4k for formulating their "taste" than they want to admit and give credit for. I'll admit, I've listened to some p4k recommendations 15 times and thought, "i don't get it" or "they are trying to be soooo under the surface indie here and it's annoying"...but i find that to be the vast minoirty of the situations. Keeping up with pitchfork gives you some indie cred, not the other way around. Pitchfork isn't so popular that you need to rally against it to prove your indie coolness. It is a site designed to help, it does, and you all like it, so just fucking admit it.

You don't happen to write for pitchfork do you?

To the post above, no, i don't write for pitchfork. I don't consider myself an apologist of them either. I'm still stewing over a 6.8 for Elephant, a very base and shallow review of Fiona's When the Pawn..., their treatment of the Shins and Wilco's last record was uncalled for. That's just naming a few. I'm just saying, they stay ahead of the scene, give me good info (love Fleet Foxes, now who can honestly say they KNEW about them before p4k?) and write "interesting to read interviews". Ok. That's all i'm saying. That, and some of you like them and read them more than you let on. Big deal.

Now, when JGlass said, "Burial was huge before p4k got to them, it was the most anticipated Dubstep release of the year"...well, i had to laugh. Maybe for you. Maybe for the super small contingency who knew what dubstep was and liked it before 2007....but i like indie rock. ok. maybe you don't. Maybe you like IDM or such bullshit, but my point is...a bunch of p4k readers didn't know what "dubstep" or Burial was before p4k introduced them. So therefore, they are enlightening an already critical community of listeners to "come over here and check this out". How could this ever be bad? Pitchfork is just fine in their timely coverage of albums and "staying ahead". Yeah, I've had the new Destroyer for months, p4k hasn't reviewed it, so what? You are not cooler for possessing albums before p4k enlightens everyone to their score and critical opinion.

I'd simply say they get it right 80% of the time. Arcade Fire wouldn't be as big without them. Dan Bejar wouldn't be as big without them. The list goes on. CYHSY, The Knife....

quote:

Originally posted by Moses, R.M.:
(love Fleet Foxes, now who can honestly say they KNEW about them before p4k?) and write "interesting to read interviews". Ok. That's all i'm saying. That, and some of you like them and read them more than you let on. Big deal.

I can say I knew them before p4k. Nobody reads my blog but I was recommended them by another Seattle band that I really dug (Siberian). White Winter Hymnal was a track on my top 50 songs of 2007.

When I posted about the Fleet Foxes here at the time there was only one website who covered the Fleet Foxes extensively which was Three Imaginary Girls.

quote:

Originally posted by Moses, R.M.:
Now, when JGlass said, "Burial was huge before p4k got to them, it was the most anticipated Dubstep release of the year"...well, i had to laugh. Maybe for you. Maybe for the super small contingency who knew what dubstep was and liked it before 2007....but i like indie rock. ok. maybe you don't. Maybe you like IDM or such bullshit, but my point is...a bunch of p4k readers didn't know what "dubstep" or Burial was before p4k introduced them. So therefore, they are enlightening an already critical community of listeners to "come over here and check this out". How could this ever be bad? Pitchfork is just fine in their timely coverage of albums and "staying ahead". Yeah, I've had the new Destroyer for months, p4k hasn't reviewed it, so what? You are not cooler for possessing albums before p4k enlightens everyone to their score and critical opinion.

Now, if you'd go and read the p4k bashing thread, you will see that I thank them for introducing me to a lot of music when I was getting started. They were a great tool... but it gets to the point where some people outgrow the music that Pitchfork covers. This is the point I've gotten to. There are a lot of people on the forums here that don't just stick to indie rock and indie folk which is what Pitchfork mainly covers; the people like that have gone off to different sites and also go it alone (I mainly don't read reviews anymore, I know what I'm looking for).

So, like I said, you don't know us from Adam, so don't start throwing around bullshit about how we constantly read their site and blah blah blah.

P.S. When I said "don't be mad because we have more indie cred than you" I was just kidding.

I agree that I'm insulting a faceless population as I don't personally know any of you fine people, including you JGlass, so no harm intended. However, if there is a "pitchfork bashing thread", then I make the case that the overall feeling of the board is that Pitchfork sucks blah blah blah. That is what I rally against. This notion that a good 3/4 of the board dislikes pitchfork's reviews or attitude and then nearly all of p4k's top 50 albums of the year NEARLY match those of Metacritic board users, then i raise a flag of dishonesty and poseur-ism. I can agree that my taste is pretty mainstream as far as my enjoyment of indie rock and some board members delve deeper in genres I have no clue about.

JGlass, can you link me this "pitchfork bashing thread"? I'd like to read it.

The search function is your best bet.

Every time pitchfork is mentioned it becomes people bashing, people defending, compromising, bashing again, etc. etc. etc.

They manage to be extremely divisive.

And regarding the metacritic list:
What do you expect? They were far from the first major site to give those albums stellar reviews. Pitchfork focuses mainly on the reviews that a lot of people are already expecting. There will br a Crystal Castles review in the next week on p4k giving the album an 8.3-8.8. The bloggers get to the albums they review months prior.

quote:

Originally posted by Moses, R.M.:
This notion that a good 3/4 of the board dislikes pitchfork's reviews or attitude and then nearly all of p4k's top 50 albums of the year NEARLY match those of Metacritic board users, then i raise a flag of dishonesty and poseur-ism.

I'm going to have to raise a flag of cum hoc ergo propter hoc here. You are right that Pitchfork is momentously influential in the indie rock scene, but it's not like they are the only indie music review source in town. Even though I don't visit the site or read their reviews it is plausible, even likely, that many of the albums "they" liked and hyped up coincided with albums that I too enjoy and made my best of list(s). This does not necessitate that these albums were considered 'good' or popular SOLELY, or hell even largely, because pitchfork liked them. Give the artists and their music some credit here.

Perhaps if it was a band that Pitchfork broke ground on then it made it's way to lowly me via proxy or what not. So in some distant way Pitchfork may likely have an influence on my musical exposure and preferences. However, I don't think that this means I should have to worship the site and conform to its standards, let alone not be allowed to criticize the fork for its flaws. Sure the site, due to its popularity, may be an unfairly easy target but I can tell you honestly that I don't secretly love it. Or is pitchfork so great and impervious to criticism that anyone who dislikes it is lying to themselves?

Okay I'm a tool, but where is this online TV channel? It's not the same as the "forkcast," is it?

quote:

Originally posted by musicfanatic:
Okay I'm a tool, but where is this online TV channel? It's not the same as the "forkcast," is it?

I linked to the story in the original post of this thread. April 7. http://pitchfork.tv

As for the P4k bashing, it just comes down to people wanting to look cool. There's no other reason for it, as far as I can tell. It's like a rite of passage to show how "indie" you really are.

quote:

Originally posted by ezatldude:

quote:

Originally posted by musicfanatic:
Okay I'm a tool, but where is this online TV channel? It's not the same as the "forkcast," is it?

I linked to the story in the original post of this thread. April 7. http://pitchfork.tv

As for the P4k bashing, it just comes down to people wanting to look cool. There's no other reason for it, as far as I can tell. It's like a rite of passage to show how "indie" you really are.

Ah, thought it was March 7th. Makes sense now

back to the original topic....

i kind of think that pitchfork is losing their focus and their journalistic integrity. (whether you thought they had any integrity to begin with is another discussion.) when they started out, it was just reviews and some news/features. now it's the forkast, music festival and this movie site. it definitely seems like a conflict of interest that they are pimping all these bands that just so happen to be playing at their festival and will be showing up on their video site.

yes, the movie site sounds really cool and the festival last summer was tons of fun, but it's really hard to take their reviews as seriously when they are using them to sell tickets.

quote:

Originally posted by jimbo:
back to the original topic....

i kind of think that pitchfork is losing their focus and their journalistic integrity. (whether you thought they had any integrity to begin with is another discussion.) when they started out, it was just reviews and some news/features. now it's the forkast, music festival and this movie site. it definitely seems like a conflict of interest that they are pimping all these bands that just so happen to be playing at their festival and will be showing up on their video site.

yes, the movie site sounds really cool and the festival last summer was tons of fun, but it's really hard to take their reviews as seriously when they are using them to sell tickets.

Jim DeRogatis did an interview with Ryan Schreiber that touched on the same concerns as you. Here it is

Yippee! 600 posts! Guru status! And only 3 years to reach it, lol.

Wait, wait. Back up a second.

Was I supposed to like or not like Fleet Foxes?

So it launched today. Call me a lemming or something, but I'm really enjoying it. There isn't a lot of commentary or anything, it's mostly just highlighting the bands.

The Documentary about the Pixies reunion is great.

It is really great, good quality and interesting stuff.

I wrote my last post after only watching half of the Pixies documentary. I now think it was "Amazing" rather than just "Great".

And the Pitchfork job interviews after it were pretty funny.