[uhler]

Originally Posted by pbradley

I stopped giving reading pitchfork reviews when I read that review of some Animal Collective album and it was all expressionist dreamscape shit. And a rating number. Pitchfork just feels like it is run by a collection of art history majors to me which is what really puts me off.

my thoughts exactly

[✌➬]

After much thought I read it every once in a while, just to know what music is out there at the moment.

[pbradley]

Yes, but they're news section is pretty good.

[batreleaser]

pitchfork does not emphasize music i love, over the past couple years theres only been a handful of bands whom theyve championed that ive enjoyed. no age, liars, deerhunter, animal collective, panda bear, etc... but shit, there ablums of the year? besides panda bear getting it this year; interpol, the knife, the rapture, etc... this is also the website that gave 'source tags and codes' a 10 and gave 'nyc ghosts and flowers' a 0. yes, i read pitchfork for news, tour updates, etc. but their reviews are verrrry dodgy. i mean, the bands their close with, like les safy fav for example, will always get an 8, even when they out out shit like that record last year. im not elitist, just skeptical.

[gmku]

Sometimes I like Pitchfork, sometimes I don't. Sometimes I agree with them, sometimes I don't. Sometimes I find their reviews and articles very informative and helpful, sometimes I don't.

I guess I'm of two minds about Pitchfork.

[pbradley]

Yeah, Pitchfork can be either down to earth and helpful or la-la land art culture wank.

[Everyneurotic]

i really don't care for pitchfork, just as i don't care about rolling stone. i really just stopped reading it altogether, even thru news section, i eventually find out about what they say from other places.

and it's not because i think i'm cooler than thou or because i disagree with them; my actually problem with pitchfork is a) their function is to be fashion setters and b) their reviews hardly mention the music within the discs they review; really read them, perhaps two lines talk about the music. i just thought "why bother?" really, i don't give too mcuh thought about pitchfork.

original post idea for this thread: pitchfork had credibility?

[batreleaser]

Originally Posted by Everyneurotic

i really don't care for pitchfork, just as i don't care about rolling stone. i really just stopped reading it altogether, even thru news section, i eventually find out about what they say from other places.

and it's not because i think i'm cooler than thou or because i disagree with them; my actually problem with pitchfork is a) their function is to be fashion setters and b) their reviews hardly mention the music within the discs they review; really read them, perhaps two lines talk about the music. i just thought "why bother?" really, i don't give too mcuh thought about pitchfork.

original post idea for this thread: pitchfork had credibility?

thank you! i was seriously fucking shocked people jumped on me for dissing pitchfork.

[atsonicpark]

Rob, I don't listen to almost anything "obscure". Go to last.fm and look up some of the bands I like -- tens of thousands/hundreds of thousands of listens from only last.fm users. That's hardly obscure. I just listen to shit that doesn't always have the Thurston Moore seal of approval, which is required for 80% of this board to bother with a band.

Last.fm has really actually opened my eyes regarding the popularity of bands... Magik Markers have about 100,000 plays... that's actually really noteworthy and amazing when you consider the kind of stuff they're doing... Wolf Eyes has about 275,000 plays... granted, a lot of the plays may be by the same people but still. Pretty nuts.

Also... Glice, my point wasn't that they shouldn't cover sun City Girls at all -- my point is, why do they bother? The only albums they've reviewed are those three reissues and a Carnival Folklore Ressurection release (which was limited to like 400 copies)... when they've had a brand new singles collection released last month that pitchfork hasn't even bothered reviewing. I don't understand why they review Kanye West and shit like that, you know, literally reviewing "everything" to appear to be the be-all/end-all source of music, and then they just kinda roughly cover stuff like SCG... why even bother reviewing a reissued soundtrack when there have a recent more noteworthy album that they could be reviewing?

[SYRFox]

Originally Posted by atsonicpark

I just listen to shit that doesn't always have the Thurston Moore seal of approval, which is required for 80% of this board to bother with a band.

I'm sure you're wrong on this. Just because people listen to Be Your Own Pet or Awesome Color or whatever doesn't mean they're stupid bitches that only listens to what Thurston listens.

Surely if you like a label, you will tend to listen to the bands on this label (for instance, I really am into loads of bands on The Social Registry - Gang Gang Dance, Psychic Ills, Telepathe, Blood On The Wall, Artanker Convoy, Ghost Exits... - or Paw Tracks - Animal Collective and solo related stuff, Black Dice and solo related stuff like that Eric Copeland album, Excepter, Tickley Feather..., so I sure want to discover more bands on that label), and as Thurston owns Ecstatic, it's logical to find people that listen predominently to the music that gets released on Ecstatic Peace, just as you find people that listen to music on Social Registry or SKINGRAFT or Touch & Go or 4AD or whatever. There is probably a largest proportion of Ecstatic Peace worshippers there as you're on a Sonic Youth board, that's logical.

But just because people like music that gets out on Ecstatic Peace doesn't mean they're just listening to music that has Thurston approval... What you're doing is basically provocation.
Me listening to a lot of music on Paw Tracks doesn't mean at all that I only listen to music that has Avey Tare or Panda Bear approval, see.

[atsonicpark]

Okay, sure, but that wasn't really my point. If Thurston loves a band and talks about them, a lot of people here will check it out.. and NOT check out a band that he doesn't ever mention. I mean, I'm stating the obvious, but still... and I know what you're saying, but this doesn't just include stuff on his label. It's no big deal, I just think a lot of good music gets overlooked in favor of some awful bullshit. I mean, we don't have the time to listen to everything, right?

But yeah, my tastes AREN'T that obscure, maybe just obscure to some of the people on here. No biggy.

Oh, and Ex-Models rule! Glad to see you're listening to them. On "Other Mathematics", there are quite a few lyrical nods to Gang of Four which I find interesting. Great band.

[SYRFox]

Agreed about Ex Models, they rule. Still haven't checked Other Mathematics but I will. I'm listening to Pterodactyl right now and they're great as well

[Rob Instigator]

Originally Posted by atsonicpark

Rob, I don't listen to almost anything "obscure". Go to last.fm and look up some of the bands I like -- tens of thousands/hundreds of thousands of listens from only last.fm users. That's hardly obscure. I just listen to shit that doesn't always have the Thurston Moore seal of approval, which is required for 80% of this board to bother with a band.

Last.fm has really actually opened my eyes regarding the popularity of bands... Magik Markers have about 100,000 plays... that's actually really noteworthy and amazing when you consider the kind of stuff they're doing... Wolf Eyes has about 275,000 plays... granted, a lot of the plays may be by the same people but still. Pretty nuts.

you know that those 100,000 plays are just from maybe 20 thousand people? and that many of them heard just the beginning and turned it off and it is counted as a PLAY?

that is EXTREMELY obscure

no matter how much you say otherwise, wolf eyes, magik marker sand all those bands are EXTREMELY obscure, if you lok at music in general man. I can guarantee you that wolf eyes have yet to sell more than 100 thousand of ANYTHING. and that is giving them some leeway too man.

Let alone credibility, but when did pitchfork have any reliable writing on it? When? Eh? You tell me.

[atsonicpark]

Yeah, but that's ONLY last.fm users that have heard it. If you think about who isn't using last.fm and who's heard that stuff (probably double or triple the amonut of people who have last.fm accounts), it is quite a lot... when you consider the kind of music it is.

[Rob Instigator]

I agree, but to say it is not obscure is a very big exageration my man.
nearly every singl ting that people on this forum love to listen to is obscure, by the general musical taste of the regular people around us.

and most of us here at sonic forum listen to quite a lot of stuff that is obscure to the rest of us here!

[atsonicpark]

I guess what defines obscure to me is different than to you. I like a few things, Darth Vegas and stuff, from Australia, and some Japanese stuff that no one here knows, but if it's American and... well, when almost any band is a soulseek download away, it just doesn't seem obscure to me. But I see your point.

[Rob Instigator]

the key words there are "TO YOU" you know?
obviously anyone who shares your musical taste will know about those bands and musical acts, but that is the maybe half a percent of the population that shares your musical tastes. That is by definition obscure.

[Rob Instigator]

and again, a soulseek download means nothing. I coudl put a recording of myself farting on soulseek and someone is gonna download it.

[uhler]

yeah people downloaded my shitty electronic music off of me on soulseek.