Alcofribas Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 which is precisely why a grading system makes no fucking sense on their site. just review shit, you know, have a little background, put some shit in context, write some subjective shit about how you cried when the lush pads faded out, mention "chiaroscuro", talk about kraftwerk for a minute, name drop kit, throw around "seminal" and sprinkle in some references to detroit, elephant six, etc. but come on, what exactly is the point of a 9.2 if the organization is made up of different people, with different opinions, all of which is changing through time? this album is 9.2 but this other bloke says its 7.8 and four years from now i'm going to think about this again and give it a 1.11 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sweepstakes Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 They should just have a chart for day-to-day album ratings with little red and green arrows like the NASDAQ. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alcofribas Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 flol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sweepstakes Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 "Disintegration Loops is looking bear today" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Blue Peter Cheat Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 I'm not a big fan of the site but maybe a bit of perspective is needed. Ratings are just a guide for people who don't have the time to listen to every single release and are perhaps a little more casual about music than others (e.g. those who, one way or another, are part of the music industry). It's Pitchfork's target audience and there's really nothing wrong with that. Also, surely everybody realises that the rating is not Pitchfork's rating but the rating of the individual writing the review? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sweepstakes Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 you guys do understand that the same person pretty much never reviews the same record twice there, so of course the rating is gonna change? especially after many years and staff changes? and they revise reviews only when there's reissue. you guys need to get one thing. pitchfork is not ONE DUDE doing all the work. it's SEVERAL PEOPLE. literally hundreds. they DON'T ALWAYS AGREE WITH EACHOTHER. really. it's not some deity, just a really big reviewing site with lots of power. the organization is made up of different people, with different opinions, all of which is changing through time Also, surely everybody realises that the rating is not Pitchfork's rating but the rating of the individual writing the review? What'd you say, Blue Pete? I didn't quite catch that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sweepstakes Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 When they start displaying the reviewer's name in big letters, along with a thumbnail photo of them that expresses their equidistance between extreme coolness, authenticity, and detachment from it all, I will consider this a relevant point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alcofribas Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 pitchfork is just one guy, right? the guy with the mustache? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awepittance Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 I'm not a big fan of the site but maybe a bit of perspective is needed. Ratings are just a guide for people who don't have the time to listen to every single release and are perhaps a little more casual about music than others (e.g. those who, one way or another, are part of the music industry). It's Pitchfork's target audience and there's really nothing wrong with that. Also, surely everybody realises that the rating is not Pitchfork's rating but the rating of the individual writing the review? me thinks the lady doth protest too much Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kinski Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 i'm not really a pitchfork fan, nor an avid reader (or reader at all these last few years), but jesus. you can criticise so many things. relevant things. things tha matter. that they're patronising, they don't seek new artists, instead of following trends they generate them to have it under wraps and always come first with stuff. that hey are very closed minded (like with analords reviews) and million other. and yet all people give a shit about is that they gave 7.9 to an album you think is more 8.3. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alcofribas Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 pitchfork is an asshole. i met him at sean booth's party and he only gave me a 6.6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LimpyLoo Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 pitchfork is an asshole. i met him at sean booth's party and he only gave me a 6.6 did you make him wear a johnny when he gave you "6.6"? *sorry, such a stupid joke* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alcofribas Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DerWaschbar Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain James Mission Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 I really considered ordering this, but then i watched this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zt9OFitCWtg I mean it isn't really that nice, and no 180g Vinyl, WTF. and who gives a mf about pitchfork, anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LimpyLoo Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 Very gross that he put that self-pic in there. Makes him look like the bass player for Roxy Music or some shit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alcofribas Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 yeah, definitely not as cool as Richard d James album covers... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sweepstakes Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 I really considered ordering this, but then i watched this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zt9OFitCWtg "alright, well, it's one of the most amazing things I've seen, um..." "and it's just, it's just, I don't know, it's probably the greatest, like, piece of, like, musical...purchase I've ever done, um..." "this is the companion book...with a nice little thank you card...they better thank me ..." "these look like just the writeups...and of course some photos from...september 11th...what I can assume that is...looks like a video that was...put into frames...oh wow, this is like...fascinating" "wow. I'm just gonna try to get through this fast instead of enjoying it...wow, that's pretty fascinating" "yeah. that's definitely...him upside-down. looking...very...I don't know. something..." lolps Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alcofribas Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 idk, i require a minimum of 175gm vinyl. and if an artist is going to appear on the artwork...he better not look like brian eno Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LimpyLoo Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 Bill Basinski definitely does yoga and past life regression therapy and reiki and probably has a lifetime Loreal discount. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redruth Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 disintegration loo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joshuatxuk Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 pitchfork is just one guy, right? the guy with the mustache? no he's an ex-writer/editor from over 7 years ago and it's a bunch of people, few (if any) of whom were there when it started- actually, yes. yes it's that one guy with the mustache. he's alter-ego wrote the 10.0 review Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Blue Peter Cheat Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 When they start displaying the reviewer's name in big letters, along with a thumbnail photo of them that expresses their equidistance between extreme coolness, authenticity, and detachment from it all, I will consider this a relevant point. Fair enough. me thinks the lady doth protest too much Yep, you got me. I do not have time to listen to every release. I don't even have time to read every review. In fact, I barely read reviews at all. I generally look at the rating given to a release by a number of reviewers and if they are positive enough I check here and see what's being said about it (or vice-versa) and listen to the extracts. I find a lot of Pitchfork reviews to be pretentious rubbish. The only plus I usually take from them is the rating. Then, as mentioned, I can put it with the others and see what the average is. If the gist of an album/ep is positive then I'll give it a spin. If I like it I buy it. I read the reviews in The Quietus and while they can often be informative and enjoyable, they are usually dense and overly long. It annoys me that they do not have a ratings sytem I can immediately skim to and amalgamate. Maybe it's me, maybe I'm too shallow. Or maybe I just don't know enough about music to fully appreciate these reviews. Or maybe I just don't have the time to wade through each one. Maybe I don't care enough and I'm not a music fan at all. Anyway, my point is, leave the ratings alone. I often find them a lot more useful than the words. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brisk Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 Arbitrary numbers are silly. Music is to be listened to, not relegated to a number. Too many journalists, not enough ears. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Dylan Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 i still lol everytime i read the story about him doing this on 9/11 while watching the towers collapsing. It's a wonderful piece of experimental music folklore, worthy of reaching the greatness of the supposedly outlandish Coum Transmission performances that no one ever filmed or photographed. i still love that every time this comes up you voice how incredulous you are about this completely reasonable story. I can't beleive some people think all his stories are real. It's just marketing, those "lost tapes for 20 years found in a closet" LOL cmon! There's just too much "back story" with each new release. At least with Aphex the mythical portion is still bullshit, but fun bullshit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.