Pitchfork

Anteater · 11-12-2008, 01:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dac

Oh boy... I can already here the anti-hipsters screaming

How now brown cow!!!

dac · 11-12-2008, 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brad Stengel

Haha, Journey found its way in there.

Good list other than that, It's suppossed to be a sort of alternative to the boomer-Rolling Stone/VH1 lists that glorifies the same crap every time, and I think it does a good job.

Any list that contains "Welcome to the Jungle" is bad in my book.

It was nice to see some love for "Life in a Glass House" though.

~~Farfisa~~ · 11-12-2008, 03:45 PM

There's alot of good and bad in that list but, hey... it's pitchfork.

Rainard Jalen · 11-12-2008, 10:19 PM

for heaven's sake. it's just another body of opinion, and one that probably at any rate represents the alternative community in general a lot better than most other lists presently in existence (e.g. Rolling Stone etc). obviously nobody's going to agree with everything in it. that does NOT make it a 'shit list'.

Anti-Christ · 11-12-2008, 11:16 PM

Only an idiot would pay money for that. It pisses me off to think people will actually buy it.

Son of JayJamJah · 11-13-2008, 12:25 AM

Never heard of it until I started here. It's a fairly ridiculous site, I can see why so few people hold their opinions with much gravity.

lucifer_sam · 11-13-2008, 01:02 AM

Pitchfork is unique in that it attempts to incorporate absolutely no objectivity in writing reviews. They are not the worst by a long shot -- but they are not a place I would look to find well-written or impartial reviews.

Rainard Jalen · 11-13-2008, 05:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JayJamJah

Never heard of it until I started here. It's a fairly ridiculous site, I can see why so few people hold their opinions with much gravity.

But that's simply not the case. The fact is that there is no other review site within the indie community at large whose opinions are held with MORE gravity. Pitchfork are extremely influential and, whether one loves them or hates them, there can be no absolutely understating their chiefly importance in terms of being arbiters of taste in the indie world at all.

Quote:

Pitchfork is unique in that it attempts to incorporate absolutely no objectivity in writing reviews. They are not the worst by a long shot -- but they are not a place I would look to find well-written or impartial reviews.

I feel that's a large aspect of their appeal. They are simply SO partisan, SO dogged, SO elitist, SO cooler-and-indier-than-thou, that people began to feel the urge to be as "cool" as them and proceeded to fanatically cling to every opinion they ever put out. On the flipside, it is that exact same reason why they're so hated, AND why the people that hate them which such venom still check up on their latest review scores religiously - if for no other reason than to add additional fuel to their loathing.

Pitchfork is an instance of modern internet marketing at its very cleverest and finest. Spark controversy, fuel outrage, and you're bound to get attention.

I also think that a large number of indie sites on the web probably owe their very existence to Pitchfork.

Positive or otherwise, its impact on the alternative music world from an internet fan perspective is virtually unparalleled...imho.

kthedrummer · 11-13-2008, 06:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rainard Jalen

for heaven's sake. it's just another body of opinion, and one that probably at any rate represents the alternative community in general a lot better than most other lists presently in existence (e.g. Rolling Stone etc). obviously nobody's going to agree with everything in it. that does NOT make it a 'shit list'.

Even if they made it the top million songs I would still bitch about it.

Anteater · 11-13-2008, 08:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rainard Jalen

But that's simply not the case. The fact is that there is no other review site within the indie community at large whose opinions are held with MORE gravity. Pitchfork are extremely influential and, whether one loves them or hates them, there can be no absolutely understating their chiefly importance in terms of being arbiters of taste in the indie world at all.

I'm in full agreement here. They're Indie's Rolling Stone. = /

Quote:

I feel that's a large aspect of their appeal. They are simply SO partisan, SO dogged, SO elitist, SO cooler-and-indier-than-thou, that people began to feel the urge to be as "cool" as them and proceeded to fanatically cling to every opinion they ever put out. On the flipside, it is that exact same reason why they're so hated, AND why the people that hate them which such venom still check up on their latest review scores religiously - if for no other reason than to add additional fuel to their loathing.

Pitchfork is an instance of modern internet marketing at its very cleverest and finest. Spark controversy, fuel outrage, and you're bound to get attention.

I also think that a large number of indie sites on the web probably owe their very existence to Pitchfork.

Positive or otherwise, its impact on the alternative music world from an internet fan perspective is virtually unparalleled...imho.

True, but don't you find the whole thing kind of pathetic? Instead of seeking out things for themselves, people would rather have someone else (AKA Pitchfork or some other publication) put an opinion in their mouth, followed by brazenly wearing it on their sleeve as evidence that their taste is music is superior to someone elses. It's always been that way I know, but that's no excuse for folks to sit on their asses and rally behind crappy biases. I mean, Christ, where did the desire to learn and experience things for oneself disappear off to? Loving them or hating them isn't even worth the effort involved when you could be listening to something interesting instead.

And finally, I could care less how appealing their approach is to those who indulge themselves in this sort of trash: anyone who writes off King Crimson, ELP, and everything Yes did after Close to the Edge as "grotesque", yet acknowledges such groups' influences on the musicians they adore isn't worth piss in my book.

11-12-2008, 11:16 PM	#65 (permalink)
Anti-Christ Groupie Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Hell, I wish :( Posts: 39	Only an idiot would pay money for that. It pisses me off to think people will actually buy it. __________________ "It's not even important to be remembered"

11-13-2008, 01:02 AM	#67 (permalink)
lucifer_sam Unrepentant Ass-Mod Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Pennsylvania Posts: 3,921	Pitchfork is unique in that it attempts to incorporate absolutely no objectivity in writing reviews. They are not the worst by a long shot -- but they are not a place I would look to find well-written or impartial reviews. __________________ first.am

11-12-2008, 03:45 PM	#63 (permalink)
~~Farfisa~~ Account Disabled Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 2,773	There's alot of good and bad in that list but, hey... it's pitchfork.

11-12-2008, 10:19 PM	#64 (permalink)
Rainard Jalen Music Addict Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 2,221	for heaven's sake. it's just another body of opinion, and one that probably at any rate represents the alternative community in general a lot better than most other lists presently in existence (e.g. Rolling Stone etc). obviously nobody's going to agree with everything in it. that does NOT make it a 'shit list'.