Music Banter - The Ultimate Hipster Playlist / Good Albums that Suck Because You Exist

Music Banter (https://www.musicbanter.com/)

- General Music (https://www.musicbanter.com/general-music/)

- - The Ultimate Hipster Playlist / Good Albums that Suck Because You Exist (https://www.musicbanter.com/general-music/33503-ultimate-hipster-playlist-good-albums-suck-because-you-exist.html)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brad Stengel (Post 528209)

I feel like the second most elitist people I encounter on music forums/real life, are pitchfork fans. They tend to have a slight holier than thou attitude, most likely instilled by pitchforks condescending quips on bands that they hate, bands deemed 'uncool'.

However, by far the most elitist group on the interwebs, are the pitchfork haters. The pitchfork haters look down on pitchfork readers, for no other reason than liking records pitchfork does, even though they most likely also own and enjoy the same albums. I really feel as though they resent pitchfork because without it, these great underground "diamond in the rough" bands and albums wouldn't be as popular, and then they could look down their nose at people who havent heard of them. Its almost like they feel pitchfork beat them to the punch, and they're resentful from it. For Chrissakes, its absurd, to take pride in something so insignificant as not reading a music website that is popular among those interested in underground music. The pitchfork hating baffles me, as they're never the only website hyping an album, someone mentioned the 'indie hype machine' awhile back...its all the critics, not just pitchfork. People bitching about music critics is aggravating enough, even when its something like rolling stone, which will give any Hootie and the Blowfish album/rehashed polished up mediocre classic rock album released by a "new" group a blowjob, nevermind when its a music website that heralds the same albums these snobs listen to anyway.

That being said, they, among everyone else, overrated Interpol hardcore. They had some really good melodies, but their sound is far too derivative. Generally in genre "revivals", bands add something different to the previous generations sound. Interpol took a carbon copy of it, and just applied it to a really good record full of songs.

Wow. Someone actually articulated themselves.

Let it be known that this isn't a senseless Pitchfork bashing. Although Pitchfork is one of the largest perpetrators of asinine musical taste (and prejudice), I'm trying to point out that it's not just them. At least half of the albums I'm gonna rail against came out before PF even existed. And most of these are NOT "diamonds in the rough" and certainly Interpol could never qualify as such to begin with.

And actually, I was trying to make a thread that mocked the entire idea of being a hipster. The entire point of this thread is that it's not a great idea to pigeonhole your musical tastes by a collective consciousness. Just wait for later album choices...they might surprise you.

But there will be blood. And soon.

who are the first most elitist?

Quote:

Originally Posted by FaSho (Post 528216)

who are the first most elitist?

See second paragraph. Its people who hate pitchfork and those who read it.

I'm going to come right out here and mention that I read Pitchfork on a pretty regular basis. Is it the end-all, be-all for me? No. But I've found some pretty good music through them over the years.

http://aperifle.sinosplice.com/Pink_...mals-front.jpg

9. Pink Floyd - Animals (1977)

Prior to 1999, Animals was a great album. It has one of the strongest themes in music and represents a huge cry for the victims of industrialization and imperialism. It was released during an era in which people weren't sure when the end would come; Roger Waters' lyrics fall heavily upon politicians in England and across the world, and he used impressive symbolism to deliver the message. Although the album was primarily a work of Waters, Gilmour helped craft the iconoclastic "Dogs" and contributed some of his most expressive guitar work throughout the entire album. Overall, it was a fantastic album, and this alone could have immortalized Pink Floyd in the annals of musical history. And I love it.

But between its release and the new millennium, there wasn't much hype for Animals. Yes, it sold well. It achieved a peak position of #2 on the US Billboard charts and stayed on for quite some time. But it came during a period of transition -- between the bittersweet Wish You Were Here and the cult classic The Wall. Not to mention the preceding success of DSOTM kind of capped its presence. It was great, but not that great.* Then, come 1999, something so blatantly uncalled for and irretrievable happened.

Pitchfork reviewed it.

It was a tiny review, not even four hundred words. But the author, James P. Wisdom (irony at its best), decided to usher in a new era of mind-numbing collective consciousness: he gave it a ten. By Pitchfork standards, a ten basically means that even the silence separating songs is enough to deliver an erection for the world at large. And you know what? All those people, all those sheep, the ones that loved Dark Side of the Moon and felt ambivalent towards the 1977 album, two paragraphs beforehand -- now loved Animals. That was it. That's all that happened to make this album such an icon amongst kids everywhere who happened to skim the boldfaced ratings at the top of the page.

Today, I can hardly hear the beauty in Dark Side without having a brainless maggot quip about how "it's no Animals." I imagine on that fateful day, the author was sitting on a plush armchair laughing his head off. Yessss, he says. Let's make them trip over themselves. They thought Pink Floyd was good, but they never realized they were a ten!

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

* It actually is.

I've loved Animals since I bought it some time around 1989-1990. Does that mean I turned into a hipster in 1999?

Feel free to get offended at comments that are clearly not directed towards you.

I should keep a tally...

ok

mark me down again

i take exception to the all of the "comments that are clearly not directed towards" me

hey
just for my own records
how many were there?

:rofl:

I got into PF albums other than DSOTM The Wallthrough Only Solitaire: George Starostin's Music Reviews (ie Animals, Piper, Meddle)

His opinions on melodies and songwriting are pretty similar to mine, so he got me to try a lot of of other artists I ended up liking. He does think that music went downhill after 1980 or whatever, so most of the reviews I read from him are classic rock albums. Still he's a good writer so I really enjoy reading the reviews.

And I swear on my soul, I didn't even know of Pitchfork before some people here started bashing it.

I had no idea what the hell was pitchfork till i arrived here :p:
Anyways, nice thread! Good entertainment :yeah: