Original entry posted: Wed Aug 22 21:13:25 2007
@ Thu Aug 23 08:50:29 2007 EST
I wholeheartedly agree. I have always used Pitchfork as a good source of news. The reviews? Not so much. To be fair, some contributors have done a better job (though most reviews seem to be written from a Pitchfork paint-by-numbers template now).
While the album itself was an insanely easy (and obvious) target, the review of the indie compilation
This Is Next
was entertaining, at least.
@ Thu Aug 23 09:36:28 2007 EST
I didn't see that one. It is better. But then, it's quite a bit more straightforward, and does provide an actual context, instead of a lot of sideways sneering. I'm surprised to see it on Pitchfork.
@ Fri Aug 24 03:39:11 2007 EST
It's like I've maintained: mass-media music reviewing is the single most bogus job in the world. By which I mean if you want to post on your blog or some such that some album rocked and some album sucked, fine. That's entirely legit. But to be paid to write a review that is really going to be out there, that makes no sense. Who are you to tell me if this music is good or bad? Do you have my tastes? Her tastes? Their tastes? It's so unbelievably subjective that the premise of the job defuncts it's own process. Maybe it's the same with movie reviews and book reviews but I don't have as much trouble with those. But music. And pitchfork? Bah. They ruin things. That's all.