lemur68 wrote:

Antero wrote:

William Bowers wrote:At the beginning of "Carry Around", Baker warns us that he's got "magic crying out my ass"; let's hope he invests in a filter for gold and not a buttplug.

WHAT THAT GODDAMN MAKES ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE AT ALL

It's like, see, he poos magic, so Bowers wants to install a filter to pan for gold in Baker's poop, rather than Baker taking up assplay and clogging his magic pathway with a buttplug...

...yeah, it doesn't.

pitchfork write

Fri: 12-15-06:
Guest List: Best of 2006
We asked a number of our favorite artists which records and artists they most enjoyed in 2006, and the answers ranged from the expected, such as TV and the Radio [sic] and Joanna Newsom to some perhaps more surprising choices such as Hanoi Rocks and Justin Timberlake.

jesus, if they're "the voice of their generation," shouldn't they have editor-nerds to oversee the staff-writer-nerds by now?!

It's ok I guess they write when the boredoms are gonna tour and shit like that, so I check it once and awhile.
I don't read the reviews because I don't care.

yeah their reviews are pointless.

Pitchfork can eat a dick.

Sweet lord! I haven't actually read a Pitchfork review in years, so I clicked a random entry, only to have my eyes brutally raped by the following:

"...a strange thing happens as you spin: the ceiling turns to a black velvet cloak of night that extends to the horizon, flecked with pinprick stars; the demure oom-pah-pah figure morphs into a brassy alarum. Cold winds whip your face as the round-and-round refrain slips a gear and goes rolling swiftly away, a soft clatter of brass rings marking distance behind. Repetition's but the clatter of hooves; everything else ribbons out towards the unknowable."

Latest bitch against Pitchfork: their review of the reissues of Betty Davis' first two albums. Yes, they gave it good numbers, as is proper, but the reviewer was ignorant as shit and did not fucking get it. These are SEMINAL albums of such pure expressive force as to be unbelievable. I almost vomited the first time I heard "Anti-Love Song" because it was that fucking powerful. The review read like all the reviewer knew about Betty Davis, much less about funk, was from a wikipedia article. Like he'd never listened to the album and just read the liner notes. Oh yes, sex! And S&M! And funk! No, fuck you Pitchfork, this shit deserves a review by someone who at least knows the difference between Eddie Hazel and Sister Hazel.

Pitchfork is the McSweeney's of music "journalism"...there is the occasional right on the money, brilliant review or article, but most of the time it is just pretentious garbage, or barely interesting slosh. Long explanatory passages that are better left unsaid, or placing too little emphasis on an observation that would be much more interesting if given a bit more detail. It's like a lot of Chabon stories; wordy, pretentious, and stuck in first gear for what feels like twenty thousand pages. Trying to get through a review is torture but good for a hearty belly laugh.

I try to take Pitchfork with a grain of salt, and yes, in my formative years of finding and critiquing music, I used Pitchfork as a resource as I did with others. I still read it at least once or twice a week, but the last time I trusted their opinion was a long time ago. They're like the scene police, here to justify the existence of shit while compressing the brilliance of artists that deserve much more credit than they are getting.

And their lists are the most laughable fucking things you'll ever lay eyes on. Their list of the top albums of the 70s and 80s made me want to personally impregnate the site with a vicious virus that would replace every review with a picture of a freshly raped male anus.

Steve V. wrote:It's like a lot of Chabon stories; wordy, pretentious, and stuck in first gear for what feels like twenty thousand pages.

I've only read his first novel, Mysteries of Pittsburgh, but even so, based on that alone, I'd say Chabon's a good writer and that your description of his style is way, way off.

I also enjoyed the Hollywood film Wonder Boys starring Michael Douglas and Frances McDormand. In fact, I own it on DVD! And I'm guessing the book it's based on is pretty good too since the writing in the film is quite well done. (The book also lacks Katie Holmes --- which is undoubtedly a feather in the not crap cap.)

I agree with you though about Pitchfork... their lack of quality control makes for insufferable reading.

2up?