Why are you trying to make me hate The Goonies?
Is this what passes for a literary take on modern music?
Seriously, I would get more about the "state of hipster music" from looking at pictures of monkeys throwing their poo at one another.
Isn't it bad enough that these pseudo intellectual ass goblins write horrible record reviews that don't actually tell you a god damn thing about the record that they're reviewing?
I know, I know.
I shouldn't even be wasting my time reading this garbage but the ads they run are like heroin for my eyeballs.
At least I get 15% off my next purchase from American Apparel because heaven forbid if I'm not gonna jump for joy because my $15 plain t-shirt is now only $12.75.
If it wasn't for their flashy Suicide Girls ads, I would never have known the joy of half naked girls whose faces are half metal pretending to be gothic sluts.

Christopher_Dragon wrote:Why are you trying to make me hate The Goonies?
Is this what passes for a literary take on modern music?
Seriously, I would get more about the "state of hipster music" from looking at pictures of monkeys throwing their poo at one another.
Isn't it bad enough that these pseudo intellectual ass goblins write horrible record reviews that don't actually tell you a god damn thing about the record that they're reviewing?
I know, I know.
I shouldn't even be wasting my time reading this garbage but the ads they run are like heroin for my eyeballs.
At least I get 15% off my next purchase from American Apparel because heaven forbid if I'm not gonna jump for joy because my $15 plain t-shirt is now only $12.75.
If it wasn't for their flashy Suicide Girls ads, I would never have known the joy of half naked girls whose faces are half metal pretending to be gothic sluts.

Give them a break. They are rock journalists. They WRITE about music. They could've just PLAYED it, but they chose to WRITE about it. Which is still like "dancing to architecture" (Zappa).

Plus, nobody thinks about them ever, anyway.

sunlore wrote:Give them a break. They are rock journalists. They WRITE about music.

Really?

I glance through and see them mention band and album names but I'm pretty sure I've never actually read anything about music on that site.

Christopher_Dragon wrote:

sunlore wrote:Give them a break. They are rock journalists. They WRITE about music.

Really?

I glance through and see them mention band and album names but I'm pretty sure I've never actually read anything about music on that site.

On a sunnier note, Chris, did you find out about any new music groups recently that I should get my ass familiar with?

If you're into ambient/drone stuff then you should check out
On Tape & The Sad Mac by Stephan Mathieu
Periphery by Christopher Bissonnette

John Zorn recently released a great album by Korean cellist Okyung Lee called Nihm. Amazingly great record.

Not much else as far as recent finds go.

Christopher_Dragon wrote:If you're into ambient/drone stuff

As long as it's not Global Communication.

John Zorn recently released a great album by Korean cellist Okyung Lee called Nihm. Amazingly great record.

Cool... This looks promising. I'll get to it.

I don't like pitchfork either, they go off on tangents with analogies that make no fucking sense to me, and or I would have to have a dictionary on hand in order to make it through. Their reviewees also tend to remind me of ebert and roeper they usually like all the shitty movies and hate all the good ones.

pitchfork is a good example of how not to write about music.

For some period of time, after I first saw Pitchfork and read its reviews for the first time, I remember thinking it was the most pretentious, silly nonsense I had ever read, and I was amazed that anyone could take it seriously. I continued this stance for a while until I listened around for a while in the "punk/indie community" (if you will). I noticed that not once had I heard "pitchfork media" uttered in a positive light, which has continued on into the present.

I've come to the realization that the entire point of Pitchfork is to make people angry at their reviews. Their journalists are not "in it" for legitimate indie journalism; if they were, they would accept reader comments and correct factual errors. Instead, they rock the boat repeatedly because their ad revenue comes almost completely from scowling internet readers coming only to see how goofy, pretentious, and factually flawed they've made their new reviews.

Pitchfork is literally a joke, and really not worth paying attention to, since doing so would serve the purpose of the website. Luckily, there's a man named Mark Prindle who can handle taking most of the "real" reviews.

There are good reviews on Pitchfork.. it's just that the really bad reviews or articles are the ones that make waves... these are the ones that allowed the Arcade Fire and Clap Your Hands Say Yeah to essentially get a jump start.

In turn, the Arcade Fire's popularity has been able to allow Merge the opportunity to release a whole bunch of cool underground NZ stuff under the radar...

Then again, I only find out about either secondhand.. I never initiate visiting the site.

Christopher_Dragon wrote:

sunlore wrote:Give them a break. They are rock journalists. They WRITE about music.

Really?

I glance through and see them mention band and album names but I'm pretty sure I've never actually read anything about music on that site.

That's because they don't actually KNOW anything about music. They are nothing but fanboy douchebag wannabes. These writers know nothing of the processes or mechanizations of how music works, or how music is made. They are thus incapable of relating to and describing music in any way that is meaningful or productive. If they actually KNEW anything fundamental about music itself, and not the halo of style, fashion and scene that surround music, they might be capable of informed evaluation and opinion. But, they are impotent to produce effective criticism. They are absorbed by their own literary wit, yet completely musically slack-jawed.

"An 'atonal' folk-music, in my opinion, is unthinkable."
- Bela Bartok

What kind of brainless assclown uses this as in intro to a piece about Devendra Banhart? Where did this fool get this quote, and what possessed him to use it so completely out of context, with no way of meaningfully tying it into his point?