Pitchfork tranches

Health insurance rip off lying FDA big bankers buying
Fake computer crashes dining
Cloning while they're multiplying
Fashion shoots with Beck and Hanson
Courtney Love, and Marilyn Manson
You're all fakes
Run to your mansions
Come around
We'll kick your ass in

Postby Drinky » Wed May 16, 2018 6:29 am

Yeah, I was just reading that and kind of enjoying it!

the challenge lies in discerning the incremental differences between one dispatch of songs about sandwiches and Scarface and boxing and another.
User avatar
Drinky
 
Posts: 2072
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2009 11:59 am

Postby ripersnifle » Tue May 22, 2018 8:07 am

Some Nice Tranches this morning
steakspoon wrote:sorry if sounds corny fellas but i'll always remember where i was when i heard my first big star song..the internet.
User avatar
ripersnifle
 
Posts: 14688
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2011 11:07 pm
Location: carnivalesque hellscape post-2000

Postby freezinseason » Tue May 22, 2018 8:14 am

transitive wrote:
bluelips wrote:wasn't that travis pan in response to his atrocious pro-war politics at the time? i remember some interview he did justifying the iraq war

Never, ever, heard Travis (or any other DC-based musician from that time) espouse anything close to pro-war politics. Doing so in that scene is tantamount to scarlet lettering yourself.


lol yea im sure being pro-war in dc is a real strain
User avatar
freezinseason
 
Posts: 3624
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2017 12:48 am

Postby Eyeball Kid » Tue May 22, 2018 8:16 am

Either this is a targeted ad* or I underestimated the demographic for artisanal bacon

Image

*If it is, I have no idea what brought this on, but maybe my netbook knows me better than I do
User avatar
Eyeball Kid
 
Posts: 25271
Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2010 1:17 pm

Postby reversemigraine » Tue May 22, 2018 8:31 am

Zurich wrote:soft targets like Jet or even formerly indie/bands with cred like Sonic Youth who were doing a major label release.


Not to quibble over a minor point in an old post, but in SY's case, they had been on a major for half their career when they got their 0.0. There was plenty of bad faith behind that review -- Brent basically admitted as much a few years back -- but label never had anything to do with it.
User avatar
reversemigraine
 
Posts: 11816
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 3:40 pm

Postby springheeljack » Tue May 22, 2018 9:13 am

i think every R Kelly news item and article should mention Pitchfork invited him to headline in 2013.
springheeljack
 
Posts: 143
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2010 12:01 pm

Postby domesticwhite » Tue May 22, 2018 9:27 am

i got a huge Aveeno ad when i logged on with Jennifer Aniston

glad Ryley got some recognition on that record because it rules
User avatar
domesticwhite
 
Posts: 1495
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2016 12:34 pm
Location: chicago, il

Postby ripersnifle » Tue May 22, 2018 10:18 am

springheeljack wrote:i think every R Kelly news item and article should mention Pitchfork invited him to headline in 2013.
yes
steakspoon wrote:sorry if sounds corny fellas but i'll always remember where i was when i heard my first big star song..the internet.
User avatar
ripersnifle
 
Posts: 14688
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2011 11:07 pm
Location: carnivalesque hellscape post-2000

Postby endless dave » Tue May 22, 2018 1:54 pm

springheeljack wrote:i think every R Kelly news item and article should mention Pitchfork invited him to headline in 2013.


I think a lot of grousing about Pitchfork is dumb and overly cynical but this is something I will never, ever give up and it still bothers me. just everything about it. how the festival team and Schreiber refused to basically give any response to the Voice or anyone in light of the new reporting, the one, maybe two times they gave something on record basically being an annoyed shrug at being asked about it. (side note: I also get confused by Hopper going to go work for Pitchfork not even a year later.) and I especially hate they they finally acknowledge the fact five years later couched in a press release about the festival where they very clearly took the step because they had the announcement about a RAINN partnership to balance it out. and one that felt the need to include the qualifier:

While Kelly has not been charged with any crime since his 2008 acquittal on charges of child pornography, and denies all allegations,


that they couldn't get anyone involved with the actual booking, or anyone at all, to actually be quoted or held accountable was just so gross to me. it was a painfully cynical PR angle to take and they should have been called out for it a lot more than they did (which was none). and now today there is this:

https://pitchfork.com/thepitch/the-struggle-to-silence-r-kelly/

so I like Hogan a lot, he's easily their best reporter (honestly one of one or two people on staff who actually do the work of reporting), but the entire piece is teed off by talking about R. Kelly's history being brought back up in 2013 by Hopper and DeRogatis, which back then was explicitly because of him headlining the festival that year. feels odd to only briefly mention that fact about him performing (without stating the facts tying them together) 10 paragraphs in, simply by quoting the PR statement.
Last edited by endless dave on Tue May 22, 2018 4:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
endless dave
 
Posts: 4576
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 6:25 pm

Postby bongo » Tue May 22, 2018 3:45 pm

i think there should actually be more grousing over pitchfork. the journalism is horrendous 90% of the time, the business ethics are nonexistent, and they have contributed perhaps most of all to the twin nadirs of musical criticism and the gross nature of the industry at present
yeaaaaaaaaaaaa american nostalgia love it suburban living civilized families this could be my life
User avatar
bongo
man in hammock
 
Posts: 68876
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 10:32 pm
Location: Malaise (Live Acoustic)

Postby bongo » Tue May 22, 2018 3:46 pm

but then again perhaps i’m be-

yeaaaaaaaaaaaa american nostalgia love it suburban living civilized families this could be my life
User avatar
bongo
man in hammock
 
Posts: 68876
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 10:32 pm
Location: Malaise (Live Acoustic)

Postby black mamba » Tue May 22, 2018 4:56 pm

endless dave wrote:
springheeljack wrote:i think every R Kelly news item and article should mention Pitchfork invited him to headline in 2013.


I think a lot of grousing about Pitchfork is dumb and overly cynical but this is something I will never, ever give up and it still bothers me. just everything about it. how the festival team and Schreiber refused to basically give any response to the Voice or anyone in light of the new reporting, the one, maybe two times they gave something on record basically being an annoyed shrug at being asked about it. (side note: I also get confused by Hopper going to go work for Pitchfork not even a year later.) and I especially hate they they finally acknowledge the fact five years later couched in a press release about the festival where they very clearly took the step because they had the announcement about a RAINN partnership to balance it out. and one that felt the need to include the qualifier:

While Kelly has not been charged with any crime since his 2008 acquittal on charges of child pornography, and denies all allegations,


that they couldn't get anyone involved with the actual booking, or anyone at all, to actually be quoted or held accountable was just so gross to me. it was a painfully cynical PR angle to take and they should have been called out for it a lot more than they did (which was none). and now today there is this:

https://pitchfork.com/thepitch/the-struggle-to-silence-r-kelly/

so I like Hogan a lot, he's easily their best reporter (honestly one of one or two people on staff who actually do the work of reporting), but the entire piece is teed off by talking about R. Kelly's history being brought back up in 2013 by Hopper and DeRogatis, which back then was explicitly because of him headlining the festival that year. feels odd to only briefly mention that fact about him performing (without stating the facts tying them together) 10 paragraphs in, simply by quoting the PR statement.


they also had hilarious merch about how r kelly likes to have sex iirc
Image
User avatar
black mamba
ok
 
Posts: 13336
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 4:19 pm
Location: my fat fabulous life

Postby black mamba » Tue May 22, 2018 5:06 pm

cool party wrote:
Zurich wrote:
cool party wrote:
however, although p4k had a lot of readers at the time of that review, it had nowhere near the influence and readership it does now. from what i recall reading the site/responses to it at the time, that review was one of the first times that a wider audience started recognizing p4k's influence as a thing. i'm not sure that p4k itself knew at the time the impact that that review would have.

i can't get behind proscribing critical treatments of things just because they aren't as popular as other things. it's true that p4k BNMs can do a lot to make music careers. but nowadays, for the most part, a bad or lukewarm review wouldn't stop people who genuinely enjoy your music from going to a show or downloading your stuff from bandcamp. most musicians i know would be desperate to get "tranched" if the alternative was being ignored. there are plenty of artists who have released a bunch of albums reviewed in the 6.0-7.5 range (and probably lower than that, too) who are still prolific, playing shows, etc.

i agree that it's unfortunate for morrison that it happened for him at a time when p4k seemingly had this monolithic power in indie music.


I'm confused by your response tho. you start by saying p4k didn't have the influence/readership they do now then say middling p4k reviews don't stop people from going to shows or downloading stuff from bandcamp and end referring back to a time when p4k had a monolithic power in music.

it sounds like you're agreeing with me that it meant more and was more powerful back in the day because there weren't as many outlets to discover/try music for free, like bandcamp. also, pitchfork was speaking to a much smaller audience with probably a higher share of voice.

by no means do I think anyone should get a fair pass critically. i'm just arguing that the review itself and the 0.0 were a bit over the top/petty. it felt even a bit out of step with how they were writing by 2004.

i would also argue p4k's influence really "arrived" a couple years prior with the reviews of source tags and codes and, if that's a stretch, then definitely with you forgot it in people.


sorry, you're right that i was unclear. my main point was that i would completely believe that the Travistan reviewer had no idea that that review would have the impact that it did, because Pitchfork was not as popular then as it is now. but at the same time, i agree with you/the Slate piece that because music distribution is so much more diffuse and decentralized now, p4k's influence has lessened.

i'm not going to criticize how a musician feels about a review, but i do think that there are many musicians who would've received that review and laughed it off (especially if they already had the luxury of a cult following) and kept on making music. liz phair, who is cited in the Slate piece, went on to have the most commercially successful part of her career. sonic youth went on to a string of three albums that were all critically lauded. i'm not a big follower of travis' so i defer to you if you are, but it does seem like part of what happened to his career had to do with him not producing as much music/promoting it in the years after that.


liz phair and sonic youth existed well before while pitchfork basically made the dismemberment plan (for lack of a better way of putting it.)
Image
User avatar
black mamba
ok
 
Posts: 13336
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 4:19 pm
Location: my fat fabulous life

Postby bongo » Wed May 23, 2018 9:31 am

jesus

Beginning in the mid 1990s, Anthony Child—as the DJ and electronic musician Surgeon—pioneered a strand of techno as brutalist as the concrete architecture of his native Birmingham, turning out hammering, remorseless rhythms that drew their power from the grease and grit of industrial music. Much of modern techno—from the Berghain sound to the noise-laced experiments of Prurient and Broken English Club—owes something to Surgeon’s influence. But Child himself remains idiosyncratic, averse to pigeonholes. A few years ago, for instance, you might have found him strafing arenas full of Lady Gaga superfans with coruscating modular electronics, joined by Gaga’s DJ Lady Starlight.

In that clip from the Lady Gaga concert, Child is sporting a Coil T-shirt; just like John Balance and Peter Christopherson’s industrial project, there’s the sense that Child isn’t interested in noise as mere provocation, but as a path to enlightenment.
yeaaaaaaaaaaaa american nostalgia love it suburban living civilized families this could be my life
User avatar
bongo
man in hammock
 
Posts: 68876
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 10:32 pm
Location: Malaise (Live Acoustic)

Postby cool party » Wed May 23, 2018 10:43 am

black mamba wrote:
cool party wrote:
Zurich wrote:
cool party wrote:
however, although p4k had a lot of readers at the time of that review, it had nowhere near the influence and readership it does now. from what i recall reading the site/responses to it at the time, that review was one of the first times that a wider audience started recognizing p4k's influence as a thing. i'm not sure that p4k itself knew at the time the impact that that review would have.

i can't get behind proscribing critical treatments of things just because they aren't as popular as other things. it's true that p4k BNMs can do a lot to make music careers. but nowadays, for the most part, a bad or lukewarm review wouldn't stop people who genuinely enjoy your music from going to a show or downloading your stuff from bandcamp. most musicians i know would be desperate to get "tranched" if the alternative was being ignored. there are plenty of artists who have released a bunch of albums reviewed in the 6.0-7.5 range (and probably lower than that, too) who are still prolific, playing shows, etc.

i agree that it's unfortunate for morrison that it happened for him at a time when p4k seemingly had this monolithic power in indie music.


I'm confused by your response tho. you start by saying p4k didn't have the influence/readership they do now then say middling p4k reviews don't stop people from going to shows or downloading stuff from bandcamp and end referring back to a time when p4k had a monolithic power in music.

it sounds like you're agreeing with me that it meant more and was more powerful back in the day because there weren't as many outlets to discover/try music for free, like bandcamp. also, pitchfork was speaking to a much smaller audience with probably a higher share of voice.

by no means do I think anyone should get a fair pass critically. i'm just arguing that the review itself and the 0.0 were a bit over the top/petty. it felt even a bit out of step with how they were writing by 2004.

i would also argue p4k's influence really "arrived" a couple years prior with the reviews of source tags and codes and, if that's a stretch, then definitely with you forgot it in people.


sorry, you're right that i was unclear. my main point was that i would completely believe that the Travistan reviewer had no idea that that review would have the impact that it did, because Pitchfork was not as popular then as it is now. but at the same time, i agree with you/the Slate piece that because music distribution is so much more diffuse and decentralized now, p4k's influence has lessened.

i'm not going to criticize how a musician feels about a review, but i do think that there are many musicians who would've received that review and laughed it off (especially if they already had the luxury of a cult following) and kept on making music. liz phair, who is cited in the Slate piece, went on to have the most commercially successful part of her career. sonic youth went on to a string of three albums that were all critically lauded. i'm not a big follower of travis' so i defer to you if you are, but it does seem like part of what happened to his career had to do with him not producing as much music/promoting it in the years after that.


liz phair and sonic youth existed well before while pitchfork basically made the dismemberment plan (for lack of a better way of putting it.)


there are plenty of artists who came to prominence post-pitchfork who got a bad review and went on to have artistic and commercial success. i used those two as examples because they seem to have both reached an even wider audience after their respective bad reviews

it seems morrison consciously chose to no longer produce as much music. i'm saying that if he stuck around a few more years to take advantage of all the changes in distribution/the Internet, there's a good chance imo that he could have played festivals, maintained credibility among his core fans, had success that drew on the credibility of his old band (which many people don't have to start their music careers) etc.,
cool party
 
Posts: 365
Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2017 6:38 pm

Postby neuartillery » Wed May 23, 2018 11:16 am

I don’t agree with that take on the potential of Morrison’s solo career at all. Two things are clear post-Travistan: 1. He wasn’t making music as good as the Dismemberment Plan 2. He’d lost a huge chunk of his audience.

The Dismemberment Plan reunion was when he got the chance to play festivals / draw on their old appeal, and it was very successful in the initial phase. Friends of mine that hadn’t seen them previously were incredibly happy to get the chance. But Uncanney Valley was a lead balloon and rather than getting a second wind, they all went back to their lives.
User avatar
neuartillery
 
Posts: 7569
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 4:01 pm
Location: The Moon

Postby ripersnifle » Thu May 24, 2018 2:08 pm

steakspoon wrote:sorry if sounds corny fellas but i'll always remember where i was when i heard my first big star song..the internet.
User avatar
ripersnifle
 
Posts: 14688
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2011 11:07 pm
Location: carnivalesque hellscape post-2000

Postby bongo » Thu May 24, 2018 2:12 pm

uggghgh
yeaaaaaaaaaaaa american nostalgia love it suburban living civilized families this could be my life
User avatar
bongo
man in hammock
 
Posts: 68876
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 10:32 pm
Location: Malaise (Live Acoustic)

Postby number none » Thu May 24, 2018 2:23 pm

a Pelly joint™
User avatar
number none
 
Posts: 28962
Joined: Wed May 26, 2010 9:00 am

Postby Grumby » Thu May 24, 2018 2:31 pm

vagabon? oh yeah. that album was forgotten pretty quickly huh.
User avatar
Grumby
 
Posts: 14158
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2013 2:40 pm

Postby loaf angel » Thu May 24, 2018 2:33 pm

I saw her live. she has an incredible voice
goldsoundz wrote:i'd bang that moron
User avatar
loaf angel
 
Posts: 33951
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 6:28 pm
Location: Jerklyn

Postby cool party » Thu May 24, 2018 4:47 pm

silent barn at least was a space for genuinely DIY unsigned artists to play, unlike a lot of the valorized NYC DIY venues of the past that wouldn't respond to an e-mail unless you were on a Beggars label or whatever

it is kind of ridic that they asked for another 5 figures in donations months before they decided they couldn't continue, though
cool party
 
Posts: 365
Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2017 6:38 pm

Postby alaska » Thu May 24, 2018 6:42 pm

But Child himself remains idiosyncratic, averse to pigeonholes.


Get these goddamn pigeonholes away from me
mactheo wrote:
Emily Dickinson wrote:Our lives are ... so cool
User avatar
alaska
ride.
 
Posts: 12053
Joined: Thu Oct 24, 2013 3:36 pm
Location: Manhattans Upper East Side

Postby adam sampler » Sat Jun 02, 2018 1:22 pm

cool party wrote:silent barn at least was a space for genuinely DIY unsigned artists to play, unlike a lot of the valorized NYC DIY venues of the past that wouldn't respond to an e-mail unless you were on a Beggars label or whatever

it is kind of ridic that they asked for another 5 figures in donations months before they decided they couldn't continue, though


person who was their "grant writer" on staff also worked at MoMa so you can imagine how much actual energy was being put towards fundraising
User avatar
adam sampler
 
Posts: 531
Joined: Mon Jul 10, 2017 11:43 pm

Postby bongo » Sat Jun 02, 2018 1:46 pm



:|
yeaaaaaaaaaaaa american nostalgia love it suburban living civilized families this could be my life
User avatar
bongo
man in hammock
 
Posts: 68876
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 10:32 pm
Location: Malaise (Live Acoustic)

Postby black mamba » Sat Jun 02, 2018 2:56 pm

cool party wrote: there are plenty of artists who came to prominence post-pitchfork who got a bad review and went on to have artistic and commercial success.


name some

i used those two as examples because they seem to have both reached an even wider audience after their respective bad reviews


exile in guyville is certified gold and sonic youth is...sonic youth. the idea that pitchfork would be a factor in the lives of these major label artists, good or bad, is absurd. it would be like saying that it's amazing that the rolling stones kept going after they got a bad review from spin magazine or something

i also find the idea that a writer for that website would just be oblivious to their influence even then to strain believability. like at that time iirc they used to have a mailbag section and they would post emails from bands that got bad reviews to basically laugh at them. if someone wrote for pitchfork one of the top questions they would get from people would be 'do you get to pick the score'. like, it's embedded in the entire rating system. they don't do one to five stars or thumbs up/thumbs down they do a 100 point scale where the implicit meaning is that all music can be ranked against each other from worst to best and they are the authority that is able to do it. so basically pitchfork, a publication that i would imagine that all of travis morrison's peers read at the time, put travis morrison's record at the bottom of all recorded music.
Image
User avatar
black mamba
ok
 
Posts: 13336
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 4:19 pm
Location: my fat fabulous life

Postby black mamba » Sat Jun 02, 2018 3:01 pm

oh also it is universally understood that it is a big deal to give something the lowest score possible. like even if you're writing for your high school newspaper you would probably think twice before giving your theatre club's rendition of rent a zero out of one hundred
Image
User avatar
black mamba
ok
 
Posts: 13336
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 4:19 pm
Location: my fat fabulous life

Postby cool party » Sat Jun 02, 2018 3:59 pm

black mamba wrote:name some


i mean, i'm hesitant to since this seems like a rhetorical putdown instead of an honest ask. you can find an idiosyncratic factor for any artist with a bad review to say why it didn't matter for them, but that's sort of my whole point--if you have fan support/other credibility going for you as an artist and keep plugging away at it, you can work against bad reviews. if you read my posts honestly you'll see i'm not denying the importance of previous credibility/popularity/cult fanbase/being on a major label. but since you asked:

https://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/2232-transatlanticism/ [same label and rough timeframe as Travistan and their fame/success far exceeded what pitchfork could impact]
https://pitchfork.com/artists/28716-ariel-pinks-haunted-graffiti/
https://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/15722-coastal-grooves/
https://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/5717-the-national/
https://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/7723-tiny-cities/ [i know this is a covers album but that doesn't make it count less under the criteria that pitchfork was influential at this time--he also didn't get a BNM until 2014]
https://pitchfork.com/artists/3933-stars/ [bad to mediocre reviews for past decade and still touring successfully]

exile in guyville is certified gold and sonic youth is...sonic youth. the idea that pitchfork would be a factor in the lives of these major label artists, good or bad, is absurd. it would be like saying that it's amazing that the rolling stones kept going after they got a bad review from spin magazine or something

i also find the idea that a writer for that website would just be oblivious to their influence even then to strain believability. like at that time iirc they used to have a mailbag section and they would post emails from bands that got bad reviews to basically laugh at them. if someone wrote for pitchfork one of the top questions they would get from people would be 'do you get to pick the score'. like, it's embedded in the entire rating system. they don't do one to five stars or thumbs up/thumbs down they do a 100 point scale where the implicit meaning is that all music can be ranked against each other from worst to best and they are the authority that is able to do it. so basically pitchfork, a publication that i would imagine that all of travis morrison's peers read at the time, put travis morrison's record at the bottom of all recorded music.


in none of my posts did i defend pitchfork's attitude at the time or say they weren't antagonistic. nor did i say it wasn't a "statement review" to give that album a 0.0 or that it had no impact whatsoever. clearly it was and it did, and i feel as sorry as anyone that it was probably a terrible experience. none of my posts deny that this is "universally understood."

all i'm saying is if travis made a conscious decision to make less music after that review (from what i can tell he mainly had one 2007 solo album and then the DPlan album in 2013), you can't put it entirely on pitchfork. to make a living as an artist is an incredibly privileged position in the first place and any number of things can make it difficult for someone to do that. to decide to keep going in spite of that is often what makes artists finally realize that potential.
cool party
 
Posts: 365
Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2017 6:38 pm

Postby black mamba » Sat Jun 02, 2018 4:34 pm

cool party wrote:
black mamba wrote:name some


i mean, i'm hesitant to since this seems like a rhetorical putdown instead of an honest ask. you can find an idiosyncratic factor for any artist with a bad review to say why it didn't matter for them, but that's sort of my whole point--if you have fan support/other credibility going for you as an artist and keep plugging away at it, you can work against bad reviews. if you read my posts honestly you'll see i'm not denying the importance of previous credibility/popularity/cult fanbase/being on a major label. but since you asked:


it wasn't meant to be a put down. those were just two not germane examples imo and the ones you have posted make much more sense.

exile in guyville is certified gold and sonic youth is...sonic youth. the idea that pitchfork would be a factor in the lives of these major label artists, good or bad, is absurd. it would be like saying that it's amazing that the rolling stones kept going after they got a bad review from spin magazine or something

i also find the idea that a writer for that website would just be oblivious to their influence even then to strain believability. like at that time iirc they used to have a mailbag section and they would post emails from bands that got bad reviews to basically laugh at them. if someone wrote for pitchfork one of the top questions they would get from people would be 'do you get to pick the score'. like, it's embedded in the entire rating system. they don't do one to five stars or thumbs up/thumbs down they do a 100 point scale where the implicit meaning is that all music can be ranked against each other from worst to best and they are the authority that is able to do it. so basically pitchfork, a publication that i would imagine that all of travis morrison's peers read at the time, put travis morrison's record at the bottom of all recorded music.


in none of my posts did i defend pitchfork's attitude/behavior at the time or say they weren't antagonistic. nor did i say it wasn't a "statement review" to give that album a 0.0 or that it had no impact whatsoever. clearly it was and it did, and i feel as sorry as anyone that it was probably a terrible experience. none of my posts deny that this is "universally understood."


i don't think you were ever defending pitchfork in any way. i was giving circumstantial evidence for my assertion that the critic had some idea of what the impact of that review would be

all i'm saying is if travis made a conscious decision to make less music after that review (from what i can tell he mainly had one 2007 solo album and then the DPlan album in 2013), you can't put it entirely on pitchfork. to make a living as an artist is an incredibly privileged position in the first place and any number of things can make it difficult for someone to do that. to decide to keep going in spite of that is often what makes artists finally realize that potential.


i think this is true but what i and others are saying is that the source of the review matters as well. a jazz musician would probably care more about a pan from a jazz publication than from pitchfork etc. honestly i have no 'skin in the game' and don't even listen to the dismemberment plan but the whole travistan thing, to me, was the indie equivalent of this



anyway this has been a productive conversation. ty for your thoughts and time user cool party
Last edited by black mamba on Sat Jun 02, 2018 4:35 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Image
User avatar
black mamba
ok
 
Posts: 13336
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 4:19 pm
Location: my fat fabulous life

Postby buriedinspace » Sat Jun 02, 2018 4:34 pm

cool party wrote:
black mamba wrote:name some



https://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/2232-transatlanticism/ [same label and rough timeframe as Travistan and their fame/success far exceeded what pitchfork could impact]

That's... kind of the point with the Liz Phair/Sonic Youth stuff, sort of? They also had a pretty big following already. Plus 'Something About Airplanes' got a 8.1.

https://pitchfork.com/artists/28716-ariel-pinks-haunted-graffiti/

I think he broke out more than he had before when they named one of his songs the best song of the year. If anything Ariel Pink feels very Pitchfork tastemaking approved?

https://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/5717-the-national/

No one cared about the band at the time of this record. They later gave glowing reviews to most of the records people did care about and carried water for them in that timeframe.

https://pitchfork.com/artists/3933-stars/

Their biggest claim to fame is still probably 'Set Yourself on Fire' which got an 8.4.

I think you're confusing the role Pitchfork has. The National and Death Cab are both good examples of bands that Pitchfork had positive things to say about when they broke out and even if they backed off over time, their names were made by the time they did. They can definitely effect the cycle of who is regarded as serious in their sphere of influence but at a certain point being seen seriously isn't that big a deal - in the same way that college radio could help make early R.E.M. but by the time of Document and Out of Time the college rock audience was no longer their main concern.

Also: there's a difference between giving something a 6.0 and giving it a 0.0. Especially when the review says 'this shows some promise but overall seems underbaked' or whatever, like the Ariel Pink review flirted with at times. If you give someone a 6.0 for their debut and they soldier on to the record where they get a Best New Music, then Pitchfork is a net positive. Some bands are just buzz bands and those bands can be knocked down by an initial Pitchfork review - a lot of the stuff you're point to at the moment is from a time where a radio hit could still power a buzz band past that sort of critical marketplace.

But Travis Morrison wasn't a buzz band - if he was going to make a good solo career, he was going to have to be seen as a well respected singer songwriter or whatever and that 0.0 showed that a major taste-maker thought he was not worthy of consideration and even more so that he was worthy of derision. And that was after being a major part of making Dismemberment Plan a big deal.

I bet if Pitchfork had given Boxer a 0.0 it'd have been a giant blow to The National. A much bigger deal than giving them a mediocre review for their debut. But they didn't do that. They gave their debut a middling/mediocre review and then, their better regarded follow ups they gave a lot of praise to. And the same is true in the reverse - they gave Stars an 8.4 for their first big record of note and that record broke them. Now they give them lesser reviews but they'd already broken past the need for it to sustain as a touring band. They haven't succeeded in a larger way though- they're just a mid-tier indie band that lasted past their buzz period, with a small audience that remembers them and can probably 2/3 fill the sort of venues that sell out for the new buzz bands, which makes them a fine but not indispensable band for those venues to book.
Last edited by buriedinspace on Sat Jun 02, 2018 4:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
ratbags wrote:you're like a wistful naive idiot version of bill simmons

Venmo: @hipro because I am a very broke person and maybe you are not?
https://www.gofundme.com/help-me-avoid-eviction-this-christmas
User avatar
buriedinspace
 
Posts: 7632
Joined: Sun Dec 20, 2009 8:41 pm
Location: Queer Street

PreviousNext

Return to Mamma Mia... Here We Go Again....

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ARealGirl, axelrod gunnarson, Bad Craziness, bam, bearthoughts11, Beautiful Jugdish, beefbroth inthe shitpipes, blab, black drum, bro tones, Brunch Buttsteak, Catullus, Celiac, chargie, chimp, Chyet, clouds, Cone, crooked, dash helmut, deadwolfbones, def from above, Disko aka Disco, domesticwhite, endless dave, Ersaph, Eyeball Kid, fakename, fizzle, Flossed Out, FourLegsGood, Frank, Future, Geoff, goldmatt, goofjan, Google Adsense [Bot], grace cathedral park, Grumby, guy forget, hbb, hiddenicon, high bias, hit record, Hugh, HUMANIMAL, iacus, iambic, incoherent grunting, Intervalo, Itsmecraig, jewels, Julius Sumner Miller, Kevin McCallister, Kiki, landspeedrecord, launchpad, loaf angel, lotso, Lucky, M. Piedlourde, Marza, matt, mcwop23, meanie shrubs, Meeps, messier object, milknight, Milquetoaster Strudels, miss black america, murderhorn, my piano, mystery meat, nocents, number none, oh! it's max!, palmer eldritch, pantsoclock, pissydan, Rainbow Battle Kid, REAL BASED SLOB, rich uncle skeleton, Science, scurrydog, Shotfrog, Smiling Penner-Lite, Sobieski, SonicBoom, southpaw, springheeljack, Steve & Co, subtitles, surly, tawny frogmouth, techno beats, tgk, turquoise albino, videodrome, walt, wario lopez, WeirdJungle, wildarms, Wrong Titus, yupislyr, Zardoz