What will Pitchfork choose as their #1 album of this decade?
Sep 16, 2009 at 6:21 AM Post #91 of 140
Quote:

Originally Posted by fuseboxx /img/forum/go_quote.gif
I suppose this is to be expected. It's definitely consistent with your I-hate-pitchfork-and-the-music-they-review-so-they're-irrelevant-and-meaningless-to-music rant.


Nonsense. Don't assume I hate all the bands they reviewed just because I dislike Radiohead, but I guess that is to be expected with your I-love-Pitchfork-and-all-the-music-they-review-especially-Radiohead's-Kid-A hipster attitude
wink_face.gif
 
Sep 16, 2009 at 6:29 AM Post #93 of 140
On topic - I'd choose Panda Bear's Person Pitch. With my review beneath.
wink.gif


Quote:

Pop elements are what I enjoy most in music, and, is primarily what I seek out. Bright soundscapes composed of jangly guitars, infectious vocals, and a manifold of complementary instrumentation are, to me, the peak of musicality. Having said that, pop often serves as a wonderful supplement to seemingly contrasting musical styles. The Jesus and Mary Chain, for example, drenched noise with underlying pop sensualities. My point is, these bright sounds can be, more often than not, completely utilized in conjunction with borrowed sounds.

Panda Bear, also known as Noah Lennox from Animal Collective, is the creative force behind Person Pitch, his third album. Admittedly, I’m not a huge fan of AC. Not that they’re bad, but I’ve never listened to them extensively. As such, I had no idea what to expect from this album. I was genuinely hoping that it wasn’t some self-indulgent noise escapade that would make my ears bleed, like another band, which I won’t bother naming for fear of their fans leaving my blog! Thankfully, my fears were put to rest. ‘Comfy in Nautica’ is a nice intro to the record, featuring restrained vocals on Lennox’s part, and monotonic chants from the background. The album is an extremely relaxed experience, save for a few tense moments.

The album has roots in a variety of sources. Most obvious of the lot is a happy-go-lucky 50s/60s pop attitude you’d hear from a jukebox, along with (/including) the Beach Boys. Person Pitch sounds like a modern interpretation of Paul Simon’s Graceland, which is a huge compliment as that’s one of the greatest albums in the history of this galaxy. Except instead of Simon’s richly defined voice, we’re met with the busy and droned-out voice of Lennox. It’s very image-heavy and constantly moving, with noises from his surroundings (cars, skateboards, owls) playing a large role in the formation of the album. Halfway through ‘Take Pills’ comes another example of this atmospheric influence, as the sound is submerged into water. The song also sounds like it’s been directly taken out of the Beach Boys catalogue and infused with very spacey and consuming surroundings. ‘Bros’ is the true gem of the album, a 12 minute and 30 second long epic. It’s perfectly timed, incredibly balanced, and melodically brilliant. “I’m not trying to forget you, I’d just like to be alone,” exclaims Lennox, perhaps providing further insight into the busyness and isolation of the record. ‘I’m Not’ and ‘Good Girl’ offer a break from the brightness, instead making way for 9 minutes of layered noises – meandering voices swaying to and fro - a sort of intermission between two halves of pop. Following this short break comes the familiarity of Lennox’s falsetto and multi-instrumentation, which continues through to the album’s conclusion.

It sounds redundant, forgive me, but Person Pitch truly shines with its pop sensibilities. Perhaps it lacks variation, but when it sounds this beautiful why bother entertaining the idea of multiplicity? I’m running out of adjectives and superlatives in which to describe it. It’s just… great. This will no doubt end up as one of the year’s best albums; it’s too good to be overlooked.


 
Sep 16, 2009 at 6:34 AM Post #94 of 140
Quote:

Originally Posted by fuseboxx /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Who said I love Pitchfork? The only thing is that people who dismiss them for being what they are annoy me.


I was hoping you would see the error in your assumption by presenting one of my own...
 
Sep 16, 2009 at 7:05 AM Post #96 of 140
Quote:

Originally Posted by fuseboxx /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Ah, so it would have been spot on if I had merely termed it as an I-hate-pitchfork-so-they're-irrelevant-and-meaningless-to-music rant, yes? Because surely, that's what you've been going on and on about for the past few pages.


Well, you know it takes two to tango. My "going on and on about how I hate Pitchfork" has been met with an equal amount of tenaciousness by you, defending them every step of the way. For someone who denies love for them, you sure play a hell of a devil's advocate.

So as to not annoy you anymore, I will step off this point-counterpoint carousel and enjoy from afar.
 
Sep 16, 2009 at 7:13 AM Post #97 of 140
As has been suggested already in the case of torrents, I suspect that their relevance might be tested by record sales. Several studies have been done of the "pitchfork effect" and it has been found that record stores notice that a pitchfork endorsement can have a tremendous effect upon sales. Pitchfork is dangerously relevant. I suspect that Funeral--which may be my own favorite of the decade--would not have disseminated into the audience it now deservedly enjoys without pitchfork. Giving them too much credit? I'm not allotting a good or negative value to pitchfork here, just pointing out that they have a major impact on the industry. I think it is a very good, if unanswerable question, "would NPR have played the Arcade Fire concert if pitchfork hadn't rated Funeral '10'?"
 
Sep 16, 2009 at 7:34 AM Post #98 of 140
^ Exactly my point. It's little about knowledge and taste in music anymore. It's more about what's trendy instead of its quality... and Pitchfork has had a big hand in what direction music is headed, so I just find it so alarming that there are people that consider them irrelevant.

People rant about Pitchfork creating taste for people; but that's people's - not Pitchfork's - mistake. All they are are a successful business. Taste-makers exist in every medium of communication, and the most popular ones are condemned by the "elite."

Quote:

Originally Posted by roadtonowhere08 /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Well, you know it takes two to tango. My "going on and on about how I hate Pitchfork" has been met with an equal amount of tenaciousness by you, defending them every step of the way. For someone who denies love for them, you sure play a hell of a devil's advocate.

So as to not annoy you anymore, I will step off this point-counterpoint carousel and enjoy from afar.



Like I said, it's only annoying when other people dismiss Pitchfork as "irrelevant and meaningless" to music obviously fueled by the reason that they hate the website for whatever reason (and there are a lot tbh). You can hate them, but to argue that they're irrelevant and meaningless is a lost cause.

I think the important thing to recognize is that Pitchfork is condemned because of their position in the music industry, not because of their content; and it is inherent by their position that they hold a considerable influence on people's taste. When someone comes along and condemns them aggressively for their content supposedly having no value to music, what that tells me is that the person is just cooking up stuff to pass as "reason" to support his hate for the website.

And c'mon... compared to Rolling Stone, Pitchfork is freakishly enlightened.

They'll probably miss out on a lot of albums on their upcoming list (mostly metal I'd say); but as far as their choices go, they're relatively spot on. So I find it hard to believe that Pitchfork is oblivious to 90% of other deserving music out there and that they cater to only a small population. That's an exaggeration.

(oh and yes, I've loved playing devil's advocate for years to stir up things and have a good exchange... unless a side is totally unarguable or something I totally don't believe in)
 
Sep 16, 2009 at 1:24 PM Post #99 of 140
Quote:

Originally Posted by fuseboxx /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Who said I love Pitchfork? The only thing is that people who dismiss them for being what they are annoy me.


well, it's hard to dismiss them for being what they aren't, so i choose to dismiss them for being what they are: hairdressers with dictionaries who type lots of words from them, often in a snarky order.

your metric for relevance (e.g. the torrent spike) is no different from that which measures Taylor Swift or American Idol's relevance and meaningfulness. i thought the whole point of Pitchfork was to, you know, hiply transcend that.

anyhow, i'm a big fan of Kid A, and i could care less where they decide to stick it. the reviews are inconsistent to the point of contradiction, and the writing betrays that they don't actually love music as much as they love people watching them write about loving music.

sounds harsh... but i'm not actually hating on them. i'm just pretending i'm a pitchfork reviewer reviewing pitchfork.
 
Sep 16, 2009 at 2:09 PM Post #100 of 140
I'm not saying anything about the writing, because they are indeed snarky and pretentious a lot of times. Like I said in passing, there are a lot of reasons to hate them... but to say they're irrelevant and meaningless is just... *sigh*

The torrent spike and overall standing as the most read music website are simply unarguable. I can't see how anyone can argue around that. Even if you criticize them for having poor taste and being inconsistent and throw whatever crap you can at them, the fact still remains that A LOT of people read and patronize Pitchfork. They may be a lot of ****ty things, but they aren't irrelevant and meaningless.

Comparing Pitchfork to Taylor Swift and American Idol isn't accurate though since they cater to indie hipsters and not the mainstream audience... Although they've been increasingly headed in that direction since they started.

BTW... The operational phrase in that text you quoted is "...people who dismiss them..." and not "...being what they are..." So if you had said "it's hard not to dismiss them for being what they are," it wouldn't have sounded so bad.
 
Sep 18, 2009 at 7:19 AM Post #102 of 140
Quote:

Originally Posted by VicAjax /img/forum/go_quote.gif
well, it's hard to dismiss them for being what they aren't, so i choose to dismiss them for being what they are: hairdressers with dictionaries who type lots of words from them, often in a snarky order.

your metric for relevance (e.g. the torrent spike) is no different from that which measures Taylor Swift or American Idol's relevance and meaningfulness. i thought the whole point of Pitchfork was to, you know, hiply transcend that.



biggrin.gif
 
Sep 18, 2009 at 8:27 AM Post #103 of 140
Quote:

Originally Posted by VicAjax /img/forum/go_quote.gif
the writing betrays that they don't actually love music as much as they love people watching them write about loving music


I think that describes them to a tee.

Honestly though the problem is not they have an arguably skewed opinion, it's that their scores are based on a single or presumably a staff group decision. For that single reason I will always trust score aggregating music sites like RYM, sputnik and absolutepunk more. Nobody has a perfectly impartial perspective and while group aggregation still means people are influenced by influential opinions, at least on the whole any other subjectivity gets averaged out.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top