I realize this is probably an accurate representation of how I'm perceived around here, but I honestly don't think you'd find many of my posts that bear that out. I don't hate on much of anything. I can accept that many people hear a tone of pomposity in my posts that I don't intend to be there - and I should probably worry more about that... but fuck it - it's the internet.


I just don't see that Pitchfork is all that "successful". Maybe I'm mistaken, but starting a website that reviews other people's product doesn't strike me as a hugely admirable feat.

There have been others long before and currently that are much better than he is, but are either a)not syndicated or b) don't have a cult following of a politically one-sided position. Rush screens all his calls and never allows for opposition, let alone discussion. He is a panderer, a cattle feeder. Larry King and Alan Burke were doing talk radio long ago and quite succesfully. However, their's was more of a forum and less of a "woohoo!" rally.[/quote]

a)not syndicated or b) don't have a cult following of a politically one-sided position.

And that's why he is mad successful and makes his own DOLLAS! Holla!

But I think you made my point for me. He took something and blew it up. I was saying he makes MONEY and he did it his way, like Stern, or Imus. Gotta respekt that.

Honestly, I think people hate on you for no reason because you actually float an OPINION every now and again. Again, I give you big ups (mostly) because we have similiar tastes.



Starting a website is fine (see FT's blog or a million other sites) but when your website is selling ads, being written about in the the Times, and (for good or ill) being lauded as a "taste maker", it is successful. How homeboy makes this into a $$$$$ deal is for him to figure out, but he is well on his way....

Ouch. Trying to read through this thread is like trying to read a Pitchfork review.

Do you guys write for them?

pitchfork is one of the most visited music web sites out there. i think that justifies the success label.

They're arrogant as shit if they really think they "broke" the Arcade Fire, that's all I have to say.

The New York Times said CMJ Marathon broke Arcade Fire. Guess everyone forgot about that.

Maybe the fucking Arcade Fire broke Arcade Fire.

Most of this threads preoccupation with getting paid strikes me as slightly opposed to the reason most of us filtered towards the CMJ and now obner sites... we wanted to learn about stuff we liked/loved. Most of us have dabbled our feet in other ponds (hipinion, pitchfork, etc...) and most of us seem to acknowledge the fakery, the bile, the "snarky" as some have noted previously, and the overall sense that it is a high act of pimpery, a con, a way for some to "get paid."

I've never liked pitchfork's reviews and have never used one to actually inform a purchase. I use to go for daily news, but I even gave up on that. Their reviews are spiteful, arbitrary, and on the whole utterly usless as a tool to inform readers as to what is worth buying and what is better off avoided. Even if they are getting paid, they seem to be failing at their reported purpose, and that deserves some disrespect from all of us.

Mainstream News is dumbed down, but I don't gotta like it. Indie Rock traditionally appeals to those more educated than the rest of the herd (hell it use to be labelled college rock back in the prehistoric eighties). For Pitchfork to become the clearinghouse of all things indie they need to come up with some criteria for reviewers that ties this to a reality we can all sort of see from our vantage points, or they too will jump the shark, and Ryan's so-called paycheck will not matter in the least.

They have a great opportunity to get better in the review area, and truly become informative as their daily news briefs, it'd be a shame if they missed "Capitalizing" on it.

Does that mean that I am jealous? Do I secretly want to swap places with Ryan to do his job "Better"? I dunno. I use to want to work in the music world, and I use to review ( I'd hazard a guess that most of you never noticed that I reviewed for CMJ for about a year).

I don't want Ryan's job, I don't think I could do it any better than he. I don't think i even want to give it all up to follow my muse in rock journalism anymore. All I want is Pitchfork to sort itself out and be as useful as it could be, to be as good as it hints at from time to time. If they'd turn that substantial corner, to quote the highly under-rated movie Robocop, "I'd buy that for a dollar."

I had never heard of the arcade fire until the pitchfork review. I got the album because of the review.

However, I'm just one person.

I pretty much think I won't like them until their reviews read more like reviews and less like arbitrary moody rambling.

Many times, you have no idea what the albums sounds like when you've finished the review and if you've actually heard the album the reviewers description bears no resemblance to the actual content of the album, whether the description is glowing or hating.

So, yeah, it's the content. Lotsa words, no consistency.

Fine for a message board, but not if you're touted as THE review website.

So is pitchfork plagiarising from the good Senator

read this review down a couple sentences


Ruff Sqwad
Guns & Roses, Vol. 1
[self-released; 2005]
Rating: 7.2




Ruff Sqwad love guitars, but there's not a single guitar here. They love hangar-sized, doomy, simple melodies played slooooooow, on Rapmaster keyboards that've spent some time in the shed with dad's Krylon.

Yes, but not purposefully/they know not what they do. there is a Satellite that follows me and Bloor around and steals our ideas. Hell,a year before the Simpsons episode WHERE A SATELLITE FOLLOWS BART AND STEALS HIS IDEAS, we were talking about the satellite. It's scary.


Anyway, Jeff, I see your point...but has the content really changed? I've only been reading it since 2001, and it seems quite the same to me,. What I give Schreiber props for is making money off a pretty simple concept, For taking something and running with it. It's called ingenuity, or the American Spirit or whatever you want to term it (and if someone says anything about killing Indians, its on) and that is what i was calling Aaron to task for, erroneously I will add.

I know that people don't like the hater/non-hater thing, but I say respect the site, hate the content.

It's very difficult to strike just the right balance between humor and legitimate critique, as evidenced by my pun-filled "reviews" on Hip Displeasure. My objective is to convey my actual opinion of an album through (what I hope are) funny references intended to keep the reader from becoming too bored with mere dry criticism, while somehow also providing the reader with some actual substance that will give them a better idea of whether or not that album might be up their alley. I don't always (if ever) succeed, but I'm mainly interest is getting the word out about albums I like. It seems as if PFM started out with similar intent, but as a result of their success, they've become increasingly focused on setting trends or being the arbiter of what is "legitimate" indie. They appear to have lost sight of their original vision.

Much of that may be happening due to staff turnover. Most of the original or long-time reviewers aren't there anymore, so the site's tone is probably much more reflective of the new staff. As for jealousy, I am absolutely impressed by Ryan's operation and what he has done with what started as a one-man website, but I don't begrudge him any financial gains or related success. I'd love to be in a similar situation, but I'm not upset that he is and I'm not, because his success appears to have been achieved with more diligence than pure luck.

I agree with both sides of the debate, to some extent. LooGAR & Bloor are correct in their assessment that PFM's success should be admired, instead of condemned. However, Haq & OBJ are right when they say PFM's content (especially reviews) has become increasingly disingenuine in recent months. I respect what PFM has achieved, and still check the site regularly, but their continued decline in overall product quality is reducing how much attention I give them on an ongoing basis. For me, it's not about being a hater -- it's only about whether the material is worth my time as a reader.

like 50 cent?

exactly.

I'll go out on a limb and say that the new Sage Francis slays Massacre.

if i could listen to sage francis voice for more than a few bars i might give that theory a shot.

If i could make it through 50's lame lyricals and weak flow i might be able to listen to the album more often, oh wait it's all over the radio...i can't escape him.

if i weren't so awesome i'd participate in this discussion

Since when did the meaning of "awesome" change to douche bag?

since YOU brought that bullshit tape in!











besides, you can't just replace an adjective with a noun. "if i weren't so douche bag..." doesn't make sense.

Oh. But if the voltage to the transducers doesn't equate how can the output to the PLC and digital cable displays react with the volt amp?

Actually, i just did. DB McSweeney.

I've clearly been outclassed, because I have no idea what this is in reference to.

if you think sage has a better flow than 50 than we clearly have different thoughts on the subject. i'll give you the lyrics, but only because i can't quantifiably defend them and he goes cartoonishly overboard sometimes.