Author Topic: Musicological banter  (Read 863180 times)

Yada

  • Member
  • Posts: 11537
Re: Musicological banter
« Reply #195 on: September 10, 2013, 08:49:16 am »
I generally like Matthew Yglesias but whenever he writes anything about music, he sounds clueless. Like here.

Apparently only young people go to shows and tapes are a "hilarious gag" now.


My christ... that dude is such a sanctimonious nozzle. He used to run in the same circle as an ex of mine nearly a decade ago and seems to get prickier by the years.

stevewizzle

  • Guest
Re: Musicological banter
« Reply #196 on: September 10, 2013, 09:10:52 am »
my favorite pitchfork review to read is the "oh shit these guys blew up and we didn't get any coverage on them?" 5.0

azaghal1981

  • Member
  • Posts: 12034
Re: Musicological banter
« Reply #197 on: September 10, 2013, 09:16:56 am »
There are a few Pitchfork contributors who I think are pretty reliably good/always worth reading whether or not you agree with them and know how to write a well-crafted review. Ned Raggett, Marc Masters, Lindsay Zoladz, Laura Snapes and Liz/Jenn Pelly come to mind. This Body/Head review published today, for example. The scoring system is bullshit, though. It is not the individual reviewer who scores an album; scores are supposedly an average made up of the ratings given by a bunch of contributors. The scoring system should be done away with altogether and let the reviews speak for themselves.
« Last Edit: September 10, 2013, 09:25:06 am by azaghal1981 »
احمد

hutch

  • Guest
Re: Musicological banter
« Reply #198 on: September 10, 2013, 10:55:15 am »
There are a few Pitchfork contributors who I think are pretty reliably good/always worth reading whether or not you agree with them and know how to write a well-crafted review. Ned Raggett, Marc Masters, Lindsay Zoladz, Laura Snapes and Liz/Jenn Pelly come to mind. This Body/Head review published today, for example. The scoring system is bullshit, though. It is not the individual reviewer who scores an album; scores are supposedly an average made up of the ratings given by a bunch of contributors. The scoring system should be done away with altogether and let the reviews speak for themselves.


I really think they base the score not one whit on the music..its just based on what is cool and hip and what isn't..i wouldn't be surprised if they tell the reviewer what the score is ahead of time.... is a band on the upslope? have they become too big? if so, they trash the band no matter what.... its a joke...so many bands on pitchfork they lovethem the first album or two and then they backlash them no matter how good what they put out is....

killsaly

  • Guest
Re: Musicological banter
« Reply #199 on: September 10, 2013, 11:03:58 am »
Pitchfork just sucks.

K8teebug

  • Member
  • Posts: 4119
Re: Musicological banter
« Reply #200 on: September 11, 2013, 09:04:14 am »
I cannot read any reviews on pitchfork.

ever.


azaghal1981

  • Member
  • Posts: 12034
Re: Musicological banter
« Reply #201 on: September 11, 2013, 09:15:14 am »
What's wrong with the one I linked?
احمد

K8teebug

  • Member
  • Posts: 4119
Re: Musicological banter
« Reply #202 on: September 11, 2013, 01:47:58 pm »
Too long winded.

I think that's always been my problem with pitchfork reviews.

But, I've never tried to review anything other than "good" "not good" "terrible", so what do I know?

atomic

  • Member
  • Posts: 2093
Re: Musicological banter
« Reply #203 on: September 11, 2013, 02:01:29 pm »
Too long winded.

I think that's always been my problem with pitchfork reviews.

But, I've never tried to review anything other than "good" "not good" "terrible", so what do I know?

Problem with any music review is that anything more than a couple of sentences is pretty useless.  To know whether you like music you have to listen to it.  I never read music reviews.  Interviews can be interesting though.

i am gay and i like cats

  • Guest
Re: Musicological banter
« Reply #204 on: September 11, 2013, 02:44:12 pm »
which one . . . is better?

sweetcell

  • Member
  • Posts: 21394
  • I don't belong here.
Re: Musicological banter
« Reply #205 on: September 11, 2013, 03:00:57 pm »
the problem with most PF reviews, at least as i remember them (haven't read any in a long while), is that 75% of the review has nothing (or at least very very little) to do with the album being reviewed.  the authors tend to talk in large arcs, describing what music means to them, about how it invokes childhood memories, then they might tangentially talk about the musical genre of the album in broad strokes before digressing into a random thought about that one show they saw years ago... oh yeah and the album is meh.  now about those wistful childhood memories...
<sig>

grateful

  • Member
  • Posts: 9775
  • 👤 👩 👦 📷 📺
    • Wait, the entire rest of the internet exists and you CHOOSE to post here? Who hurt you?
Re: Musicological banter
« Reply #206 on: September 11, 2013, 08:45:37 pm »
Too long winded.

I think that's always been my problem with pitchfork reviews.

But, I've never tried to review anything other than "good" "not good" "terrible", so what do I know?

What are you waiting for, "nuanced"?

slappy

  • Member
  • Posts: 999
Re: Musicological banter
« Reply #207 on: September 12, 2013, 10:55:05 am »
Mercury Prize nominees out.
It's a tough year to pick a hands down winner.
Disclosure would probably be my pick today.

Arctic Monkeys: AM
David Bowie: The Next Day
Disclosure: Settle
Foals: Holy Fire
Jake Bugg: Jake Bugg
James Blake: Overgrown
Jon Hopkins: Immunity
Laura Marling: Once I Was an Eagle
Laura Mvula: Sing to the Moon
Rudimental: Home
Savages: Silence Yourself
Villagers: Awayland

kosmo vinyl

  • Administrator
  • Member
  • Posts: 14623
    • Hi-Fi Pop
Re: Musicological banter
« Reply #208 on: September 12, 2013, 11:13:23 am »
I like the Villagers album
T.Rex

brennser

  • Member
  • Posts: 3757
Re: Musicological banter
« Reply #209 on: September 12, 2013, 11:47:34 am »