930 Forums

Musicological banter

K8teebug
Joined: August 03, 2004 at 05:01 AM UTC
Posts: 4126
Re: Musicological banter September 11, 2013 at 01:04 PM UTC #
I cannot read any reviews on pitchfork.

ever.

azaghal1981
Joined: June 17, 2004 at 05:01 AM UTC
Posts: 12035
Re: Musicological banter September 11, 2013 at 01:15 PM UTC #
What's wrong with the one I linked?
K8teebug
Joined: August 03, 2004 at 05:01 AM UTC
Posts: 4126
Re: Musicological banter September 11, 2013 at 05:47 PM UTC #
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
Joined: August 27, 2013 at 01:49 PM UTC
Posts: 2093
Re: Musicological banter September 11, 2013 at 06:01 PM UTC #
K8teebug wrote:
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
Joined: Unknown
Posts: 0
Re: Musicological banter September 11, 2013 at 06:44 PM UTC #
which one . . . is better?
sweetcell
Joined: July 18, 2006 at 05:01 AM UTC
Posts: 22608
Re: Musicological banter September 11, 2013 at 07:00 PM UTC #
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…
grateful
Joined: October 15, 2008 at 05:01 AM UTC
Posts: 11564
Re: Musicological banter September 12, 2013 at 12:45 AM UTC #
K8teebug wrote:
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
Joined: October 16, 2001 at 05:01 AM UTC
Posts: 999
Re: Musicological banter September 12, 2013 at 02:55 PM UTC #
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
Joined: September 23, 1999 at 05:01 AM UTC
Posts: 16329
Re: Musicological banter September 12, 2013 at 03:13 PM UTC #
I like the Villagers album
brennser
Joined: October 21, 2002 at 05:01 AM UTC
Posts: 3760
Re: Musicological banter September 12, 2013 at 03:47 PM UTC #
kosmo wrote:
I like the Villagers album

me too
gellman
Joined: May 13, 2004 at 05:01 AM UTC
Posts: 463
Re: Musicological banter September 12, 2013 at 04:29 PM UTC #
killsaly wrote:
Pitchfork just sucks.


What's hilarious/sad is that they rewrite their own history by scrubbing older reviews from their archvies. It's like they're embarrassed they reviewed a Less Than Jake or Sir Mix-A-Lot album and have to maintain this elite indie presence.

Because yes, this happened: http://web.archive.org/web/20000816190320/www.pitchforkmedia.com/record-reviews/s/sir-mix-a-lot/return-of-the-bumpasaurus.shtml
sweetcell
Joined: July 18, 2006 at 05:01 AM UTC
Posts: 22608
Re: Musicological banter September 12, 2013 at 04:45 PM UTC #
BrettnotBritt wrote:
killsaly wrote:
Pitchfork just sucks.


What's hilarious/sad is that they rewrite their own history by scrubbing older reviews from their archvies. It's like they're embarrassed they reviewed a Less Than Jake or Sir Mix-A-Lot album and have to maintain this elite indie presence.

Because yes, this happened: http://web.archive.org/web/20000816190320/www.pitchforkmedia.com/record-reviews/s/sir-mix-a-lot/return-of-the-bumpasaurus.shtml

wow.  well that's embarrassing (that they scrub their archives, not that they liked mixalot's disappointing 1996 album)
azaghal1981
Joined: June 17, 2004 at 05:01 AM UTC
Posts: 12035
Re: Musicological banter September 12, 2013 at 06:44 PM UTC #
BrettnotBritt wrote:
killsaly wrote:
Pitchfork just sucks.


What's hilarious/sad is that they rewrite their own history by scrubbing older reviews from their archvies. It's like they're embarrassed they reviewed a Less Than Jake or Sir Mix-A-Lot album and have to maintain this elite indie presence.

Because yes, this happened: http://web.archive.org/web/20000816190320/www.pitchforkmedia.com/record-reviews/s/sir-mix-a-lot/return-of-the-bumpasaurus.shtml

That is pretty funny and sad.
killsaly
Joined: Unknown
Posts: 0
Re: Musicological banter September 13, 2013 at 02:28 PM UTC #
slappy wrote:
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
I have not heard a single album on that list…

And in other Mercury Prize News:
http://www.theguardian.com/music/2013/sep/13/my-bloody-valentine-slams-mercury-prize
"Isn't Mercury a phone company or something, anyway? What's that got to do with music?" Shields said in an exclusive interview. "We're banned by them, and do you know why? Because we're not on Amazon or iTunes. That's one of the qualifying criteria. You have to have major distribution or be on iTunes or Amazon."

Shields may be correct. According to the terms and conditions on the Mercury website, qualifying albums will have "a digital and physical distribution deal in place in the UK". My Bloody Valentine, who self-released their album, only sold the digital version of mbv through their own website. This may not be considered a "digital distribution deal".

"We released our record, mbv, independently," Shields said. My Bloody Valentine didn't even rely on an indie label such as Domino or Alcopop! Records. "It's interesting to learn that to be as independent as we are is ? virtually illegal," he said. "It's not a real record. Our album's not a real album because it's independent. The corporate-ness has got to such a point where we've essentially been told that we don't exist. So, technically, that album doesn't exist. OK? It's not allowed to exist according to the Mercury prize."
azaghal1981
Joined: June 17, 2004 at 05:01 AM UTC
Posts: 12035
Re: Musicological banter September 13, 2013 at 02:41 PM UTC #
He is right in that completely independently released albums should be considered but his going on to essentially call the Mercury Prize a curse kind of negates his argument, no? If you don't want it, why complain about not being nominated for it?
azaghal1981
Joined: June 17, 2004 at 05:01 AM UTC
Posts: 12035
Re: Musicological banter September 17, 2013 at 03:41 PM UTC #
This speaker list for the Future of Music Coalition conference looks great. http://t.co/lJZtg44AFS
Sidehatch
Joined: October 04, 2011 at 04:33 AM UTC
Posts: 25687
Re: Musicological banter September 17, 2013 at 03:49 PM UTC #
azaghal1981 wrote:
This speaker list for the Future of Music Coalition conference looks great. http://t.co/lJZtg44AFS


nice, sandy Perlman and Wayne Kramer are guests
The Keynote speakers look pretty dry…
local music showcase..but doesn't have any details
azaghal1981
Joined: June 17, 2004 at 05:01 AM UTC
Posts: 12035
Re: Musicological banter September 17, 2013 at 03:57 PM UTC #
John Conyers could be good.
← Back to board