Clap Your Hands and Say Yeah, they're a young band that

Originally posted by Barcelona:

Originally posted by Jaguar:
Without going into detail, I have good reason to suspect that The Black Angels will probably be playing at Coachella next year.

Don't know anything about the Hand Clappers and couldn't care less. That has nothing whatsoever to do with Pitchfork since I have no idea what is going on there since I never bother with it. And that has nothing whatsoever to do with being or not being 'hip' as I couldn't care less what any faux hipsters think. In the end, it's all about the music.

if at the end it's all about the music and you don't know anything about Clap your… why don't give it a try, you might or might not like them, but listen to them, otherwise you are prejudging them based on who knows what, which probably makes you another cool indie music fan.

touché. I have a feeling you do know "what is going on there (pitchfork)", i dont read pitchfork either, but its very obvious that they raved over CYHSY tossing them into stardom.

The notion that Pitchfork alone can push a band into "stardom" is frequently cited, but demonstrably false. Arcade Fire and Clap Your Hands are but two of dozens of albums that Pitchfork has raved about in the last year.

How come there hasn't been a similar effect for Serena Maneesh, Wilderness, The Boy Least Likely To, Caribou, Isolee, Edan, Six Organs of Admittance, Castanets, etc….

Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
The notion that Pitchfork alone can push a band into "stardom" is frequently cited, but demonstrably false. Arcade Fire and Clap Your Hands are but two of dozens of albums that Pitchfork has raved about in the last year.

i'd agree with arcade fire and clap your hands … they both got buzz from a lot of other places … there's more of a case to be made, however, for broken social scene

clap your hands was more of a push from blogville, i thought

Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
The notion that Pitchfork alone can push a band into "stardom" is frequently cited, but demonstrably false.

The way I see it, a band needs two things to break: (1) a sound that appeals to people at that time, and (2) someway for people to hear it.

Pitchfork has been that #2 for BSS, CYHSY, Arcade Fire, and a few others. Simply look at sales figures from before pitchfork's reviews, and right afterwards. Without pitchfork, I don't see any of those bands being particularly big.
Now, you make the good point of other hyped bands that don't break. They're lacking #1 on my list.

I guess the point is, Pitchfork is sort of like an accelerant; it speeds up the word of mouth drastically - whereas it might have taken CYHSY years to have the word-of-mouth generate, Pitchfork allows a large group of people who would be favorable to their music to figure out they exist much quicker then otherwise. So, as with most things, the answer is neither of the extremes ("Pitchfork does nothing" vs. "pitchfork MAKES bands") but lies somewhere in the middle.

I first heard them on WOXY. Don't know if they got more play there because of pitchfork or not.

So which bands have recieved the biggest boost in sales from BigYawn?

Originally posted by Earl Blanton Jr., Late Model Champ:
So which bands have recieved the biggest boost in sales from BigYawn?

Hmm… probably Slipknot after we gave them that 8.5.

Originally posted by Barcelona:

Originally posted by Jaguar:
Without going into detail, I have good reason to suspect that The Black Angels will probably be playing at Coachella next year.

Don't know anything about the Hand Clappers and couldn't care less. That has nothing whatsoever to do with Pitchfork since I have no idea what is going on there since I never bother with it. And that has nothing whatsoever to do with being or not being 'hip' as I couldn't care less what any faux hipsters think. In the end, it's all about the music.

if at the end it's all about the music and you don't know anything about Clap your… why don't give it a try, you might or might not like them, but listen to them, otherwise you are prejudging them based on who knows what, which probably makes you another cool indie music fan.

I meant that I have no idea if the Hand Clappers will be playing at Coachella. :roll: With that said, I'm still not taken with their music.

And I fully agree with GGW that there is more to life than Pitchfork. There are tons of sites and outlets that collectively help to promote bands. It's just that Pitchfork gets a lot more credit for this than they sometimes deserve though they do pull in a big share. Have to give credit where credit is do even if I'm not of their readership.

Personally, I don't think it's a bad site by any means though I have my problems with them. I find that I only end up clicking on their site about once every 4 or 5 months. Not that I'm avoiding them. I just find that they don't interest me enough so I very rarely end up there. When I do, it's usually because I've followed someone's link. I've got my own network of friends and much smaller sites elsewhere and they do me just fine for the time being.

While on the subject, I'll take this opportunity to retract some comment I made regarding one of Pitchfork's praises. (Have no clue which thread that I made it in.) Someone (GGW, I think) noted that Pitchfork; as also stated by GGW above; predicted that Sarena Maneesh would take off and I said that I had only seen 1 video and thought they were overrated. Well, since then I've heard more and have been highly impressed. Not convinced the run of the mill hipster will be taken with them but I suspect that once more people hear them, they will have more fans. It's we Shoegazers and Psychedelic fans who will enjoy them along with several others riding someone's wagon, be it Pitchfork or whomever.