Pitchfork's Greatest LOLZ
Today's U.2 score handed to the Lucifer negating British Sea Power LP reminded us that Pitchfork can be funny! Sometimes. No, not like when they gave ...And You Will Know Us By The Trail Of Dead a 10.0 -- we mean intentional jokes. Like, we all remember Jet's golden showers and, perhaps less pissy, the it's-up-to-you (no really, it's 9.3) score for In Rainbows (right, showers do lead to rainbows). Then, of course, there are those albums that land a double goose egg. It's hard to imagine any record's actually worth a zero (c'mon, really), so we're ranking those with the jokes. Among the infamous 0.0's are The Flaming Lips' Zaireeka, Sonic Youth's NYC Ghosts & Flowers, the This Is Next comp, Travistan (whose maker Travis Morrison kindly commented on the This Is Next double egging a few months back), Liz Phair's Liz Phair, etc.
Obviously the comical drubbing is a cute way to reject a record, but its hyperbole can give you a little sympathy for the artist -- probably a side-effect unintended (undesired, even). So what's worse on the band/more effective for the reviewer: the bad review, or the joke review?
As a graphic designer, though, you gotta admit this was a good gag:
Posted at 1:39 PM
-->
-->
Do You Like Rock Music? is so good, it's a little frustrating that they gave it a joke score.
Score = 0
I enjoyed the recent "6.66" score given to the Heavy Metal Box (http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/article/record_review/47906-the-heavy-metal-box)
Score = 0
Nothing compared to: http://www.tinymixtapes.com/Nine-Inch-Nails
Score = 0
they gave In Rainbows 9.3
Score = 0
I liked this review of Daft Punk "Daft Club" from 2006...
http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/article/record_review/16832-daft-club?artist_title=16832-daft-club
Score = 0
in rainbows was a 9.3
Score = 0
>in rainbows was a 9.3
not really up to us, then? caught it, thanks.
Score = 0
The review of Louis XIV's "The Best Little Secrets are Kept" was quite funny.
Score = 0
The review of Louis XIV's "The Best Little Secrets are Kept" was gold.
http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/article/record_review/19591-the-best-little-secrets-are-kept
Score = 0
God that review of BSP was ridiculous.
Some of those reviewers deserve to be shot.
So anything considered "anthemic rock" ultimately has to be associated with U2?
Score = 0
I've got a lot of problems with that review. I liked the first two BSP records, but I wasn't a huge fan, and Rock Music took me by total shock because I didn't think this minor band was capable of this major music.
I don't get the 2000s U2 thing at all, and I get the Arcade Fire comparison even less. I think the reviewer is at full stretch here, reviewing his own theory rather than the record. And to liken this band to the Alarm, which changed musical styles every record in the early-80s to sound like whatever was hot at the time (Psychedelic Furs one record, U2 the next, etc.), is inaccurate. I don't think Rock Music is a huge departure stylistically from Open Season -- it's just better.
Again, I don't care who likes the record or not, I just hope everyone gives it a chance like I did -- nothing's better than an unexpected pleasant surprise. Usually, I only get the "I didn't think this band could suck so hard" type surprises.
Score = 0
yes - I too feel http://www.tinymixtapes.com/Nine-Inch-Nails is quite memorable [and deathly accurate!] ///
Score = 0
people tend to forget that Buddyhead was doing this long before Pitchfork or Vice ever did.
also, this is my favorite snarky review ever.
http://www.punknews.org/review/2881
Score = 0
thanks for the Louis XIV link, jerry, that was hilarious. i miss nick's reviews.
Score = 0
Why is it funny that they gave ...Trail of Dead a 10? Source Tags is a tremendously beautiful album. I think they would still stand behind that.
Their more recent albums, on the other hand... *shudder* What happened to those guys? Something un-rockified them in a big way.
Score = 0
ah - BUDDYHEAD. and to that punk "review" - l'orginal Madballs http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1293/558999809_a757c43af8_o.jpg were supreme [much like the Nerf Boomerang {in the trees!}] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBoFz3Tu3_s&feature=related.
Shit - after watching that Nerf commercial I kinda wanna talk about 'Surf's Up'.. ..
Score = 0
The Kid A review
"The experience and emotions tied to listening to Kid A are like witnessing the stillborn birth of a child while simultaneously having the opportunity to see her play in the afterlife on Imax"
Score = 0
A great one from a while back was this review for Shat - "The Cunt Chronicles."
http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/article/record_review/22257-the-cunt-chronicles
Score = 0
My favorite Pfork review is of Har Mar Superstar's You Can Feel Me, which eventually just devolves into Ryan Schreiber pounding the keyboard in frustration.
http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/article/record_review/18367-you-can-feel-me
Score = 0
What about when someone sent them an email with the name Sufjan and said some girl was pregnant, and then they ran it at the top of the page?
Or when they got the "scoop" on Jeff Mangum posting on a message board somewhere.
Those are lolz. And isn't it lulz now? It's so hard to be cool.
Score = 0
I burst out laughing at the U.2 score. What an "OH SHIIIIIIIT" moment.
Score = 0
I can't believe nobody has mentioned this one yet:
http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/article/record_review/38853-shine-on
Classic.
Score = 0
By funny do you mean assholes?
Score = 0
yeah the JET bit was in the intro - like 4 lines in.
Score = 0
@josh
did you read the body of the post?
Score = 0
pitchfork, in general, no longer likes rock music. I also thought the '2000s U2' reference was way off base and the review in general made zero good points...and was poorly written. I'd question the reveiwer's ability to recognize artistic merit within music and to me, pitchfork seems to be off base more often than not lately. I think they've lost their credibility. More publications/blogs need to call out their BS, instead of falling inline with whatever they say is good or bad.
Score = 0
they're pretentious assholes. who cares what they think?
Score = 0
you guys all probably read pitchforkmedia.com every single day.
Score = 0
anyone else notice how the metacritic system interpret's pitchfork's U.2 as a 40% ? How does that add up?
also its weird how the opinions in Reviews don't match opinions in Forkcast or what gets covered in News. then again, lots of different writers, sure, but still weird.
In conclusion: Yes, Lucifer.
Score = 0
fuck you stereogum, Source Tags & Codes is a fantastic album. I would absolutely stand by that review.
Score = 0
Pitchfork is getting so obscure with some of their preferences that in 5 years time, they're going to be handing out 10's to records comprised entirely of the bleating of a goat looped over television static.
Score = 0
From Metacritic cache:
Given e^(2*pi*i/2*pi*i) = e^(1) = e ... 1^(1/2*pi*i) has to be equal to e.
I'm convinced that, for an arc of length x in radians: (cos x + i sin x)^(2 pi / x) = 1.
show that [(x+y)(xy- 1)]/[(x-y)(xy+1)] = (Sin A + Sin B)/(Sin A - Sin B).
CADAEIBFEC is a mnemonic for an important piece of mathematical information.
**THEREFORE we prove the 'ongoing hypothesis' that Pitchforkmedia.com does and *will* continue to suck goat cock[s].**
Score = 0
Anyone remember when P4K felt responsible for ranking all the albums by decade? The 1980's list was great, especially the slot for Duran Duran's Rio.
Score = 0
i think the biggest lolz for me is how pitchfork gives frothing-at-the-mouth, ecstatic coverage to friends (vampire weekend), family (high places), and employees (get him eat him, single frame).
Score = 0
yeah i thought this was awful... especially for a band that they used to be into -- big time. at least for In Rainbows, they corrected the joke with a real score, but this doesn't go anywhere or say anything. It's one moron assuming he is a genius. looks like once again, if i want to know what a new record is like, i have to look somewhere other than pitchfork.
Score = 0
pitchfork gives music a 6.8
Score = 0
pitchfork only makes a toxic and confused music scene/industry more poisonous for the real music lovers out there. never before has a king used his power so stupidly.
Score = 0
I saw a news report about the guys who run the site...very nerdy sad looking douches...anything but "cool" guys
also, if you have ever seen the bands their writers play in, all cred is thrown out the window, it is just pathetic guys who will resemble Jim Derogatis in a few years
Score = 0
"I saw a news report about the guys who run the site...very nerdy sad looking douches...anything but "cool" guys"
You must be new to this music review biz. Nobody looks cool, otherwise they'd be on television. If they don't look 'cool' to you, that means you're probably not a writer and listen to Daughtry.
Score = 0
it's cool to say that pitchfork sucks. it's like calling a band overrated or saying you liked their old stuff more.
it's a useful site for indie rock news, not a hipster shitfest that some people make it out to be.
Score = 0
my fav is the lifter puller
http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/article/record_review/19395-fiestas-and-fiascos
because of all of the references to 3.2% alcohol in the lyrics
Score = 0
i'm a smashing pumpkins fan but their trashing of "Machina" always makes me laugh, the part about someone whispering in Billy's ear, "no".
and by the way, trail of dead's "source tags and codes" was sure as shit a 10.0
excellent at the very least, absolute perfection is a bit much.
Score = 0
I just heard Duran Duran's Rio two days ago and still sounds pretty great to me. So, what about it?
Score = 0
"it's cool to say that pitchfork sucks. it's like calling a band overrated or saying you liked their old stuff more."
--- no, that's not the point. the point is that pitchfork has immense power to break AND/OR destroy a bands career. if you don't believe me, you must not work in this industry. everyone is running scared and pitchfork is, for the moment, something that is taken very seriously.
the difference between a 5.0 and an 8.0 is gigantic for all of the small-to-medium-sized bands stereogum-types like. i've seen both sides in the biz. unfortunately, pitchfork wields its power like a know-it-all teenager. their brand is adolescent angst and ad hominem negativity and it's depressing that such a force runs our little indie world for now.
i know it's fun to read poorly researched, mean-spirited reviews sometimes. and they are a fantastic one-stop clearing house for indie news.
but - trust me - pitchfork is the tyrant that NO ONE actually likes (including most of the bands it adores), but are all afraid to double cross.
Score = 0
Referring to Pitchfork as some monolithic entity ignores the fact that it's just individual reviwers' opinions. Decline of BSP got a 7.7, Open Season got a 7.8, Krankenhaus got a 7.3. All of these, including the new review were written by different people. So read the reviews if you want but don't get pissed off or see some big conspiracy.
Score = 0
If any other music review site did any of these jokes, i'd laugh. But too much of the time pitchfork media's review(s)(ers) make them sound like assholes. So when they make a joke, their douchebaggery is just further exaggerated.
Also, i will never forgive them for Zaireeka. Whoever wrote that review should be fired. And that's from a guy who thought Zaireeka was a pretty weak album, even with 4 cd players.
Score = 0
pitchfork = douchebag
useful, but you have to feel dirty after using it.
Score = 0
"pitchfork gives music a 6.8"
I read that article; I love the onion!
Score = 0
Pitchfork's dismissive douchebaggery = not so funny
Stereogum writing about P4K's co-called "lolz" = very funny
But not funny ha-ha. Funny sad.
Score = 0
buddyhead definitely used to give the best reviews. i mean, the shit on everybody, for the most part. but they were definitely funny.
chunklet is a good alternative nowadays.
Score = 0
Silly humans, Lucifer doesn't detest Pitchfork - it is the work of mere mortals.
Score = 0
Often - in order to decide whether I enjoy a selection of music or *not* - I will listen to it.
{listening to music.. . who _in_the_fuck_ does that any_more?}
more'oft I will allow my initial impression to "sink in", may_haps later revisiting the offered piece of audible grandeur before drawing any fi_nite [con]clusion.
works of writing are for reading.
works of music are for hearing.
/
http://skirmisher.org/art-design/how-to-make-a-dead-deer-and-influence-people/
Score = 0
@aj
I actually listened to "Fiestas and Faiscoes" on the bus ride to work today. Lifter Puller is drastically underrated (Like, none of their stuff is in print, but I'd personally give them a 9.1. Once you start to pick up on the details, it feels like a punchy little novel to get lost in.) However, I oddly feel like I'd have a hard time arguing with this guy.
I think that hating pitchfork is the new revering pitchfork. Plus, you know you're gonna check the fucker every morning no matter what.(Thus inflating hit counts, percieved market value, ad rates, etc.) Sigh, I miss Stylus. (Ps. Now declaring "missing stylus" the new "hating pitchfork" Who else wants in on the ground floor of this?)
Score = 0
Always remember that they gave clap your hands say yeah a 9.0 which was the foundation upon which the hype was built. I think championing mediocre bands is their worst offense.
The one LULZ that I don't find funny is this "concept" review of Stratford 4 where the reviewer has the singer literally eating shit from a magical bull. What an asshole.
http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/article/record_review/22073-love-and-distortion
Score = 0
the Pitchfork entry on Wikipedia has a nice list of rating trivia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pitchfork_media
Re: Why is it funny that they gave ...Trail of Dead a 10? Source Tags is a tremendously beautiful album. I think they would still stand behind that.
They wouldn't. In their Best Albums of 2000-2004 list, it came in at #48
http://www.listology.com/content_show.cfm/content_id.16477
Also for that year it came in #3 after Interpol - Lights (9.5) and Wilco - YHF (10.0)
Also from the 4.0 World's Apart review:
"Did Source Tags & Codes deserve a 10.0? That's not for me to say, but Matt LeMay rightfully counted it as one of indie rock's truly epic albums. By now, "epic" has grown stretch marks-- the term is thrown around whenever tracks buy into a concept, or break up into movements, or simply push past four minutes. Really, to be epic is to have a grand purpose, a destiny, and to fulfill it-- not out of desire, but out of necessity."
Anyway - the reviews are from individuals, sometimes they're not on the money, but I don't think I've ever been dissapointed with an album from their best new music or recommended catagories, and the year end lists are usualy solid. Mostly they write reviews of albums they like. A site with 4+ reviews a day is not going to have a perfect track record, but to completely dismiss their credibility is silly. It's easy to attack the guy at the top, but their at the top for a reason.
Score = 0
Good job with the stats cale. Serious.
2 questions: Are you an athiest? Are you voting Obama?
Score = 0
on top of another point made earlier about ratings and rankings:
Burial = 8.4 (bullshit) and #10 of the year
Menomena? Sunset Rubdown? both were 8.5s and not even on the top 50
Score = 0
90% of Burial's album is somber noises.
Score = 0
http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/article/record_review/19782-live-ep
Best pitchfork review I've ever seen.
Score = 0
pitchfork rated my life a 3.4
Score = 0
oh and stereogum is the new pitchfork.
Score = 0
Kevin - the reviews are from one person, the year end lists are compiled from every staff members individual lists, so it makes sense that there would be a disconnect. Ok, I'm done defending Pitchfork for the day, time to go deny the existence of God and campaign for Obama.
Score = 0
stereofork.
Score = 0
i think david cross summed up pitchfork the best. and they even published it. click to read.
Score = 0
Actually... I like Pitchfork a lot.
Am I a bad person now?
Score = 0
I'd probably disagree with British Sea Power's U.2 score if they didn't suck ass.
They're right up there with that whole "British Indie" scene, and they remind me a lot of Kaiser Chiefs: talentless losers desperately searching for "indie cred".
Maybe given BSP's tendency to switch sounds every album, and the fact that every "sound" they switch to is plenty well-trodden, they deserve a "joke review".
I mean, I have a lot (a LOT) of problems with P4K, but I've got to stand by their status as the top online publication. did anyone see 2007's year-end list? the best list out there by far; no where else did you see such a wide variety of music on their list. (and good music at that).
C'mon, give them a break, they've come along way. Late-90's to around 04 Pitchfork is WAY worse than current Pitchfork. Remember when they called Odelay the greatest album of its year, then retracted the score?
Score = 0
Source Tags was in fact.. weak. Glad SG agrees it probably at least wasn't worth a 10.
Score = 0
These are the reviews that got me hooked on pitchfork back in 10th grade:
http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/article/record_review/18879-bleed-american
http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/article/record_review/18878-clarity
Back then being cool just meant making fun of Jimmy Eat World fans. It was a simpler time.
Also, props to whoever mentioned the Jet, Louis XIV, and SP-Machina reviews. Those were absolutely hysterical.
Score = 0
Those who mentioned the Onion article, thank you, here's a link for those who don't know.
http://www.theonion.com/content/news/pitchfork_gives_music_6_8
It's so dead on. I mean really, somebody needs to tell the a-holes at pitchfork to just stop already. I can't see how anybody can agree with their reviews. Sure they might be right sometimes, but it's for the wrong reasons. What I mean by that is the albums they like, they like for retarded purposes. Like "Atmosphere", they throw that word around like a monkey throws shit. Look at their past lists of albums of the year, especially Kid A, Panda Bear, and Sigur Ros, which all feature vast "atmosphere". I'm not saying they are bad albums, but the review pitchfork gave to Kid A hardly discusses why it's a good album. The only redeeming quality about the site is that they get the word out there about underground bands. But honestly, I don't see how they can hear music with their heads so far up their asses.
Score = 0
While I agree that Pitchfork has gotten worse recently and is a shell of the reviewer it used to be (I still don't understand what they have against the new Shins album) but I still enjoy the website. As other people mentioned it's still a good place for news and not all reviews are shit now. It's a good source to use for new music that may be good, but not the definitive source. As mentioned earlier these reviews are the opinion of one reviewer so don't get so pissy if they don't like a band you do. I also agree they hold too much sway over what people think about bands but for someone like me who already owns over 300 records it's a good source to use to sort through some of the "shit" for something that might be decent to add to the collection. And when it comes down to it, we're all kind of music snobs who look down on what we don't like. We just don't all have websites.
Score = 0
the Jet one is mad funny
Score = 0
"And when it comes down to it, we're all kind of music snobs who look down on what we don't like. We just don't have websites"
Well put and 100% true. I don't like Of Montreal....at all. But I'm not going to blog about it just for the sake of spreading my opinion.
Pitchfork does wield power but only because we all (yes even the haters...probably moreso the haters) visit the site regularly.
And they put on a pretty decent festival. I will give them that. Any festival that serves Goose Island 312 beer as its primary lager is fine by me.
Score = 0
"Any festival that serves Goose Island 312 beer as its primary lager is fine by me."
Score = 0
Nothing funny about giving 'Source, Tags and Codes' a 10. Years later that album still holds as an amazing piece of work. Fucking fantastic record!
Score = 0
I think they come off my cute than funny, and they don't even do that well.
Score = 0