PDA

View Full Version : Best site about news in music



bouncingcoles
11-20-2007, 06:07 PM
www.punknews.org is the best site for info about music. although its called punk news, it covers all different types of bands and is updated many times everyday. Fans can also post news to let everyone else know the details. unfortunatly there are not many offspring fans on the site. but prehaps we can change that.

nieh
11-20-2007, 06:09 PM
Pitchfork is a good source for news even though I hate just about everything else about the site including its taste in music.

JohnnyNemesis
11-20-2007, 06:12 PM
I agree. Pitchfork is an excellent news source, but it has the absolute worst taste in music on the Internet. Absolutely disgraceful.

BREAK
11-20-2007, 07:28 PM
Pitchfork hires some really bad writers, so I can understand hating them for that, but dissing their taste in music is dumb. They can trash your favorite band all you want, but at the end of the day, you still love some of the albums they've favorably reviewed. It's impossible not to.

Jakebert
11-20-2007, 07:50 PM
Pitchfork doesn't have taste in music, which is exactly their problem. They trash everything that isn't already considered a classic in order to make themselves look smart, the same way BBSers like Lodat and Venom trash everything that's cool in order to look badass or smart.

Homer
11-20-2007, 08:14 PM
So, I guess we can conclude this thread by saying:

Pitchfork = Lodat and Venom.

nieh
11-20-2007, 08:29 PM
at the end of the day, you still love some of the albums they've favorably reviewed. It's impossible not to.

That's true, but can I hate them for giving Zaireeka a 0 when they only listened to one or two of the four discs? They dismissed it before they even heard it. Or for giving a 0 to Travistan (not that it was amazing or anything) because the lyrics didn't live up to their expectations? Even when I agree with them in regards to thinking a band is great, I feel wrong for doing so because they're so obnoxious with it. I remember they named dropped the Dismemberment Plan (specifically E&I which I still think only has a handful of good songs) on about four of the first five reviews I read on the site even though the bands sounded nothing alike.

Jakebert
11-20-2007, 08:31 PM
One of my favorites (or least favorite, depending at how you look at it) is when they gave Sonic Youth's "NYC Ghosts" a 0.0 for being too experimental. Yep. Here's a website that prides itself on being pretentious, giving an album a 0.0 for being too experimental.

nieh
11-20-2007, 08:42 PM
How about the time they didn't even write a review for the most recent Jet album and just posted a video of a monkey drinking it's own piss? Funny, yeah. But if I'm not mistaken they get PAID to review music, don't they? That's like the greatest job ever. They should've at least written SOMETHING about it. If they want to write Jet off, why not just not review them at all like any other big band out there? You don't see them reviewing Nickelback or anything like that.

Jakebert
11-20-2007, 08:46 PM
I didn't hear about that, but yeah, that's retarded.

One that really bugs me is that the original review for "In the Aeroplane Over the Sea" was just as scathing as anything else they review, but once it developed cult status, they deleted that review and wrote a new one declaring it 10.0.

I mean, I agree with the 10.0 because I'm one of the folks who absolutely love that album, but at least have the nutsack to stand by your opinion.

jacknife737
11-20-2007, 08:54 PM
www.punknews.org is the best site for info about music. although its called punk news, it covers all different types of bands and is updated many times everyday. Fans can also post news to let everyone else know the details. unfortunatly there are not many offspring fans on the site. but prehaps we can change that.

Its my favorite site for punk/indie news on the net. The discussions are a lot better now that they’ve gotten rid of the anonymous postings. Is your username the same? I post there a lot, but can't recall seeing a "bouncingcoles"

JohnnyNemesis
11-21-2007, 01:59 AM
Holy fuck remembering what nieh and Jakebert just mentioned just sent my already seething rage for Pitchfork right through the fucking roof I want them to fucking die the fucking scumbag assholes.

BREAK
11-21-2007, 11:19 AM
That's true, but can I hate them for giving Zaireeka a 0 when they only listened to one or two of the four discs? They dismissed it before they even heard it.

Or for giving a 0 to Travistan (not that it was amazing or anything) because the lyrics didn't live up to their expectations? Even when I agree with them in regards to thinking a band is great, I feel wrong for doing so because they're so obnoxious with it.

I remember they named dropped the Dismemberment Plan (specifically E&I which I still think only has a handful of good songs) on about four of the first five reviews I read on the site even though the bands sounded nothing alike.

All these blunders, egregious as they are, have nothing to do with music taste and are the fault of the very problem I identified in my earlier post: shitty writing. I'm pretty sure at this point that their number grades are assigned after the fact, by people who haven't listened to the album. Ignore them.

JohnnyNemesis
11-21-2007, 11:39 AM
The best example of their shitty writing is their review of Radiohead's Kid A.

Kid A is one of my personal favorite albums, they gave it a 10.0, and I still came away from the review wanting to fucking dismember the first person I saw.

Their review of Obie Trice's Cheers pissed me off too.

H1T_That
11-21-2007, 12:34 PM
"Pitchfork is a website dedicated to music and the discussion thereof. And we rule"

Fucking arrogant douche-bag cunts.


Oh yeah, their reviews tend to be fucking horrendous too.

bouncingcoles
11-21-2007, 01:51 PM
Its my favorite site for punk/indie news on the net. The discussions are a lot better now that they’ve gotten rid of the anonymous postings. Is your username the same? I post there a lot, but can't recall seeing a "bouncingcoles"

no i havent made a username yet. but i think im going to

ruroken
11-21-2007, 02:11 PM
Egotistical bastards... sounds like my kind of people!

Jakebert
11-22-2007, 11:13 AM
The best example of their shitty writing is their review of Radiohead's Kid A.

Kid A is one of my personal favorite albums, they gave it a 10.0, and I still came away from the review wanting to fucking dismember the first person I saw.

Their review of Obie Trice's Cheers pissed me off too.

Exactly. They feel the need to be negative in every single review, regardless of how much they like the album. When they re-reviewed "Daydream Nation" on it's 20th anniversary, they rightfully declared it the most important indie record of all time, the proceeded to rip it apart for no reason. Then in the middle of the review, it decided to switch into a scathing, angry denouncement of 90's alt-rock. I agreed with a lot of the stuff they said, but at the same time, it was pointless and had no relevance to the rest of the review.

I understand that every record has it's flaws and a good writer should point them out. But Pitchfork is negative just for the sake of being negative. It's why I generally use Allmusic.com for my reviews, because they swing the other way. They review everything in a positive light, but the rating they give it is usually honest.

EDIT: I just remembered another one that pisses me off. They ripped apart "Tallahasse" by the Mountain Goats, calling it overhyped and unrealized. They cited the hype that the Mountain Goats were finally a full band was false since most of the songs were still just Darnelle and a guitar. Yet I guarentee if he had used a full band on every song, they'd have ripped him apart for that too.

ruroken
12-04-2007, 09:32 AM
I don't like Daydream Nation. It bores me.

What the hell is with In the Aeroplane Over the Sea? King of Carrot Flowers Part 2 is strange. "I LOVE YOU JESUS CHRIST" ... the way he says it is annoying and a little creepy. And is that fuzz or just too much distortion? What the hell is he talking about? I'm like "hey this is pretty damn go--WTF?? What the HELL DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH ANYTHING?!" Like in the title track, where he says something about sticking his fingers in someone's eyes or nose or somewhere on the face. I don't get that. BAGPIPES!! AAGH BAGPIPES WHAT THE FUCK---now something fun to listen to rather than annoying? I'm so confused...
Aside from that, its really awesome.

Jakebert
12-04-2007, 10:52 AM
You have no idea what art is, do you, Incubus fan?

The reason the lyrics are so dark is because it's about the Holocaust. It's about Anne Frank, therefore it's going to be cryptic and off-putting. If it was shiny and happy and ect. it'd be boring and not convey the feeling that it's intended to.

And what's wrong with bagpipes? Would you rather they include unneeded DJ scratching?

ruroken
12-04-2007, 11:39 AM
I don't listen to music for "art". I listen to music for fun.

What? But he's like "beautiful day (etc.)" and then out of nowhere he's like "stick my fingers in your eyes" which doesn't quite make much sense. Not that the lyrics have to, I'm just saying it was a rather quick subject change.

Yes, actually, I would rather they include unneeded DJ scratching. It's better than bagpipes, and they could scratch with some relevant sound effect.

Jakebert
12-04-2007, 12:12 PM
Art is fun, since some people enjoy thinking and actually using their brain rather than turning it off and saying "lol!!!!! "My Humps" mean boobs!!!!!"

The violent lyrics are references to the medical experiments done on prisoners at Nazi concentration camps. And the idea of juxtaposing them more pretty descriptions is kind of a classic artistic theme that can mean a lot of different things.

The bagpipes fit the music. There are more instruments that can be used in music aside from guitars, keyboards, and drums. Please expand your knowledge of music.

BREAK
12-04-2007, 12:14 PM
Exactly. They feel the need to be negative in every single review, regardless of how much they like the album. When they re-reviewed "Daydream Nation" on it's 20th anniversary, they rightfully declared it the most important indie record of all time, the proceeded to rip it apart for no reason. Then in the middle of the review, it decided to switch into a scathing, angry denouncement of 90's alt-rock. I agreed with a lot of the stuff they said, but at the same time, it was pointless and had no relevance to the rest of the review.

I understand that every record has it's flaws and a good writer should point them out. But Pitchfork is negative just for the sake of being negative. It's why I generally use Allmusic.com for my reviews, because they swing the other way. They review everything in a positive light, but the rating they give it is usually honest.

EDIT: I just remembered another one that pisses me off. They ripped apart "Tallahasse" by the Mountain Goats, calling it overhyped and unrealized. They cited the hype that the Mountain Goats were finally a full band was false since most of the songs were still just Darnelle and a guitar. Yet I guarentee if he had used a full band on every song, they'd have ripped him apart for that too.

I don't know, your arguments against them all sort of read like "oh noez, they said my favorite band sucked :(" Why do people put so much emotional investment in music reviews? Personally, I get more upset when they praise something I didn't like.

But nobody remembers them for what they like. Their whole reputation is built on an image of being snarky bastards who hate-a-lot. It doesn't matter that their positive and lukewarm reviews mostly outweigh the negative ones, people want to see another stunt like the monkey that drinks its own piss video. That's why they're so prominent, why anybody's ever heard of them. Like spoiled children, they do it all for the attention. If you don't like that attitude, then for fuck's sake, don't give them what they want.

nieh
12-04-2007, 12:20 PM
How about the new Ted Leo? I think they gave it a higher rating than any of his other albums and I don't know a single person that actually likes it.

Jakebert
12-04-2007, 12:32 PM
I didn't see that, but that is weird. I like it, but I wouldn't rate it higher than his other stuff.

JohnnyNemesis
12-04-2007, 12:32 PM
Holy shit, ruroken. Just...oh my fucking hell, holy shit, ruroken.

wheelchairman
12-04-2007, 02:30 PM
You have no idea what art is, do you, Incubus fan?


I take exception to this. You can't rant about how pretentious a music-review website is. And then flip out at some because you think that you know what art is better than this someone else does. I mean I highly doubt you have any qualifications in this area other than a bad attitude.

JohnnyNemesis
12-04-2007, 02:34 PM
Actually, this particular instance is pretty much the only occasion in which a comment like "you have no idea what art is" is actually valid.

PaintPhone
12-04-2007, 03:16 PM
I find most albums reviews to be pretty lame. Just the main idea of it. Whenever I listen, it's always very personal to me, and breaking it down by how it sounds just doesn't work for me. They tend to look more at the technical aspects of it. It makes it seem like it's not really a song at all. Of course I might look at a review or two to get a main idea, but I don't think much of them are very reliable.

0r4ng3
12-04-2007, 03:18 PM
"lol!!!!! "My Humps" mean boobs!!!!!"
Y'know, up until this post I had no idea what that song was about. Seriously. Now I feel like an idiot.

Vera
12-04-2007, 03:54 PM
You thought it was about Fergie's hunchback?

Sounds like somebody is asking for their mind to get corrupted...

Jakebert
12-04-2007, 03:59 PM
I take exception to this. You can't rant about how pretentious a music-review website is. And then flip out at some because you think that you know what art is better than this someone else does. I mean I highly doubt you have any qualifications in this area other than a bad attitude.

I normally wouldn't have this attitude, but I know ruroken very well in terms of his musical opinions. He's just not well-versed on music, and I'm saying this from prior experiences with him. I wouldn't make that judgement in just an situation. And he did nothing but prove me right with his post after that, so I have no reason to retract what I said. If he had proved me wrong, I most likely would have.

wheelchairman
12-05-2007, 02:06 AM
Oh I agree that Ruroken has no idea what art is. I'm saying you don't have the background to say what art is. That's where I'm coming from.

ruroken
12-05-2007, 11:33 AM
Please, somebody point out where I said "I know what art is" and whatever else I said that could have possibly given a bad impression because all I'm seeing here is people going "my god, ruroken, you're pretty fucking retarded" when all I said was "i don't care for music as an art" which is a strange thing to get defensive about. I wasn't even arguing. I wasn't trying to say anything sucks.

Read what I said again. I said "Daydream Nation" bores me. That doesn't mean it sucks. Then, I asked what Aeroplane was about, because it seemed random to me. I never said it was stupid. After that, I was being retarded about small complaints that really don't affect the overall experience. Basically, I was giving my reactions as I was listening to it for the first time.

Why did you think I was arguing? :confused:

BREAK
12-05-2007, 12:34 PM
ruroken, I have to say I sympathize, because I hated "Aeroplane" the first time I heard it. But not because of weirdness. What people are dogging on you about, I think, is that your initial reaction to it is like "wtf this is the weirdest shit ever!!!1!!11" when in actuality, the music on it is fairly straightforward. Now if this was an Incubus board (or whatever you post on when you're not here), this might be an acceptable reaction, but on this forum people already heard stuff like Mr. Bungle (which out-weirds this shit on a musical level by about ten million miles) and Captain Beefheart (which lyrically makes Neutral Milk Hotel sound like Linkin Park) as of a long time ago. Your reaction, therefore makes you sound ignorant when it comes to music. I'm not saying you are, but your reaction is full of "oh hai i've never heard anything outside of the FM dial or that wasn't expressly marketed to my demographic b4."

So you see, the lesson is, never share your opinion on anything. It's not worth it.

Still, I have to agree with WCM that Jakebert's defensiveness is pretty uncalled for, and in light of his comments regarding Pitchfork's musical elitism, hypocritical.

Jakebert
12-05-2007, 03:05 PM
Oh I agree that Ruroken has no idea what art is. I'm saying you don't have the background to say what art is. That's where I'm coming from.

Once again, in any other situation, I would not have said something like that because the other person could have been making a valid points and just not wording it right.

I'm think all music is inherently art, which really isn't elitist at all. I consider some bands better than others, but so does everyone else. But ruroken doesn't seem to understand that sometimes art is strange and off-putting, something that he's expressed many times before.

ruroken
12-06-2007, 11:41 AM
Your reaction, therefore makes you sound ignorant when it comes to music.
...which I don't find to be any reason for Jakey to go anal.


I'm think all music is inherently art, which really isn't elitist at all. I consider some bands better than others, but so does everyone else.
Then why are you ragging on Incubus by implying their music isn't art?

But ruroken doesn't seem to understand that sometimes art is strange and off-putting, something that he's expressed many times before.
Again, what reason is that to get so anal? You're getting pissy because you have more experience in music than I do, not because its common knowledge among all people and I should somehow know better. That is what makes you sound elitist, even if you aren't trying to be.

Jerzidevil
01-04-2008, 03:02 PM
Pitchfork's reviews have managed to stir up a fairly heated conversation, which someone who's never heard of Pitchfork has probably just read through and gone to Pitchfork's site to see for themselves; thus, by venting your anger about Pitchfork's negative reviews, you have just supported them. Pitchfork wins.

JohnnyNemesis
01-04-2008, 03:04 PM
I don't care if they get a few hits as a result of me spreading my venom. I don't consider it "support", don't buy into that logic, and really don't want to police my hatred based on whether it provides incidental support to the object of my rage. Screw dat.

opivy21
01-04-2008, 04:26 PM
I'm not really familiar with Pitchfork, though I've heard the name before. I agree with Jakebert about allmusic. That's a really good site with lots of positive and informed reviews.

Does anyone read Mark Prindle? I personally enjoy him, though I wouldn't be shocked to hear that not everyone does.

JohnnyNemesis
01-04-2008, 05:21 PM
It's not the positivity or negativity that bothers me; even when they're heaping praise on something, it's their unbelievable hipster bullshit pretension that is honestly and truly fucking nauseating.

nieh
01-04-2008, 05:46 PM
I read Mark Prindle. I've actually sent him copies of some cds before (I got him into Minus the Bear, the Blood Brothers and the Mars Volta, though he's only reviewed MTB so far) and he used to post on another message board that I frequent as well.

opivy21
01-04-2008, 08:30 PM
That's cool. I think he's hilarious if I read him every now and then. He has generally good taste, too.

BREAK
01-06-2008, 07:01 PM
It's not the positivity or negativity that bothers me; even when they're heaping praise on something, it's their unbelievable hipster bullshit pretension that is honestly and truly fucking nauseating.

Right, it's just like that old quote: "I agree with what you say, but I will fight you to the death if I don't like the way you say it."

nieh
08-26-2008, 08:04 PM
So, I just sent Pitchfork a stupid tip e-mail and got the below e-mail auto-response sent to me:

Q: How do I send a record to you for review?
A: Send it to the Pitchfork office address, 1834 W. North Ave. #2, Chicago, IL 60622
Attn: Scott Plagenhoef


Q: How do I follow up on a record I have sent for review?
A: Email Scott Plagenhoef, scott@pitchforkmedia.com


Q: How do I send a track or video for Forkcast consideration?
A: Send links to streams, MySpace pages, videos, mp3s (either hosted online or links or YSI, zShare, etc. preferred; please do not send attachments), to forkcast@pitchforkmedia.com


Q: Who should I contact in regards to sponsorship or business development ideas & opportunities?
A: Chris Kaskie at chrisk@pitchforkmedia.com


Q: How can I find out more about advertising opportunities and availability?
A: Please email ads@pitchforkmedia.com


Q: There are crazy errors on Pitchfork - who can I tell?
A: Email all perceived errors & corrections to corrections@pitchforkmedia.com


Q: How do I apply for an internship at Pitchfork?
A: Email Tyler Grisham at grisham@pitchforkmedia.com


Q: I took awesome photos at an awesome show last night. Would you like to post them on Pitchfork?
A: Email Matthew Solarski at solarski@pitchforkmedia.com


Q: How do I get in touch with Pitchfork.tv?
A: Email RJ Bentler at rj@pitchforkmedia.com


Q: How do I get in touch with the Pitchfork Music Festival?
A: Email press@pitchforkmusicfestival.com


Q: Do you really still think that Travis Morrison's Travistan deserved a 0.0?
A: Yes

Steal
08-26-2008, 08:20 PM
I love Pitchfork, they're hilariously brutal on some artists.

Short_Attention_Span
08-26-2008, 09:36 PM
Since this thread is bumped already...


How about the new Ted Leo? I think they gave it a higher rating than any of his other albums and I don't know a single person that actually likes it.

I really, really like that album. It grew on me, and now it's one of my personal faves.

I hate Pitchfork's album reviews. They try too hard to seem intelligent and "creative." Not to mention the fact that they gave a ten song Jawbreaker live album a higher score than Dear You. The news part's okay, but I'd rather go to Punknews. At least the comments can be entertaining.
________
MCDONALDS GIFT CARDS (http://bestfreegiftcard.com/mcdonalds-gift-cards/)