Let's All Laugh at Pitchfork

[Kaius]

Life is precious.

[epilogue]

True story: my allergy to nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs means that if I took an alka seltzer, I could die

[Jammer XCI]

Life is precious.

[tragabigzanda]

[epilogue]

I still don't get it.

[Kevin Davis]

It's like this: Imagine if you purchased your local newspaper and, instead of a front-page headline about something that happened in your city the previous day, the front-page headline was an advertisement for what was going to appear in the next day's newspaper. Just a weird journalistic practice, is all.

There's a weird duality in this thread -- I get the sense that the folks who think the original thread premise is too flippant are overcorrecting to an extreme degree, as though Pitchfork couldn't possibly ever do anything that's silly or pretentious. It's okay to find them a little silly sometimes, isn't it?

[epilogue]

Oh totally! I have no problem with the premise of this thread at all. I don't read Pitchfork. Never have, really. I don't care if people find them silly or flat out stupid. We should all have the ability to laugh (not just at Pitchfork but at ourselves).

I just don't get why this particular thing is all that strange or funny or silly or worth pointing out, that's all. I'm not trying to difficult or defend a publication I don't read or even care about. Sorry if I'm coming across as defensive or contrarian or anything like that.

[tragabigzanda]

[epilogue]

Wait, I'm at work and BUZZZZZZZZZZING on too much coffee, so maybe my reading comprehension is off... are you saying you have problem with the fact that they don't have a forum or comments section? That's one of the things you hold against them?

[tragabigzanda]

[tragabigzanda]

Top 10 maybe?
Hello Morning
Close Captioned
The Kill
Place/Position
Do You Like Me?
Latest Disgrace
Recap Modotti
Nightshop
Break
Life & Limb

I'd maybe bump Life & Limb for Epic Problem

[epilogue]

Interesting. I guess I don't see the connection. Anyway, I'm with you in terms of emotional investment and all of that. So I won't press you on it. I'm sure you have your reasons.

[Kevin Davis]

I actually think their lack of a comments section is a credit to them. They used to have a "reader mail" section back in the day; to me that is more akin to the kind of thing you're talking about with the Washington Post, etc. I wish all online publications would do away with comments sections. They're almost uniformly awful.

[tragabigzanda]

[epilogue]

I actually think their lack of a comments section is a credit to them. They used to have a "reader mail" section back in the day; to me that is more akin to the kind of thing you're talking about with the Washington Post, etc. I wish all online publications would do away with comments sections. They're almost uniformly awful.

Team KD.

[epilogue]

I actually think their lack of a comments section is a credit to them. They used to have a "reader mail" section back in the day; to me that is more akin to the kind of thing you're talking about with the Washington Post, etc. I wish all online publications would do away with comments sections. They're almost uniformly awful.

I think the stance works if the writing is uniquely good -- the defunct Grantland is a good example. Even Vulture, whose writers I find to be talented and insightful (more often than not) allows comments. But Pitchfork's writers read like a bunch of Gawker castaways, so in that instance I think the stance is ridiculous.

I'm sorry, why? Can you elaborate?

[tragabigzanda]

[epilogue]

I actually think their lack of a comments section is a credit to them. They used to have a "reader mail" section back in the day; to me that is more akin to the kind of thing you're talking about with the Washington Post, etc. I wish all online publications would do away with comments sections. They're almost uniformly awful.

I think the stance works if the writing is uniquely good -- the defunct Grantland is a good example. Even Vulture, whose writers I find to be talented and insightful (more often than not) allows comments. But Pitchfork's writers read like a bunch of Gawker castaways, so in that instance I think the stance is ridiculous.

I'm sorry, why? Can you elaborate?

Because they're largely (though not completely) a bunch of early-to-mid twenty somethings who write as though they understand music with a certain authority. They fetishize certain trends because of their overt intellectualism or rarity, and they turn their nose up at acts because of their mainstream popularity (PJ being one example). I held similar views on music in my 20s. But now I can appreciate an AC/DC or Fleetwood Mac every bit as much as a Floating Points or Kendrick Lamar. And I suppose everyone comes to those sorts of realizations at their own pace. But Pitchfork doesn't allow the space to have those discussions. They tend to position music in terms of "cool" and "not cool." Which is just an idiotic way of viewing the world, IMO.

I don't disagree that "cool/not cool" is a pretty limited and idiotic way to discuss/perceive music. What I don't understand is what any of that has to do with a comments section. Why does Pitchfork have a responsibility to allow space for any discussion? I see zero reason why any publication, regardless of how I view their quality or lack thereof, has that kind of responsibility. I mean, unless you're talking about RM or similar message boards (I mean, duh). But I guess I don't see what the quality of Pitchfork's writing has to do with whether or not they owe the public a comments/interactive section. That makes no sense to me.

[LoathedVermin72]

comments sections are cancer. the internet isn't a zine

[epilogue]

Verm gets it.