About 7.3, I'd say: http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/apr/14/pitchfork.music
If I'm honest, mostly I'm posting this for the way it assumes the average British music-loving reader will know who Travis Morrison is but not Vampire Weekend.
About 7.3, I'd say: http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/apr/14/pitchfork.music
If I'm honest, mostly I'm posting this for the way it assumes the average British music-loving reader will know who Travis Morrison is but not Vampire Weekend.
"and the site hasn't even reviewed Linkin Park's albums"
buh?
suprised the guardian
are so slow on the uptake of pitchfork existing, still shone in far more positive light than i was expecting
I hear there is this site called amazon that is starting to take off
booksellers must be sh!tting themselves.
Didn't the guardian have a feature on this a while ago when it was talking about Pitchfork, Stylus, Popmatters and DiS?
To be fair to the Grauniad
their Music section has known about Pitchfork for a good long while. Seem to recall them being mentioned in an article a year or so ago.
This article's by one of the Technology writers, in a series about good websites. Probably aimed at people who don't read much music journalism.
I love that Jet review.
Flaming Lips
Which album got 0.0?
Zaireeka
Zaireeka
they didnt know what to make of it
It was an experiment
..rather than a conventional album.
I mean I have the album and have only listened to it three times as it's so awkward to set up.
The wierd thing about Pitchfork and the Lips is
that while Zaireeka got a 0.0, The Soft Bulletin got a 10.0, and I believe both of those were reviewed by the same writer.
And the irony?
The songs on The Soft Bulletin were created during the Zarieeka sessions!
that's saved only
by the Vonnegut reference.
not even by that
given that they've misused it. Unless the chimp actually died.
Urrm...
there WAS an article about Pitchfork in The Guardian back in 2006...
http://arts.guardian.co.uk/filmandmusic/story/0,,1955165,00.html
Ummm
"It is even making money. But it's also less idiosyncratic and has lost some of the roughness that helped give it a cutting edge. The same kind of thing happens to indie bands when they hit the mainstream."
Don't think I agree with that at all...if by "losing the roughness" they mean that, on the whole, the writing tends to be balanced and doesn't rely on foam-mouthed hyperbole then they might be onto something.
But apart from that I just think its a very well written mag.
I preferred Stylus.
RIP.
probably means that its more predictable
in what it will review positively or negatively, to the extent you dont really need to read it any more, or something like that anyway.