Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
Feat slayings of DiS inc own Rory Gibb and Kev Eddy.
Who said internet people are nasty and vindictive eh?
"The purpose of RipFork is to hold music critics to the same level of snarky, loquacious abuse that they dole out to the artists actually making the music."
"My ultimate goal is to uncover how and why we allowed music writing and the keys to aspiring bands’ futures to be dictated by these critics in the first place. To those writers I criticize on the site: this is meant to be a humbling experience. Take from it what you will."
That's pretty fucking impossible, and you're going the wrong way about doing it.
How old is this guy?
to be honest the examples he chose were a bit weird, i could think of far worse tripe i've seen written on here.
I note that commenting is 'pending moderation' on the blog. Not a surprise.
One too many rejection letters, perhaps?
by that woman from Twin Peaks with the eye patch and silent curtain rail?
Does http://ripfork.com/2009/12/monkey-brains-and-ba-na-na/ make any sense to you? Yeah, rip into Kala's critical reaction as an example of a present malaise, it was only released two and a half years ago!
is that when the maintainer checks his referrer stats he'll just assume we're bitter about DiS' treatment, because obviously the reviews and whole editorial line are taken as gospel on these boards.
“300 MPH Torrential Outpoor Blues” is White doing his best “Subterranean Homesick” impression”
Here’s a suggestion. Listen to “Subterranean Homesick Alien” by Radiohead. Now listen to “300 MPH Torrential Outpoor Blues” by the White Stripes. Now…think hard. Aside from them both being songs made by musicians who play instruments, do they sound anything alike?
Or should be.
Fact remains, though - never mind how much you care about Dylan, how can you be into music to a great level and never have heard of Subterranean Homesick Blues?
I just find it a little odd. If he wants to do this sort of thing then it's obviously fine, nobody's got the right to be free from criticism, but it just seems so fucking pointless, given the level of depth he goes into. There are far better things to be doing to be wasting your time dissing music critics, it's hardly like anyone featured on there is earning a decent wage from writing about it, living it up at the expense of "the industry".
just a thought.
frankly, i hate that tailors review and wish i'd never written it. but as a piece of fabulous pedantry and bile, it's hilarious.
you dish it out, you've got to be able to take it. I mean, if i didn't think the review was poor, then i'd probably be offended and also defend it. as it is, i think he's got a valid point.
Just a ridiculous bile-fest, like a bad Charlie Brooker sucking off Clarkson. I assume he appreciates the irony.
And that Tailors review hardly merits that much ire dude.
I'd never heard of this until various people on twitter started talking about it a couple of hours back after when the Tailors' PR decided to link to his attack on Kev's review. I think it'd be ironic - if somewhat depressing - if this guy achieved the success he presumably never managed as a music critic by sort of becoming a useful PR stooge.
Of course it's totally his right to do it, but whereas stuff like Bad Journalism seems to have a valid social/moral point, this is just one dude who could be arsed to design his own website being a bit pedantic. Anyway, he could be a one day twitter wonder, or maybe in six months' time all music journalists will have quit for fear of his acid tongue and fortress-like comments board. WE SHALL SEE EH?
i thought that the album review published on DiS had really missed the point. regardless of me being their pr or not. even kev said himself that it wasn't his best work and that he should have sent the album back, so...
the general consensus on the comments thread on the tailors review was that it was a fairly poorly written piece so i posted the link to ripfork as an extension of that discussion. i wasn't being snidey or 'owt.
just clearing that up!
Admittedly, it was a fairly vague and slightly wanky bit of writing, but y'know, I reckon the band can probably take it as it was.
The guy seems to have quite a chip on his shoulder though. Quite tempted to tell him I'm veggie, but not quite convinced he would let the comment on...
the guys obviously a bit of a dick
Surely everything is the authors own opinion anyway. I've read some really arrogant reviews on various sites (some here!!), which are written badly (not here!!) and also you can tell they hardly listened to the music. What's wrong with a bit of fun knocking the journos? You lot knock Everett True every time he posts on DiS. ;)
I will get an article featured on ripfork by the end of the year.
I wonder if I can get on there twice...
Can you get that in for me?
Also can you call at least two songs "as useful - and melancholic - as a tin harmonium."
Mainly because all the bits he quotes are really good paragraphs.
here and there and I think having this site is good. It's like WHO WILL WATCH THE WATCHERS or whatever.
WHO WILL SAVE THE SAVED.
Anyone know what I mean? No. Nevermind, it's all good opinion though, is basically what I'm saying.
Music writers offering their opinions, don't really fit the fourth-estate/watchdog role of the media so much as political,economic or whatever journalism. It's not really worth it.
and it is really annoying when you read a review where the guy clearly doesn't have a clue or hasn't researched,
i still think this particular exaMPLE is pretty petty and silly
that was sloppy. poor, clunky prose
Much maligned and sorely, sadly slighted.
But I don't think it's a silly example, just comes down to your perspective, obviously. WHAT I'm saying is, it's not on the same scale of BAD JOURNALISM, BAD SCIENCE and things like that.
There's obviously a relativeness in it all anyway, as, on websites like this, readers can post comments below anyway, so accountability is there in some form for most online articles, without the particular 'need' for a website like this.
It's one set of people moaning about another set of people on t'internets. No worries about it. I guess it's fair enough. Perhaps, perhaps, a better idea would be to set up a site where the band themselves get to defend it.
My band got a fairly bad review not that long ago and I agreed with at least some of it. I guess it's how it's done.
In conclusion: DARTS INNIT
You realise of course that this thread is now criticism of criticism of criticism.
You've collectively gone TOO FAR.
Something's gotta be done about your kids!
the next stage is for someone to set up a site that criticises Ripfork - and then so on and so on and so on... like some demented, infinite loop of indie pedantry. That's the future of music journalism.
analysis, you'd have your true infinite loop, and we could power the earth forever.
Or better still, have the actual artists review the RipFork review of their review by writing a song about it. That would b-OH GOD THE SKY IS FALLING.
and utterly unnecessary. A serious attempt at actually criticising the critics would perhaps be ok, if the critiques were well written and thought through properly, but this is just a series of idiotic insults.
Then I got to the criticism of Pitchfork's Fall Be Kind review and read the phrase: "Jeez Mark, why don’t you marry them?"
At this point I became bored and stopped caring.
Also, if you're going to do this shit, at LEAST go after Cokemachineglow. They are deserving of all the golden showers in the world.
I don't know what it is, I've just always found them to be awful, for some reason.
That said, they feature my favorite review, EVER (except for that Jet review P4k had a couple years back... yes, THAT one.)
In a very bizarre, self-referential way. I don't really understand it to be honest, but I think that's what they're doing.
what a gent.
'Please eat something. The all-tea diet isn't good for a growing boy'.
criticising critisisms criticising music critics. Sound like a good idea?
IT'S FUCKING ANNOYING.
to the first DIS reviewer who references Ripfork in their write-up
two very different things, totally mixed up in this poor chap's mind.
Never mind how it's said (well, I do enjoy a well written piece like anybody else), it's what it says about the music that matters. I found most reviews on DIS absolutely spot on from that point of view. Hope the site is not going to put off DIS reviewers, that would be a shame.
Disagree. If you're going to use metaphors and comparisons as part of the form of your review, rather than just cut to "I liked track 4 cuz it sounded gud 2 me", then you deserve to get called on it. Besides, writing is an artform in itself, whatever form it takes (fiction, non-fiction, critical, etc). I can see absolutely no controversy to this site that can't be leveled at any music review site. Or any other review site.
Any critic who is put off by being criticised deserves their angst.