anyone have any opinions on this?
is it because he's gay?
is it because he's not english?
second, when are you people gonna stop deifying pitchfork? in the end you're gonna find out they're shit just like spin or rolling stone. WHO CARES what they say?
There's about eight threads a week on here discussing why Pitchfork is so shit.
Pitchfork slanging has emerged as the thread du jour.
that reminds me, must make a radiohead thread soon!
9.5 was awarded as the average score gathered from Pitchfork Editors. So saying that Pitchfork gave it a 9.5 still stands.
according to ex-Pitchfork writers who I board with away from DiS
sounds like a hoot.
discussed on here, and major albums have an agreed editorial score. The niche stuff (metal, electronic, etc) is a bit freer for the reviewer in question to score, though it often won't get BNM even with a high score in those cases.
Could have changed since then, though I doubt it given the really predictable link between coverage and review scores on pitchfork.
Interestingly (lol!), for BNM scores the editors pick a score and get someone to write a review that toes the line.
And if you don't know, now you know.
They're gonna have to break the scale when D'Angelo finally drops a new record.
Imagine what the new Against Me! album will get?
only about two and a half paragraphs talks about the music on the album. the rest is just its cultural context.
typical pitchfork, being unable to properly justify why they gave an album an exceptionally high score.
I have no qualms whatsoever with the score - I haven't heard the record yet but it's not farfetched to think it might be brilliant - but the review really looks like an op-ed on the significance of his sexuality and place in modern r'n'b rather than a dissection of what makes Channel Orange truly exceptional
They have designated columns on certain genres and their 'Rising/Interview/10-15-20' etc. features, but no place for anyone to just go 'hey this is interesting this is what I think about something going on in music'. Therefore their reviews (like this one) can end up being a bit of a scramble to show how much you understand and cram in as many thoughts as possible on an artist just to show they're not discussing the music out of context. Bit of a shame really.
but judging that they gave it 9.5, clearly SOMEONE thinks it's truly exceptional
but i think that a review which presents a lot of "cultural context" and "looks like an op-ed on the significance of his sexuality and place in modern r'n'b" can already explain what is "truly exceptional" in this album for the writer and staff. I do agree with badmanreturns that "highly-contextual" writing (highly contextual) should be reserved to pieces/articles and not reviews, but increasing the number of this kind of pieces/articles wouldn't just turn this very long reviews (like the frank ocean one) into-very few paragraphs text? I don't really believe that p4k would like to do that
Come on Pitchfork, I sometimes defend you and you reward me with this?
will be undone by this once everyone has read it. And they probably will very soon.
I saw them on Easter Sunday in Bristol with Church of Misery supporting. My gig of the year so far. Thanks.
(Also, does anyone remember a band called Orange from the britpop era? They had a single called 'Judy Over The Rainbow' (or was it Julie) much played by Mark or Lard, as I recall).
Called orange supporting Bon jovi (shaming I know but I was dragged along by the mrs haha) in Manchester around 1995, I have no recollection of what they sounded like however I just remember they had matching orange coats haha
White Boys For Gay Jesus.
Well done whoever that was.
you can romanticise creative writing all you like, but publicity's publicity, and Pitchfork (a company) were always going to get theirs on the back of his.
They have crap reviews anyway. Also any album rating with decimal is bullshit. What's the difference between a 7.1 and 7.2 for example? A better lyric, a better bassline for a song, 10 seconds more of genius music?
Their news is reliable
Their reviews aren't that bad largely
They get a lot of live videos / premieres etc
They run quite a lot of very decent articles and features (not enough though, way too much emphasis on reviews and lists for my liking)
on the other side, yes the scoring is silly, but that's because all scoring is silly. I suspect though if they were rid of it they'd fear impacting sales of their favourite artists (think pitchfork do drive quite a lot of sales actually?)
"What's the difference between a 7.1 and 7.2 for example?" The difference is that a 7.2 is higher. It's not some scientific formula, they're ranking albums. You can do that on a standard 5 star (or DiS 10 point) scale, but then you end up with huge swathes of undifferentiated albums. Pitchfork's 100 point scale (ignore the decimal point if it puts you off, it's immaterial) gives them scope to create a substantial hierarchy.
That for me is a huge part of the appeal. I'm sorry, but I don't love album reviews and I certainly don't think them less silly or more objective than a score. I just want someone to filter the enormous amount of music available and to give me a fairly specific gauge of quality. Of course, I often disagree with Pitchfork but, honestly, less often than with almost anyone else (I do, for example, think the 9.5 is a wrong and deeply 'politicised' rating). And I can always read the review to get the rationale or context for the rating.
It's a niche website with a relatively small readership.
has now well and truly been taken over with discussion of a review of the album...
Of a thread complaining about a review not addressing the music overshadowing the thread that discusses the music.
There is already a thread about the album here http://drownedinsound.com/community/boards/music/4357933
nothing rhymes with orange
the king of wordplay.
Pitchfork is interesting and entertaining and makes good videos/pitchfork TV and generally on the ball with good music
Frank Ocean album is really good and a lot of people have been excited about it for a while, myself included.
If you don't think it's 'that' good then congratulations on completing the opinion forming process all by yourself.
NOW Y SO SERIOUS
Thanks for the heads up.
Inevitable i guess
im surprised it hasn't got more love from all of you.
an album gets huge hype, to the point where sites have to give it a huge mark, just to be seen to not be 'behind' or something...like the labels set the tone and the websites just follow. like pitchfork gave my dark stupid fantasy 9.8 or whatever but once the hype died down most people kind of forgot about that album.
they gave it a 10.0
it's still one of the best releases of the past however many years
no-one can genuinely think that.
show your working. I still put that album on all the time, and friends are constantly requesting it. It's a classic whether you like it or not.
or has been totally forgotten, obviously! wasn't being very clear I know.
i'd just be very surprised if popular consensus gives it 'classic' status in years/decades to come. imho it's not a classic album at all, let alone even one of KW's best. it thinks of itself as a 'classic' or a statement album, and pitchfork exist to confirm that stamp.
I'm not going to understand anything said on the music board for the next six months otherwise.
Great. Now I'm one of those people.
it's a very good album. Listened to it at home after badminton yesterday and it was just perfect. So chilled.
that day was the 'SpaceGhostPurrp discusses ASAP Rocky beef' which was a 5 minute behind the scenes documentary at a concert with a quick question about ASAP at the end which was met with the reply 'nah we're cool'
anybody for which that makes a difference...
BNM feature? DiS has Recommended and all the other publications also have some sort of distinction for 'the best of the best'. Is P4k's method of choosing the best new music different from the others?
So it's only natural that their way of designating "the best of the best" would be more popular than that of other websites.
Says what exactly? Why is it impossible for a compilation to score a 10.0? A compilation tends to be the 'best of' an artist so... Doesn't that make sense?
LACKS SENSE OF HUMOUR :(
SHE'S WORKING AT THE PYRAMID TONIGHT
Report this thread