The more I go on pitchfork the more I realize the people behind it are just a bunch of hipster snobs. I like quite a bit of indie music, but they go far and out of their way to promote mostly dull and boring indie music. Some of their recommendations are good, but most arent. I've found better indie music in other places.
The more I go on pitchfork the more I realize the people behind it are just a bunch of hipster snobs. I like quite a bit of indie music, but they go far and out of their way to promote mostly dull and boring indie music. Some of their recommendations are good, but most arent. I've found better indie music in other places.
to each their own. i'd say the opposite. and i think youve got to respect them as theyve set the agenda and the tone for whats new and hip in indie rock for years. Any publication or site that promotes and hypes bon iver, flying lotus, the weeknd, frank ocean, james blake etc... is a good thing
and further, the whole "promoting dull and boring" indie music thing is a tired cliche. Im not sure what dull and boring even means in terms of music, as its so different from person to person. to one person it might be singer songwriter music, to the next it might be hip hop, or rock, or any number of things. dull and boring to you or me, might be beaitiful and lush and intense to another person.
how anyone could consider the weeknd, frank ocean, SBTRKT, Flying lotus, and the like boring is something i dont quite understand
The more I go on pitchfork the more I realize the people behind it are just a bunch of hipster snobs. I like quite a bit of indie music, but they go far and out of their way to promote mostly dull and boring indie music. Some of their recommendations are good, but most arent. I've found better indie music in other places.
to each their own. i'd say the opposite. and i think youve got to respect them as theyve set the agenda and the tone for whats new and hip in indie rock for years. Any publication or site that promotes and hypes bon iver, flying lotus, the weeknd, frank ocean, james blake etc... is a good thing
and further, the whole "promoting dull and boring" indie music thing is a tired cliche. Im not sure what dull and boring even means in terms of music, as its so different from person to person. to one person it might be singer songwriter music, to the next it might be hip hop, or rock, or any number of things. dull and boring to you or me, might be beaitiful and lush and intense to another person.
how anyone could consider the weeknd, frank ocean, SBTRKT, Flying lotus, and the like boring is something i dont quite understand
Do you own stock in Pitchfork or make royalties off every indie rock song played?
I've never seen anyone defend a site or a genre of music more than you do with Pitchfork and indie rock. I really, really liked grunge back in the 90s, but I dont think I ever defended it to anyone in quite the manner you defend indie rock on this site. I think you're going to have to face the facts that some people haven't found it to be a life-changing experience and are just not into it, and no matter how much you promote it, they're not going to wake up one morning and "see the light" and make Pitchfork their homepage.
I know that as soon as I see something posted on this site about indie rock or Pitchfork, you're going to be there in 5 minutes flat to offer your opinion; hence the 20 or so posts you have in this thread alone.
i have accepted that some people dont like it, and ive also said, my musical tastes are very eclectic. im a fan of everything from usher and justin timberlake and adele to mastodon, tool, to bon iver to damien rice to hendrix etc...
And yeah, not everyone liked grunge in the 90's either.
i disagree with you. i may not be an evangelical indie rock fan, or a successful one, but ive heard about a ton of bands via pitchfork and a million other blogs, and via friends, tv shows, magazines, etc... I dont think its out of the question someone, you, or me or someone else could recommend a band and people check them out. whether they like the music thats another story. This whole thread started because someone, another board member was checking out the pitchfork list and downloading music they hadnt heard before, several other people chimed in they were doing the same, downloading some albums that made the list. Im sure the Rolling Stone and Spin and NME magazine lists all prompted similar reactions from people. My life has been changed via suggestions or recommendations of bands to check out, from pitchfork yes, but from any number of magazines and websites and friends, and even from interviews with various bands about music that influenced them. Im not alone in that reguard, many people find out about music this way.
we all do this in many ways. Movies are another big one, a friend tells you about an amazing movie they saw and you check it out based on your friends enthusiastic response. Or a family member says you need to read this book that relates to your life situation, or you read a good review of a book from Amazon.
its all related.
My whole point was the hatred for pitchfork is largely unrelated to any issue or topic they bring up. If you took the time to read my previous posts over the years, you'd know ive publicly admitted pitchforks faults and problems. But im also aware of a myriad of issues and problems with many other lists and sites and magazines.
The issue brought up in this thread multiple times was people crying that an album didnt make the list and therefore pitchfork was phony and a bunch of hacks. My response was that many sources published best of lists this year. and many omitted the same albums people were moaning about pitchfork dismissing. Im sort of an all opportunity, alls equal basher in that reguard. lets get some consistency. Lets bash the OTHER sites that dismissed those albums and level the same slurs against them as well (my morning jacket, The Antlers, wilco all were snubbed by a variety of outlets this year, pitchfork wasnt the only one to leave them out in the cold).
i think for me, the bash pitchfork meme is old and tired. and many people just do it because its in or cool. Theres only one Portlandia and they do a great job of lampooning hipster culture.
i'd say my main problem though is the sort of blanket "pitchfork is hipster/indie" line thrown around here and elsewhere. I think probably thats what Cornell was getting at in PJ20 when he referenced that really none of the grunge bands sounded anything alike, but were all considered grunge. Indie rock is the same thing. Its often, on this forum, and others said that pitchfork peddles in hyping indie rock bands that sound the same. I just think its a naive thing to say and it proves you dont read the site or listen to the music they promote. The weeknd and Bon Iver were among the most hyped this year, and they sound nothing alike. As were St Vincent and Girls. Again they sound nothing alike. I understand not everyones going to love Bon Iver, or St Vincent, but the sheer amount of music they recommend seems to me theres going to be something for everyone. Whether you like pop music, house, rock, hip hop, punk, every genre is covered. thats not sticking to one genre.
i disagree with you. i may not be an evangelical indie rock fan, or a successful one, but ive heard about a ton of bands via pitchfork and a million other blogs, and via friends, tv shows, magazines, etc... I dont think its out of the question someone, you, or me or someone else could recommend a band and people check them out. whether they like the music thats another story.
I'm glad that you use Pitchfork and other places to find new music and I've mentioned before that I've found out new bands/songs from word of mouth or this forum too, but I stand by my statements about your defense of indie rock being very over-the-top.
I'm not on this board all day and have only been an active contributor for a couple of years and I don't think I've ever really mentioned much about my taste for indie rock either, so I'm looking at this from a distance, but this is my observation of you from the little I'm on here. You seem to take it personally when someone disses indie rock, and I find that interesting. I've come to regard you as the indie rock guy/gal and whenever a post says anything about it, like i said, you'll be there in no time flat to defend your religion.
You say you have a problem with Pitchfork being labeled as a snobby hipster website by a lot of people, well I say to that most people also label Fox News as being slanted to the right. Do you think there might be a shred of truth to that! And if Pitchfork is hipster and trendy and that's what you like, then admit it and move on just like the republicans who make up most of Fox News' audience.
i disagree with you. i may not be an evangelical indie rock fan, or a successful one, but ive heard about a ton of bands via pitchfork and a million other blogs, and via friends, tv shows, magazines, etc... I dont think its out of the question someone, you, or me or someone else could recommend a band and people check them out. whether they like the music thats another story.
I'm glad that you use Pitchfork and other places to find new music and I've mentioned before that I've found out new bands/songs from word of mouth or this forum too, but I stand by my statements about your defense of indie rock being very over-the-top.
I'm not on this board all day and have only been an active contributor for a couple of years and I don't think I've ever really mentioned much about my taste for indie rock either, so I'm looking at this from a distance, but this is my observation of you from the little I'm on here. You seem to take it personally when someone disses indie rock, and I find that interesting. I've come to regard you as the indie rock guy/gal and whenever a post says anything about it, like i said, you'll be there in no time flat to defend your religion.
You say you have a problem with Pitchfork being labeled as a snobby hipster website by a lot of people, well I say to that most people also label Fox News as being slanted to the right. Do you think there might be a shred of truth to that! And if Pitchfork is hipster and trendy and that's what you like, then admit it and move on just like the republicans who make up most of Fox News' audience.
sure there is some truth to it, im not a fox viewer and am a left wing commie so im not a fan of fox news.
but as far as pitchfork, yeah they are the go to indie website, they are pretty much THE website you go to if you want to find out whats hip and cool and new and trendy. and the audience they cater to is generally indie rock. but thats also only half the story. they dont just cover the bon ivers and bright eyes and decemberists of the world, although those bands are covered, they also focus on, and recommend stuff like Burial, who is dubstep, they recommend hip hop they've been really into Currency and ASAP Rocky in that genre, they recommend sort of off the wall spaced out and drugged out pure hip hop beats in the form of Clams Casino. They've been on a serious r and b kick with The weeknd, frank ocean and the dream. And they like metal with Wolves in the Throne Room. They loved the new Kate Bush cd, which is singer songwriter/art rock territoryThats a pretty good cross section of music. Certainly you are free to listen to those bands or not listen. Or listen to them and dislike them. But to say pitchfork caters in hyping a specific sound or scene or genre is ludicrous. I dont thing Wolves in the Throne Room and Kate Bush are in the same scene or genre, do you? They sound NOTHING alike. Any website or source that is that diversified in the stuff they cover and promote is a good thing. And to tell people that you only get boring indie rock music via pitchfork (whatever that means) is disingenuous and false at best. Plus the lack of knowledge about other magazines and sources lists omitting the same records that caused people to bash pitchfork in this thread is naive. I love debating lists. Year end lists are a passion of mine. But i think we all do ourselves a disservice in terms of blatant blanket statements about sources and magazines. Yes pitchfork may have left off some albums you loved. I hear ya, but that doesnt mean pitchfork has some sort of agenda to shut out mainstream/specific types of music, which is evidenced by many other sources omitting said albums as well.
I take it personally because music isnt a joke to me. Art isnt a joke to me. Its all very important.
but as far as pitchfork, yeah they are the go to indie website, they are pretty much THE website you go to if you want to find out whats hip and cool and new and trendy.
you know what, i'll be the first to admit that you actually make some very valid points. and i'm also a 'left wing commie' (or at least that's what my conservative friends call me) so good on you for that ...but i think statements like this is where you lose people. it just comes off as dis-ingenuous, and makes you seem like a self-professed poser. no one likes a poser. you may or may not be one, but that's how people perceive you. or so i think?
also, it seems like you like EVERYTHING that pitchfork recommends. it's almost like you don't have a taste of your own, and simply reiterate what pitchfork says. is there anything that pitchfork has praised in the past few years that you don't like? i get the impression that if they did drool over an album that you didn't like, you'd probably be sitting there for weeks with your headphones on trying to "figure it out"...anyway, you're free to do what you want, listen to what you want, and say what you want. just trying to provide some perspective of why you may rub people the wrong way. the truth is, pitchfork does cover a broad scope of genre and styles, but they also, in my opinion, ignore and even sometimes trash a lot of the greatest artists in those genres who are making great music, simply because, as you say, they are not or are no longer new and trendy.
My analogy using Fox News is to illustrate that if you want your news and opinions with a conservative spin and bias, then you watch Fox News. Everyone knows that. Republicans flock to that channel, however Fox doesn't market themselves as that. They don't have to. Their programs and commentators/newscasters just portray that bias. In the same manner, Pitchfork doesn't market itself as a hipster/indie website. They don't have to. Their articles/reviews/lists just portray that, and those who are into that scene know to go there and those who aren't usually stay away. I'm not a republican either and therefore, I don't watch Fox News. I know better. And since I'm not into the hipster/indie culture, I don't read Pitchfork because I know I won't find anything about the mainstream bands I like.
All of us on here take music pretty seriously or we wouldn't be on this site discussing music. But we all don't have to take it to the extreme where we get our feelings hurt when someone doesn't like something we like. Art is very powerful in that way, where two different people can view the same work in completely different ways. One loves it while the other hates it and they both have very valid reasons for their opinions.
For me, Pitchfork is OKAY, but they clearly have an agenda, and sometimes I feel they're more concerned with their image/agenda than simply reviewing music.
Believe me, when I was growin up, I thought the worst thing you could turn out to be was normal, So I say freaks in the most complementary way. Here's a song by a fellow freak - E.V
but as far as pitchfork, yeah they are the go to indie website, they are pretty much THE website you go to if you want to find out whats hip and cool and new and trendy.
why would anyone want to know whats hip cool new and trendy??? new i get, but hip cool and trendy... no thank you.. smacks too much of poseur and hipster to me... which is fine( for you and others) just dont pout too much when i laugh at you. what i like is what matters to me. i dont listen to music for effect or to fit in.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
but as far as pitchfork, yeah they are the go to indie website, they are pretty much THE website you go to if you want to find out whats hip and cool and new and trendy.
why would anyone want to know whats hip cool new and trendy??? new i get, but hip cool and trendy... no thank you.. smacks too much of poseur and hipster to me... which is fine( for you and others) just dont pout too much when i laugh at you. what i like is what matters to me. i dont listen to music for effect or to fit in.
Like.
Adelaide 17/11/2009, Melbourne 20/11/2009, Sydney 22/11/2009, Melbourne (Big Day Out Festival) 24/01/2014
but as far as pitchfork, yeah they are the go to indie website, they are pretty much THE website you go to if you want to find out whats hip and cool and new and trendy.
why would anyone want to know whats hip cool new and trendy??? new i get, but hip cool and trendy... no thank you.. smacks too much of poseur and hipster to me... which is fine( for you and others) just dont pout too much when i laugh at you. what i like is what matters to me. i dont listen to music for effect or to fit in.
on a base level, if someone came up to me and said, "i love 60's music, but thats all i ever listen to, what are some good current bands from various genres who are putting out great music". I'd definitely tell them to check out pitchfork and a variety of other magazines and sites and blogs of course. But I think thats what pitchfork covers well. Current, new music. Arcade Fire, Animal Collective, St Vincent, Sufjan, Bon Iver. Yes some of those guys have been around for a few years, but its current rock/varying genres of music.
plus i think the term indie is mainstream enough that everyone knows either of the term of what it signifies. I think if someone was to say, "where can i find indie music, current indie music", again i'd refer them to pitchfork among other sources.
I think its sort of self evident myself. Certainly, new music isnt always something people enjoy. But, i think its sort of entry level stuff to say, pitchfork is one of the places you must check out if you are interested in music that is soundtracking tv shows, or movies, or is being talked about by the younger generation.
Comments
8/7/08, 6/9/09
to each their own. i'd say the opposite. and i think youve got to respect them as theyve set the agenda and the tone for whats new and hip in indie rock for years. Any publication or site that promotes and hypes bon iver, flying lotus, the weeknd, frank ocean, james blake etc... is a good thing
and further, the whole "promoting dull and boring" indie music thing is a tired cliche. Im not sure what dull and boring even means in terms of music, as its so different from person to person. to one person it might be singer songwriter music, to the next it might be hip hop, or rock, or any number of things. dull and boring to you or me, might be beaitiful and lush and intense to another person.
how anyone could consider the weeknd, frank ocean, SBTRKT, Flying lotus, and the like boring is something i dont quite understand
interesting... NOT! :roll:
Do you own stock in Pitchfork or make royalties off every indie rock song played?
I've never seen anyone defend a site or a genre of music more than you do with Pitchfork and indie rock. I really, really liked grunge back in the 90s, but I dont think I ever defended it to anyone in quite the manner you defend indie rock on this site. I think you're going to have to face the facts that some people haven't found it to be a life-changing experience and are just not into it, and no matter how much you promote it, they're not going to wake up one morning and "see the light" and make Pitchfork their homepage.
I know that as soon as I see something posted on this site about indie rock or Pitchfork, you're going to be there in 5 minutes flat to offer your opinion; hence the 20 or so posts you have in this thread alone.
And yeah, not everyone liked grunge in the 90's either.
i disagree with you. i may not be an evangelical indie rock fan, or a successful one, but ive heard about a ton of bands via pitchfork and a million other blogs, and via friends, tv shows, magazines, etc... I dont think its out of the question someone, you, or me or someone else could recommend a band and people check them out. whether they like the music thats another story. This whole thread started because someone, another board member was checking out the pitchfork list and downloading music they hadnt heard before, several other people chimed in they were doing the same, downloading some albums that made the list. Im sure the Rolling Stone and Spin and NME magazine lists all prompted similar reactions from people. My life has been changed via suggestions or recommendations of bands to check out, from pitchfork yes, but from any number of magazines and websites and friends, and even from interviews with various bands about music that influenced them. Im not alone in that reguard, many people find out about music this way.
we all do this in many ways. Movies are another big one, a friend tells you about an amazing movie they saw and you check it out based on your friends enthusiastic response. Or a family member says you need to read this book that relates to your life situation, or you read a good review of a book from Amazon.
its all related.
My whole point was the hatred for pitchfork is largely unrelated to any issue or topic they bring up. If you took the time to read my previous posts over the years, you'd know ive publicly admitted pitchforks faults and problems. But im also aware of a myriad of issues and problems with many other lists and sites and magazines.
The issue brought up in this thread multiple times was people crying that an album didnt make the list and therefore pitchfork was phony and a bunch of hacks. My response was that many sources published best of lists this year. and many omitted the same albums people were moaning about pitchfork dismissing. Im sort of an all opportunity, alls equal basher in that reguard. lets get some consistency. Lets bash the OTHER sites that dismissed those albums and level the same slurs against them as well (my morning jacket, The Antlers, wilco all were snubbed by a variety of outlets this year, pitchfork wasnt the only one to leave them out in the cold).
i think for me, the bash pitchfork meme is old and tired. and many people just do it because its in or cool. Theres only one Portlandia and they do a great job of lampooning hipster culture.
I'm glad that you use Pitchfork and other places to find new music and I've mentioned before that I've found out new bands/songs from word of mouth or this forum too, but I stand by my statements about your defense of indie rock being very over-the-top.
I'm not on this board all day and have only been an active contributor for a couple of years and I don't think I've ever really mentioned much about my taste for indie rock either, so I'm looking at this from a distance, but this is my observation of you from the little I'm on here. You seem to take it personally when someone disses indie rock, and I find that interesting. I've come to regard you as the indie rock guy/gal and whenever a post says anything about it, like i said, you'll be there in no time flat to defend your religion.
You say you have a problem with Pitchfork being labeled as a snobby hipster website by a lot of people, well I say to that most people also label Fox News as being slanted to the right. Do you think there might be a shred of truth to that! And if Pitchfork is hipster and trendy and that's what you like, then admit it and move on just like the republicans who make up most of Fox News' audience.
sure there is some truth to it, im not a fox viewer and am a left wing commie so im not a fan of fox news.
but as far as pitchfork, yeah they are the go to indie website, they are pretty much THE website you go to if you want to find out whats hip and cool and new and trendy. and the audience they cater to is generally indie rock. but thats also only half the story. they dont just cover the bon ivers and bright eyes and decemberists of the world, although those bands are covered, they also focus on, and recommend stuff like Burial, who is dubstep, they recommend hip hop they've been really into Currency and ASAP Rocky in that genre, they recommend sort of off the wall spaced out and drugged out pure hip hop beats in the form of Clams Casino. They've been on a serious r and b kick with The weeknd, frank ocean and the dream. And they like metal with Wolves in the Throne Room. They loved the new Kate Bush cd, which is singer songwriter/art rock territoryThats a pretty good cross section of music. Certainly you are free to listen to those bands or not listen. Or listen to them and dislike them. But to say pitchfork caters in hyping a specific sound or scene or genre is ludicrous. I dont thing Wolves in the Throne Room and Kate Bush are in the same scene or genre, do you? They sound NOTHING alike. Any website or source that is that diversified in the stuff they cover and promote is a good thing. And to tell people that you only get boring indie rock music via pitchfork (whatever that means) is disingenuous and false at best. Plus the lack of knowledge about other magazines and sources lists omitting the same records that caused people to bash pitchfork in this thread is naive. I love debating lists. Year end lists are a passion of mine. But i think we all do ourselves a disservice in terms of blatant blanket statements about sources and magazines. Yes pitchfork may have left off some albums you loved. I hear ya, but that doesnt mean pitchfork has some sort of agenda to shut out mainstream/specific types of music, which is evidenced by many other sources omitting said albums as well.
I take it personally because music isnt a joke to me. Art isnt a joke to me. Its all very important.
you know what, i'll be the first to admit that you actually make some very valid points. and i'm also a 'left wing commie' (or at least that's what my conservative friends call me) so good on you for that
also, it seems like you like EVERYTHING that pitchfork recommends. it's almost like you don't have a taste of your own, and simply reiterate what pitchfork says. is there anything that pitchfork has praised in the past few years that you don't like? i get the impression that if they did drool over an album that you didn't like, you'd probably be sitting there for weeks with your headphones on trying to "figure it out"...anyway, you're free to do what you want, listen to what you want, and say what you want. just trying to provide some perspective of why you may rub people the wrong way. the truth is, pitchfork does cover a broad scope of genre and styles, but they also, in my opinion, ignore and even sometimes trash a lot of the greatest artists in those genres who are making great music, simply because, as you say, they are not or are no longer new and trendy.
All of us on here take music pretty seriously or we wouldn't be on this site discussing music. But we all don't have to take it to the extreme where we get our feelings hurt when someone doesn't like something we like. Art is very powerful in that way, where two different people can view the same work in completely different ways. One loves it while the other hates it and they both have very valid reasons for their opinions.
why would anyone want to know whats hip cool new and trendy??? new i get, but hip cool and trendy... no thank you.. smacks too much of poseur and hipster to me... which is fine( for you and others) just dont pout too much when i laugh at you. what i like is what matters to me. i dont listen to music for effect or to fit in.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Like.
on a base level, if someone came up to me and said, "i love 60's music, but thats all i ever listen to, what are some good current bands from various genres who are putting out great music". I'd definitely tell them to check out pitchfork and a variety of other magazines and sites and blogs of course. But I think thats what pitchfork covers well. Current, new music. Arcade Fire, Animal Collective, St Vincent, Sufjan, Bon Iver. Yes some of those guys have been around for a few years, but its current rock/varying genres of music.
plus i think the term indie is mainstream enough that everyone knows either of the term of what it signifies. I think if someone was to say, "where can i find indie music, current indie music", again i'd refer them to pitchfork among other sources.
I think its sort of self evident myself. Certainly, new music isnt always something people enjoy. But, i think its sort of entry level stuff to say, pitchfork is one of the places you must check out if you are interested in music that is soundtracking tv shows, or movies, or is being talked about by the younger generation.