Friday, May 05, 2006

Stick a pFork In 'Em


I read Rolling Stone magazine. Always have, probably always will. With their 1,000 issue currently hitting the newsstands, I have to ask Myself… why do I still read this crap? I would like to think that Rolling Stone is THE music magazine. However, over the past 20 years, it has slowly slid toward where the money is, and as we all know, the best bands in the world rarely have the money. When I want to read about good new music, Rolling Stone no longer fills that void for Me. If I want to read an article on how awful the Iraq war is or how awful President Bush is, I can find this easily in a Rolling Stone. Granted, it doesn’t take being the Creator of the universe to be able to guess what the next sentence will say before you read it, but the articles are usually well done although shallow. But if I'm looking for these types or articles, I can think of about a dozen magazines that do this better. I read Rolling Stone to read about music, but even that has been a chore lately. The last issue had a tell all interview with “musician” Nick Lachey… a singer whom about 1 out of 50 Americans can name a song by. Their musician interviews are usually well done, but they are interviewing musicians most music fans… and I mean people who buy more than a CD a month (you know, music fans)… they are interviewing musicians most music fans couldn’t care less about. What is a day in the life of Pink like? Who cares? Music fans want Sufjan on the cover, not a caricature of President Bush. As for the music reviews, I liked them when I read them 2 months ago on music blogs… but those reviews were more accurate than just giving everyone 3 stars.

So, what is the Son of God to do? The answer is simple. I’m going to keep blessing the socks off of Pitchfork Media. If you are a music fan, you already love Pitchfork… unless they tore up a band you love and now you hate them because they’re mean. Either way, you have to admit, the writers at Pitchfork LOVE music and that is all they are about. If an album sucks, they will tell us. They have yet to bow down before the hype of albums and fall pray to the cool kid peer pressure to love an album the hip kids want them to love unless that album genuinely deserves it. They hype music that matters because music fans want to know what is new and good out there and, thanks to the decline of print music magazines like Rolling Stone, music fans need to know what is new and good out there.

So, I will keep on reading Rolling Stone, with the hopes that it might surprise Me… but it’s currently kinda like how I read an US magazine while MTV is on in the background (a lot of gossip I already know, a lot of commercials for things I don’t care about, and every now and then, something that almost catches My attention but then is forgotten once I get up). Where’s My weekly Pitchfork Magazine? If there was a Gorilla Vs. Bear magazine that came with a CD, I’d subscribe instantly. Not that I need these, because of the glory that is the internet, making music fans able to find the music that matters, and helping us find it 2 months before Rolling Stone gives it 3 stars.

Sorry for the rant. It’s righteous anger, which I’m venting toward bad pop culture. I need to find a Church that is selling stuff in its narthex. I’ll get out My Indiana Jones whip and take off some steam.

9 Comments:

At 11:57 PM, Blogger Seth B. Doe said...

You're right, Jesus. Good work.

 
At 2:58 PM, Blogger Jonathan Migneault said...

Jesus, I would have to politely disagree (that's not a sin is it?). I think Pitchfork is simply the lesser of two evils. An aura of pretentiousnous surrounds the site and its writers. It seems those of us who are more, lets say, easily influenced, take Pitchfork's word as gospel. And I think we both know only your word should be taken as gospel.

Further, Pitchfork often seems to follow in the footsteps of often better written blogs. Basically, they'll give a rave review to a band that has been in the blogosphere for months. A great recent example of this phenomenon is Tapes N' Tapes. Tons of blogs were talking about this band months before Pitchfork gave their album a positive review. After the review, many of Pitchfork's pretentious followers started to rave about the band as if they were the best thing since sliced bread. Meanwhile, the true music lovers who gave the band the recognition it deserved get left on the wayside as Pitchfork takes all the credit for discovering a hot new act. They basically claim ownership over these bands for propelling them towards success. One needs only look to all the Pitchfork references in any article written about Sufjan Stevens, the Arcade Fire, Clap Your Hands and Say Yeah etc. All of which were "discovered" by music blogs first by the way.

 
At 8:13 PM, Anonymous kevin said...

I agree with you, Jesus. I don't really get all the Pitchfork hating that goes on in the blog community. Not that Jonathan doesn't have a point, but one should not discount that Pitchfork, unlike blogs, is not reviewing commenting on music until it is officially released. So, when Midlake inevitably gets a glowing review for their soon-to-be released album... it may appear Pitchfork is "following"... but I would assume their writers would recognize an ace album without the forewarning of the better blogs.

 
At 2:24 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jesus, check out Paste Magazine.

 
At 9:18 AM, Blogger wwjblog said...

Calling Pitchfork "pretentious" is like calling a music snob "snobby". Pretentiousnous in the writing of Pitchfork reviews is why I read their reviews in the first place... because I, too, am a snobby music snob (who loves you, by the way).

 
At 2:03 AM, Blogger Brown Shoes said...

Amen Jesus.

 
At 6:11 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

yes and know... i agree with jonathan migneault. also, when they slam an album, it's generally because the writer has had a bad day, or just a jerk. if you notice, they don't actually even review "bad" music, and then they rave about the newest scene nonsense.

i do read pitchfork, and when the writers are on, they are ON, but some writers are just, well, idiotic about it.

using "cute" writing techniques and ranting about their own personal lives just makes it, well, bad writing.

again, they always have different writers, so it just really depends on who and when it is.

 
At 6:11 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

yes and know... i agree with jonathan migneault. also, when they slam an album, it's generally because the writer has had a bad day, or just a jerk. if you notice, they don't actually even review "bad" music, and then they rave about the newest scene nonsense.

i do read pitchfork, and when the writers are on, they are ON, but some writers are just, well, idiotic about it.

using "cute" writing techniques and ranting about their own personal lives just makes it, well, bad writing.

again, they always have different writers, so it just really depends on who and when it is.

 
At 10:27 PM, Blogger dfadf said...

Microsoft Office
Office 2010
Microsoft Office 2010
Office 2010 key
Office 2010 download
Office 2010 Professional
Microsoft outlook
Outlook 2010
Windows 7
Microsoft outlook 2010

 

Post a Comment

<< Home