Comments on: Pitchfork Can’t Decide Whether to Deceive Readers, Or Merely Confuse Them

By: melikecheese

melikecheese — Thu, 23 Nov 2006 02:44:55 +0000

ummm, did ANYONE read the second review. You claim pitchfork tried to hide the old review but hey theres a link RIGHT TO IT in the new review. Really, you look like you didnt fact check at all now. You say “Pitchfork decided to pull it off the site, removing all links and mentions; it’s like it didn’t even exist.” thats just not true. The link to the old review is in the new one, it is:
http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/article/record_review/39798/...

By: GiantPanda

GiantPanda — Tue, 21 Nov 2006 10:47:55 +0000

so are pitchfork like the n.w.o./reptilian race of the online music community? and this is like a david icke write up of evidence to further promote the cause? sweet…

By: Maura Johnston

Maura Johnston — Tue, 21 Nov 2006 10:11:21 +0000

we have a follow-up post.

By: Brian Raftery

Brian Raftery — Tue, 21 Nov 2006 10:00:59 +0000

@shallowrewards:

Could you re-post, and let me know if it disappears again? Neither Maura nor I have the permission (nor, in my case at least, the technical know-how) to delete a post, so it may have been some weird hiccup.

The comments are weird--between slow-loading avatars and long-delayed entries, it's the least predictable part of the whole site.

By: turdly

turdly — Tue, 21 Nov 2006 09:54:07 +0000

that's one of the main problems with pitchfork, the inconsistency of the writers. Some you are blessed to get, Nitsuh, M. Richardson, some you are FUCKED

Marc Hogan, being the biggest trash talker of them all

By: Feh Am Legend

Feh Am Legend — Tue, 21 Nov 2006 09:41:17 +0000

Um, well either they’re scrambling to save face or this is not the huge controversy you might want it to be. If you scroll down the page to previous reviews it’s right there under 11-16. There’s a (Taiwan) next to the title, so maybe that means something. I don’t know/care about x/- so I can’t be arsed to speculate further.

By: shallowrewards

shallowrewards — Tue, 21 Nov 2006 09:32:10 +0000

MY POST IN THIS THREAD WAS DELETED!!! J’ACCUSE!!

By: Wolverines

Wolverines — Tue, 21 Nov 2006 09:20:31 +0000

That’s really funny. The dude didn’t even want to wait until he got his own promo copy of the record.

By: The Lord God

The Lord God — Tue, 21 Nov 2006 09:20:26 +0000

+/- = waste of time

By: absolutelykosher

absolutelykosher — Tue, 21 Nov 2006 07:50:28 +0000

I think everyone’s conspiracy theories are hysterical. This was mildly embarrassing for Pitchfork (they took responsibility for not fact-checking), but the real embarrassment needs to be owned by Adam Moerder, the writer of the original review (and a perpetrator of falsehoods in past reviews). In spite of receiving the proper version that we released in late October, Moerder illegally downloaded the version rushed out in Asia last year in time for the band’s tour there. Our version had several tracks swapped out or renamed (including some of the ones indicted by Moerder), the entire record remixed and, for the first time, properly mastered. It’s bad enough that Moerder’s review is mean spirited and off-the-mark (Crock should’ve veered from the “emo” brand too – jeez – if you must know, we lobbied for Mark Pytlik), but he reviewed the wrong record. When this came to Pitchfork’s attention, they first modified the review to reflect the fact it was an import and then, correctly deciding that this was a copout, pulled the review entirely an hour later and reassigned it to another writer. We’re obviously much happier with the new review, though I contend that we’d have gotten a higher score from it if the first one hadn’t been published. I suspect their will be no long-term repercussions for Adam Moerder for his asinine smear of a record the band took an extra year to finish properly for U.S. release. I think Pitchfork did their best to correct the error, but kicking a writer like that to the curb would be the best for them.

best,
Cory Brown
Absolutely Kosher Records