Idolator

i see we're going with the time-tested "make-a-name-for-oneself-as-a-force-to-be-recokened-with-by-taking-a-cut-at-the-most-popular-kid" method (how's that for 'forkin it?) this plan works for me...

Is anyone at Pitchfork old enough to know who Brian May is?

So, I'll fess up. I chose #2, the Brian May quote.

It's the only quote that somewhat stands on its own context in the list.

The others sound like they were removed from their respective contexts, yet trying to either showboat "over-intellectual" prose or resolve in a clever, poignant way -- when simpler, clearer phrases could have sufficed in all three cases. I'm betting the attached pieces are actually better reads as a whole -- although I'm just betting pocket change, granted.

The Brian May quote sounds like it could have come from any other music blog where the writer was trying hard to ape the tried-and-tiring, effluent overuse of colorful adjectives. (Haw haw, see what I'm doing here?) To its credit, Pitchforkmedia has a variety of writers with different styles. And even the ones that follow closest to the stereotypes do make the website stand out, as far as any given line in their entire content being quoted.

For the record, I only get to experience Pitchfork in a passive-reactionary way i.e. seeing comments or entries in other musical forums where people have linked to and expressed (often irrational) outrage at a certain album review.

This is from an actual Pitchfork review this week:

"The album's weaker spots are its louder numbers about actual monogamous desire, which seem banal next to the whispered, anchorless prosaic observations of the songs that would only count as "rave-ups" at some secret librarian party held on a monastery's roof."

Huh?!

If this is going to be a regular feature, I'm sticking around!

I'm addicted to the periodic North Carolina concert reviews. There's no other place on the internet to find out what clothing bands wear to shows and how many attendees the writer knows personally, personally!

Let's be fair though--the reviews might be wonkish and unreadable, but the numerical ratings are freakishly on the money, down to the last decimal point. There's a reason Pitchfork is Pitchfork.

Obviously, shelo, there are some whispered, anchorless prosaic observations in the songs that would count as "rave-ups" at one or more places other than some secret librarian party held on a monastery's roof, and that fact is vital to understanding any song, duh.

I've trusted Pitchfork's ratings ever since they gave Travis Morrison's first solo record something right around 0.0.