Line Out Music & the City at Night
The Stranger Suggests
Critics' Best Bets
Music Arts & Food
Slog
News & Arts
@SEAshowsTwitter feed of Seattle shows on sale now
Thursday, May 6, 2010
Love / Media More Shabazz Palaces on Pitchfork
Posted by Eric Grandy on Thu, May 6, 2010 at 11:01 AM
Following this look last week, Pitchfork (probably the most important music publication of our time) returns today to the Shabazz Palaces well—and finds it stubbornly dry:
Lazaro initially declined Pitchfork's interview request, replying that he'd prefer to read a writer's take on Shabazz Palaces' music rather than offer his own answers. He won't name any of the other people involved in the project. He wouldn't send us a photograph; instead, he requested that we run the graphic you see above. Shabazz Palaces have no MySpace page, and they self-released two albums into the ether last year on their website. They're a group happy to work in the shadows.
Man, the Stranger has been there. But Palaces architect Ishmael Butler does get down to an interview with (rap scribe supreme) Tom Breihan eventually, and it's well worth a read (among other things, Ish mentions he has two more album "in the gun right now"):
Pitchfork: The music isn't super constructed. Most rap songs seem to follow a similar blueprint: 16 bars, chorus, 16 bars, chorus. Your music tends not to progress that way. It tends to follow its own tangents and its own logic.PL: Yeah. Well, it should, don't you think? It's hard to believe that most people subscribe to formulas, especially when it's not a requirement— especially nowadays, when a lot of cats are putting their own shit out but still they feel it's necessary, due to a certain amount of indoctrination or programming. "Hey, this is the way you have to do it in order to be successful." We just have different views on all that kind of stuff. Not to say that we don't appreciate all of those kinds of music when they're good, but we don't really subscribe to that kind of formulaic thing. That's difficult to do and be successful, too, with all due respect to the pop artists. It's not an easy thing to do. In some ways, it's a little easier to do the way that we do it, but it just makes for a richer, more satisfying experience for us— to be the way that we are without really knocking nobody else's hustles.
2
Here, I fixed the first sentence for you: "(probably the most self-important music publication of our time)"
4
Eric, you're right about P-fork, but you've also just opened up Fortress Grandy to a massive assault from the usual mob of "Eric just re-posts Pitchfork material" dummies.
5
How, exactly, is Pitchfork important? What qualifications are you using to say that?
If you define pitchfork as being essential to music today, I would have to disagree with you. If that site disappeared from the internet, would anyone really notice or care? The site has good parts and bad parts but it's not some all-powerful entity that can break an indie band over one mediocre review.
If you define pitchfork as being essential to music today, I would have to disagree with you. If that site disappeared from the internet, would anyone really notice or care? The site has good parts and bad parts but it's not some all-powerful entity that can break an indie band over one mediocre review.
8
@3 Pitchfork has a lot of great content. Unfortunately, they also come across as a bunch of self-important, raging hipster assholes.
10
@5 ...maybe not, but it's the closest thing to it. and yes, if it disappeared, it would be a major current event in music. like it or not, pitchfork dwarfs all others.
11
Pitchfork is only the most important music site if you listen to the brand of music they cater to. I hardly think that most metalheads visits the site daily unless they are waiting to see the 8.whatever that PF will give either the new Mastodon, Baroness, WITTR, Nachtisyium, or High On Fire.
12
Their generalism and generlist audience is part of what makes them important. The notion that they're strictly some kind of "indie rock" outlet (whatever that means) is betrayed by their coverage of everything from Afro-beat to, yeah, Nachtmystium.
13
I don't see importance and self-importance as being mutually exclusive. Just because you produce great content doesn't exempt you from being a prick.
14
Pitchfork reviews are entirely unreadable. I take a look at whatever score they dish out and skip the self-indulgent, self-aggrandizing horseshit that follows.
Main reason to visit Pitchfork: News, of course.
Main reason to visit Pitchfork: News, of course.
15
Aside from petty complaints about Pitchfork (*much of which I agree with) not one person can answer Eric's initial query.
Which proves his point.
Haters, trolls ...your move.
Which proves his point.
Haters, trolls ...your move.
16
@12. Thanks for the correct spelling on Nachtmystium. They aren't strictly an indie-rock outlet, but for the most part, they are. Just because they throw in some metal, or hip-hop coverage (which is pretty minimal most of the time) hardly brings them to the level of general coverage. Check out punknews.org right now. They have articles about the Pains of Being Pure at Heart and Sage Francis, but the only people probably checking that out are punkers. I'm not trying to decry the importance of Pitchfork to those who follow it. But in the grand scheme of things, like practically everything in music, it is all subjective. And for everyone that thinks Pitchfork is God, there are just as many on the other side who have no idea what the website even is.
17
@6: I wanted to know WHY you consider Pitchfork the most important and what you mean when you say "important". I wasn't here to argue that Rolling Stone or Basset Hound Quarterly is more important, because I don't even know what you mean when you say that something is the most important.
Even if Pitchfork is the most important music publication of our time(whatever that may mean), does that really matter? People don't bother to read text reviews of a band anymore now that we are in the digital age and can just listen to the track on their myspace and make their own decision(ex: I read Line Out every morning for the shows happening today but it's always the youtube videos, not the text writeups, that make me decide to attend one of the shows). I would put the worth of sites like Hype Machine and Last.fm above Pitchfork any day because they're more about music.
Even if Pitchfork is the most important music publication of our time(whatever that may mean), does that really matter? People don't bother to read text reviews of a band anymore now that we are in the digital age and can just listen to the track on their myspace and make their own decision(ex: I read Line Out every morning for the shows happening today but it's always the youtube videos, not the text writeups, that make me decide to attend one of the shows). I would put the worth of sites like Hype Machine and Last.fm above Pitchfork any day because they're more about music.
19
"...but it's not some all-powerful entity that can break an indie band over one mediocre review."
Travis Morrison would beg to differ.
Travis Morrison would beg to differ.
20
@19 Pitchfork gave The Flaming Lips - Zaireeka a 0.0 and they're doing just fine. Blaming Travis's retirement on some terrible writer's review is pushing it.
Rolling Stone's music section is to old music fans as Pitchfork is to slightly-less-but-still-old music fans. One might be more relevant than the other but they're both still relics. I'm glad that Shabazz was given more exposure via a well-visited music site, but Pitchfork really isn't anything special these days.
Rolling Stone's music section is to old music fans as Pitchfork is to slightly-less-but-still-old music fans. One might be more relevant than the other but they're both still relics. I'm glad that Shabazz was given more exposure via a well-visited music site, but Pitchfork really isn't anything special these days.
22
To me, Pitchfork is important by default. Like when you take every good show off of television, CSI: Miami is the best show by default. I feel like Pitchfork's reviews have become a lot more insular and a lot less interesting in the last five years.
Totally off the topic, has anyone read a Death + Taxes recently? It's like reading a high school paper someone wrote about a band and tried to pass off as school work. If you hate Pitchfork, pick up an issue and you'll see that Pitchfork actually has some chops in comparison.
Totally off the topic, has anyone read a Death + Taxes recently? It's like reading a high school paper someone wrote about a band and tried to pass off as school work. If you hate Pitchfork, pick up an issue and you'll see that Pitchfork actually has some chops in comparison.
23
@21: But part of what I would gauge importance by is how many eyeballs the criticism is reaching. Something like, "the best criticism/writing/content reaching the most readers" seems like a fair way to gauge a publication's importance. (Its impact on other publications, as a taste-maker or bellweather, might be another.) Wire may have arguably better writing, although I often find it maddeningly academic and dry, but I'm sure Pitchfork reaches more readers.
25
Eric D is right. Who needs other peoples opinions when you can so easily make your own today.
To that extent who needs (better put: who uses) a giant taste maker when there is so many less... ulteriorly motivated... specialty blogs, myspace band friends, ways to follow labels, sites like last.fm, hypem, hell even WIKIPEDIA out there that give you the information you need to find what interests you and decided for yourself what to think about it first hand.
Seems to me any Music Mag (digital or otherwise... cough) is obsolete today. Who needs the middle man? The big-show used-car salesmen reviews?
To that extent who needs (better put: who uses) a giant taste maker when there is so many less... ulteriorly motivated... specialty blogs, myspace band friends, ways to follow labels, sites like last.fm, hypem, hell even WIKIPEDIA out there that give you the information you need to find what interests you and decided for yourself what to think about it first hand.
Seems to me any Music Mag (digital or otherwise... cough) is obsolete today. Who needs the middle man? The big-show used-car salesmen reviews?
26
@17, 25: Granted, music criticism might not play as much of a gatekeeper/buyer's guide role as it used to, but plenty of people are still reading it. (Pitchfork isn't funded by Texas oil tycoons who love foolhardy investments, it's funded by ads, and it gets ads because it has page-views—people are reading.)
Here's the thing, though: Even before the internet, plenty of people were happy to get their music recommendations just from friends, or from randomly hearing something on the radio, or from going to record stores and hitting a listening station. Music criticism isn't for all people who like music, it's for people who like reading music criticism (a relatively small subset, probably, of all people who like music). Don't need it, you don't like it? Fine. But you're here reading.
Here's the thing, though: Even before the internet, plenty of people were happy to get their music recommendations just from friends, or from randomly hearing something on the radio, or from going to record stores and hitting a listening station. Music criticism isn't for all people who like music, it's for people who like reading music criticism (a relatively small subset, probably, of all people who like music). Don't need it, you don't like it? Fine. But you're here reading.
27
@23: I agree in a way. Someone could write the most eloquent music criticism and if no one reads it, it's as if it was never really written. That being said, although Pitchfork may have a much, much higher readership, I don't know if it truly opens as many doors to legitimately new forms of music as one would like to think. To me, their writing is "The guy from ____ from the burgeoning new ____ scene has a new album that sounds like a cross between ____ and ____". The more that happens, the less important they become as a source of information that exposes people to new music they probably wouldn't find on their own.
To further date myself, when I would read CMJ when internet was dialup and it just had computing information and porn, it was very easy to expose readers to new music as there wasn't really any other source. Now that you can read about anything anytime, it's made much harder for publications to differentiate themselves and I don't think that Pitchfork is upping their game to compete with information that can be found elsewhere.
To further date myself, when I would read CMJ when internet was dialup and it just had computing information and porn, it was very easy to expose readers to new music as there wasn't really any other source. Now that you can read about anything anytime, it's made much harder for publications to differentiate themselves and I don't think that Pitchfork is upping their game to compete with information that can be found elsewhere.
28
I kinda see Pitchfork as the Rolling Stone of the 60's or maybe the NME of the 80's. Basically the hegemon in the music mag world, and the agenda-setter, for better or worse, when it comes to what people are talking about (i.e. this thread). My guess is it'll eventually crest (or is already) in the way Rolling Stone and NME did. Steadily dumbing down its content to reach a wider audience, covering more gossipy news fluff , eventually just becoming irrelevant. Or who knows, maybe it being an online mag changes all those rules.
29
this whole posting rings of grandy's positioning to *ahem* work for pitchfork. his writing is trite and masturbatory similar to the jack-offs at pitchfork. reading a pitchfork review is painful to say the least. with radio sucking the way it does (don't go there with kexp - yes with wfmu), pitchfork is just another barfing up of information. meh.
rock criticism is about as necessary as an umbrella in a hurricane.
psyched about the palaces releases tho'
rock criticism is about as necessary as an umbrella in a hurricane.
psyched about the palaces releases tho'
30
Everyone I know who reads P4k hates it, but they keep going back. It's like the Howard Stern of music criticism. I ask them why they keep going back if they hate it so much and the only answer they have is that there is nowhere else to go. My problem w/ P4k is the needlessly metaphoric writing and unpredictable nature of their harshness. I'm all for bashing (I've lost a few music criticism gigs this way), but they have no editorial direction as a whole. P4k, in fact, has a lot in common with KEXP, in that they rule supreme and only b/c most the listeners/readers are trapped and sheep in the first place. God forbid some competition come along...
I too miss the days of CMJ, but make no mistake that CMJ was never a part of the mass-consciousness. It was just a trade magazine that only people in college radio read for the most part. You're best bet now is to find a blog or six that you moderately agree w/ and follow them on a daily basis.
I too miss the days of CMJ, but make no mistake that CMJ was never a part of the mass-consciousness. It was just a trade magazine that only people in college radio read for the most part. You're best bet now is to find a blog or six that you moderately agree w/ and follow them on a daily basis.
31
@29: It's only masturbatory if it's one-sided. People are reading Pitchfork, so it's at least some kind of intercourse, however unsatisfied it might leave you.
32
I'm not sure how important P4k is now (I rarely go there anymore) but I would bet that if you asked a band like A Place to Bury Strangers, a band whose career shot through the roof back when the website gave their freshman release an incredible and insightful review, it is essential. Generally I found most of the reviews on P4k were 3/4 filler and about 1/4 great criticism. Occasionally they went for broke, I'm thinking of the review for the Danielson Familie record "A Prayer for Every Hour", but toward the end of my regular visits to their site I skimmed and moved on.
33
I almost never pay attention to P4K's reviews..too painful to read. I check in a few times a week for news and concert stuff. Personally, the only reviews I read regularly are from AV Club. This debate is stupid, by the way, in the grand scheme of things amazon.com is about a million-times more influential then P4K. I don't really know anyone outside of hipster nerds and recordstore clerks who even know what P4K is. I think it is very odd that Grandy is holding P4K's water...isn't there some interesting Pacific NW bands you could write about instead of this pablum?
34
isn't there some interesting Pacific NW bands you could write about instead of this pablum?
Read harder, slaggy:
http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/gas-g…
http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/fucki…
http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/up-an…
Read harder, slaggy:
http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/gas-g…
http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/fucki…
http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/up-an…
35
(To say nothing of the fact that the ostensible subject of this post, Shabazz Palaces, is one of the most interesting "Pacific NW" acts going.)
36
I guess the difference that I'm starting to see is that Pitchfork is important to music journalism, not the actual music itself. Music journalism might have been important to music in the past but today a lot of the old jobs of music journalism, such as introducing a viewer to new acts or interviewing artists, doesn't have the same impact that it used to.
I guess this whole line of thought makes me a bit excited to see what really happens with music journalism once people realize that you could listen to the three free tracks off of an album in the time it takes you to read a 7,000 word review. I assume a lot of music journalism will turn trashy and tabloidy, but a few folks are going to start figuring out new ways to write about music(data mining music aggregators to discover interesting trends, etc).
I guess this whole line of thought makes me a bit excited to see what really happens with music journalism once people realize that you could listen to the three free tracks off of an album in the time it takes you to read a 7,000 word review. I assume a lot of music journalism will turn trashy and tabloidy, but a few folks are going to start figuring out new ways to write about music(data mining music aggregators to discover interesting trends, etc).
37
@36, I doubt that day will ever come. There is simply too much music in the world for an enterprising music-lover to listen to all of it (and God help you if, while searching online, you confuse band names [protip: deerhoof and deer hunter are NOT the same band]), and the best way to narrow it down is through recommendations by people whose musical tastes are similar to yours. Most people rely on friends, but some of us still like to read what music reviewers have to say. If we like what they say, we pay attention; otherwise, they're full of crap and don't know what they're talking about. I'm not sure where I went with that (gimme a break, it's 3 am), but the point is, until we're able to manipulate time to allow us to fully appreciate hours of music in seconds, people will need to hear about what's good from others.
38
Pitchfork actually seems to have a fairly solid handle on the subject: the indie rock set is typically more academic about their interests than fans of other various rock sub-genres. the shit that rolling stone or vibe covers might actually sell more units, but people would rather philosophize over Spoon before intellectualizing Beyonce.
http://www.thedailyswarm.com/swarm/Pitch…
http://www.thedailyswarm.com/swarm/Pitch…
39
I get the same music press releases as Pitchfork (and the Stranger), and damn, it's a lot of crap to read through when it ain't your full time job. The Stranger seems to use Pitchfork as their aggregator to cull the relevant content from all the press releases. I in turn use The Stranger to cull the relevant content from Pitchfork, so I never really need to read it. Personally I find Punknews and a variety of local and national music blogs a lot more relevant to the type of music I listen to, but I never though NME or Rolling Stone were the shit either, where as I anxiously awaited the new Flipside and MaxiumumRocknRoll back in the day.
40
@20: The 0.0 review for "Zaireeka" was WAY before Pitchfork was the tastemaker it became. There's no doubt that, whatever the quality of music on "Travistan" (which I personally feel is an underrated record) that 0.0 had a huge affect on the that record and Travis' solo career.
Most Commented on Line Out
-
What Do You Think Of Tom Cruise's "Rockin' New Look?" by Kelly O
-
UPDATE: Bumbershoot to Skip Flatstock This Year[?] by Grant Brissey
-
chicBuds: EARO OR ZERO? by Dave Segal
-
Have You Seen This Bass? by Dave Segal
-
Ongoing List of Defunct Seattle Clubs by Grant Brissey
-
Word on the Street Is That Tonight Is Mad Rad's Last Show Ever by Grant Brissey
-
Also Tonight in Music: Avengers at Funhouse by Grant Brissey
-
Today in Funny: Hannibal Buress and Aziz Ansari by Grant Brissey
-
I'm Hungover...So, What Does THAT Sound Like? by Mike Nipper
-
D'Angelo's Return by Larry Mizell, Jr.
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (40) RSS