Gothamist: Pitchfork in the Park (Slope)

Dude

Sat, 10 Mar 2007 02:17:11 -0500

Once again Billyburg hipsters have ruined everything.

jr

Sat, 10 Mar 2007 00:56:10 -0500

You might have been someone in chicago, ryan, but now you're just another dude with a beard and a bad shirt in williamsburg.

dan selzer

Fri, 09 Mar 2007 18:07:52 -0500

The Good Fork is in Red Hook, not Park Slope.

Ace

Fri, 09 Mar 2007 17:19:37 -0500

^Zing!

Spud Spudly

Fri, 09 Mar 2007 15:35:32 -0500

Someone should just stick some kind of fork in Park Slope and declare it done already.

T

Fri, 09 Mar 2007 15:15:15 -0500

I'd rather use pitchfork as a means to filter music than bloggers who take a shotgun approach to distributing praise to every indie band on the planet.

m

Fri, 09 Mar 2007 14:47:59 -0500

Pitchfork ain't that bad. Yes, their reviews are pretentious, but their news items are interesting enough... and there is some validity to their point system. Their year-end lists are not the worst either. There were at least 10 songs I found on their year-end list for last year that I would have never otherwise heard, and I bought albums because of it. I don't mind them.

nick

Fri, 09 Mar 2007 14:30:17 -0500

they need to start promoting phrases like "hipsterism"

Dude

Fri, 09 Mar 2007 14:18:45 -0500

Gothamist has got to stop promoting hipsterism.

Reg!

Fri, 09 Mar 2007 13:40:57 -0500

What the above said. Except for a good laugh, Pitchfork Reviews are useless. However, for keeping tabs on up and coming bands(both panned and beloved by the web publication), there's no better resource on the 'net.

dug

Fri, 09 Mar 2007 13:16:08 -0500

personally, i think pitchfork is often unbearably pretentious with reviewers doing more to satisfy their own urge to compose prose than provide any meaningful insight into the music they review. however, they do provide a good overview of what's happening in the indie realm. to g's point, you can't listen to or buy it if you've never heard of it. like a good radio station, pitchfork provides a channel for discovery.

jen carlson

Fri, 09 Mar 2007 13:08:50 -0500

g, no one needs to confirm the music they like, i agree. i'm saying the site, like many websites/blogs, is a resource for people to hear about new music.

g

Fri, 09 Mar 2007 12:34:09 -0500

why do you need someone to confirm the music you like? there are plenty of ways to discover music without reading about it on pitchfork, all you need is to open your ears and listen to it. if you like it, you like it. if not, you move on. enough with pitchfork and the arcade fire. we get it, you love them. get off your knees already.

nick

Fri, 09 Mar 2007 12:15:30 -0500

i wonder if loney, dear is every going to play coney, island

hip

Fri, 09 Mar 2007 12:11:06 -0500

what's this pitchfork everyone's talking about?

krista

Fri, 09 Mar 2007 11:49:45 -0500

Say what you will about Pitchfork, that Jet review was dead-on.

jen

Fri, 09 Mar 2007 11:24:54 -0500

trees - rephrasing that now, as it's not how i meant it to come across. i was thinking more about how when you hear a single on the radio, or wherever, and you like it but aren't sure you want to commit to buying the entire album. sometimes if you read about it by a blog you trust - their descriptives can help you gauge if it may be something you are in to.

?

Fri, 09 Mar 2007 11:20:06 -0500

what a great non-story. thank you!

trees talk to me

Fri, 09 Mar 2007 11:17:47 -0500

By that first sentence aren't you admitting it's more important to like music that other people like than to experience music and form your own opinion? That's kind of brave and sad revelation.