tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-161694830669099204.post1788468754080324946..comments2024-03-17T18:53:56.416-07:00Comments on Cosmic American Blog: Only On Pitchforkyoggothhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00233852251148460524noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-161694830669099204.post-78896919885658433222009-11-23T19:38:24.419-08:002009-11-23T19:38:24.419-08:00I think the reason Pitchfork thinks that the Doors...I think the reason Pitchfork thinks that the Doors are less hip than Journey is because of the use of Journey songs in a number of recent pop culture shows (Soprano's and Glee). In fact, there was a whole article a few months ago in the San Jose Mercury about the comeback of "Don't stop believin'" (even Kanye sings it as his concerts apparently), but unfortunately the article has been removed from the Mercury's website.<br /><br />But yeah, I just don't read Pitchfork at all. It's just too hipster for me. I prefer AMG.Herr Zrbohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15728690738360128504noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-161694830669099204.post-39815970498587216312009-11-23T18:40:12.876-08:002009-11-23T18:40:12.876-08:00Your "newest" problem with Pitchfork? Wh...Your "newest" problem with Pitchfork? When have they not done this? For that matter, when has any music/film/literary critic not done this? 95% of all art critics come off as insecure if you ask me. That's why I like the All Music Guide; Erlewine and Unterberger seem like some of the most secure rock critics around. Oh, and us, of course. Hell, if you want to talk about "uncool," I am a person who prefers Phil Collins over Peter Gabriel. Pitchfork I just blew your mind!Little Earlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03415022026000282965noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-161694830669099204.post-30787639339574185762009-11-22T21:50:49.013-08:002009-11-22T21:50:49.013-08:00Yeah, my newest problem with Pitchfork is that the...Yeah, my newest problem with Pitchfork is that they have to start every review (and even some of their news articles) with some kind of "Pitchfork 101," giving us their version of the history of an artist, and then telling us where this artist falls on their coolness meter. I think they're letting their so-called "tastemaker" status go to their heads a little. <br /><br />You can really see it in this short <a href="http://pitchfork.com/news/36940-peter-gabriel-to-cover-radiohead-arcade-fire-bon-iver-magnetic-fields/" rel="nofollow">Peter Gabriel</a> article. Before they get to the news they have to qualify it with a pretentious history lesson. It's almost like they're afraid of getting made fun of for reporting on Peter Gabriel (or the Doors, etc) and have to justify it in advance... it comes off as insecurity more than anything else.Jasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17289190460038957584noreply@blogger.com