[Jandek] Re: (OT) pitchfork

[Richard Rees Jones]

Jonathan 23 wrote:

>sorry, but pitchfork deserves all the abuse and worse.
>
>they open themselves to those kinds of comments by being whores to 
>major labels, reviewing,
>publicizing and even recommending the trash put out by corporate 
>labels, who regularly fuck artists and
>the public over with in-house publishing contracts, no benefits for 
>employees, funding the RIAA, etc.
>
Just because *your* site has chosen not to review major labels' 
output, Jonathan, doesn't mean you can criticise another site for 
continuing to do so.  That's retarded.  It's like complaining about a 
baseball game because the players aren't playing football.

Personally, I could care less about the RIAA issue.  It won't stop me 
reading Pitchfork - just as your site's stance on the issue, which I 
admire, is not one of the reasons I read and regularly enjoy it as 
well.  For me the only important issue is the quality of the writing. 
Here's an example.  Here's an extract from your site's review of the 
new A Silver Mt Zion album:

"...the socio-political critiques and commentaries of the vocals take 
center-stage on the album, sometimes supported by glittering 
beautiful music and sometimes left out to dry like so many of the 
disenfranchised subjects of the septet's lyrics."

And here's an extract from Pitchfork's review of the same album:

"...Horses finds the group expanding upon their established 
crescendo-laden orchestral formulae in a heady, almost reckless 
fashion, as though they're determined to rally themselves from 
sociopolitical despondency through sheer force of musical will."

Now, which of these is better written?  It's the Pitchfork one, isn't 
it?  It's cleverer, more incisive and more verbally expressive by far.

Richard