Skip

Pitchfork, 1995–present: What did we do to deserve Pitchfork?
January 24, 2012 3:48 PM   Subscribe

In the last decade, no organ of music criticism has wielded as much influence as Pitchfork. It is the only publication, online or print, that can have a decisive effect on a musician or band’s career.... [W]hatever attracts people to Pitchfork, it isn’t the writing. Even writers who admire the site’s reviews almost always feel obliged to describe the prose as “uneven,” and that’s charitable. Pitchfork has a very specific scoring system that grades albums on a scale from 0.0 to 10.0, and that accounts for some of the site’s appeal, but it can’t just be the scores.... How has Pitchfork succeeded where so many other websites and magazines have not? And why is that success depressing? A lengthy history and review of Pitchfork [Media], from an inexpensive online alternative to a music zine, to "indie" music kingmaker, and thoughts on pop music (criticism).

The article references a lot of old Pitchfork reviews, and some have disappeared from the site's archives, but you can find them on Archive.org. Those archived reviews (plus other referenced interviews, articles, and random bits of specific music) are linked below, in the order that they have been referenced in the article.

I Love Music internet message board, source of the 2009 thread (not 2010) discussion of Pazz and Jop poll, all of which was posted to MetaFilter before.

2008 Pitchforkmedia.com interview in BusinessWeek, and the 2004 interview with The New York Observer

Early 10.0 ratings that aren't in the current Pitchfork review archives
Walt Mink's El Producto
12 Rod's Gay?
Amon Tobin's Bricolage
Bonnie "Prince" Billy's I See a Darkness

A (more) complete list of Pitchfork's 10.0 ratings

More reviews
Black Eyed Pea's Behind The Front (7.1)
The Roots' Things Fall Apart (9.4)
Thelonious Monk's Live at the It Club (9.2)
John Coltrane's Live at The Village Vanguard (8.5)

Mashups referenced in the article
Freelance Hellrazer's mashup of The Strokes and Christina Aguilera (YouTube)
Hollertronix - Never Scared
Uneasy Listening Volume 1 from DJ Z-Trip and DJ P

Radiohead's Kid A (the new 10.0 standard)
Radiohead's OK Computer, the band's prior 10.0 rated album

Stephen Malkmus' 1999 interview with Spin magazine (Google books)

White Stripes' White Blood Cells (9.0)

Source of The Shin's comment about selling a song for a McDonalds (which was made possible by a kid who worked at an ad agency who was a Shins fan [Pichfork interview], and might have chosen the song because of the line about dirt in the fries)

The Rapture's Echoes (9.0)
Best New Music from early 2003, including Broken Social Scene's You Forgot It In People (9.2)
Arcade Fire's Funeral (9.7)

Beastie Boys' To The 5 Boroughs (7.9), in which long-time reviewer Brent DiCrescenzo said farewell to Pitchfork

Source of an accurate portrayal many of Pitchfork's reviewers from 2004.

Jet's Get Born (3.7) -- an imaginary dialogue that is summed up with "Fuck you, we're Jet!"
Tool's Lateralus (9.1) -- written as an English paper titled "My Summer Vacation"

2006 Washington Post interview with Ryan Schreiber (print view; four-page web view)
Travis Morrison's Travistan (0.0) -- the review of the debut solo album by The Dismemberment Plan's lead singer, which is Morrison talked about in the above-linked WaPo article as the thing that killed his solo career before it went anywhere. (WaPo article on MetaFilter, previously)

Sufjan Stevens' Illinois (9.2, Best New Music)

Piracy Funds Terrorism Volume I, a mixtape (8.5, Best New Music) by M.I.A. (Pitchfork show preview), followed up with the album Arular (8.6)

Animal Collective's Spirit They're Gone, Spirit They've Vanished (8.9) and Merriweather Post Pavilion (9.6, Best New Music)

Why We Fight, a Pitchfork series on "discussed the discussions that surround popular music," written by long-time Pitchfork writer Nitsuh Abebe.

The Pitchfork 500: Our Guide to the Greatest Songs from Punk to the Present (Wikipedia page, with links to the 500 greatest songs as listed in the book)

Jay-Z watched Grizzly Bear in Brooklyn (video clip: Jay-Z on the "indie rock scene" being more interesting than hip-hop)
posted by filthy light thief (109 comments total) 54 users marked this as a favorite

 
I don't care that much about Pitchfork one way or the other, but I Love Music is the best music forum in the world by a large factor and I hope this post will draw people there.
posted by escabeche at 4:00 PM on January 24, 2012 [5 favorites]


I just came here to make my first post about that nplusone article but wow, filthy light thief, I'm glad I didn't. That's some magnificent compilation of links.
posted by bigendian at 4:01 PM on January 24, 2012


Seeing as I have it open in another tab already, here's the ILX thread on said article. (There's no archiving/closing of ILX threads - when something new crops up about a subject, it's generally stuck onto the end of the existing thread. This link just skips to where the relevant post was made.)
posted by kersplunk at 4:02 PM on January 24, 2012


The history is interesting, especially the reviews that have disappeared. I realize now that a number of the archived reviews are probably available on the current site, but now you can also see the old site layouts.
posted by filthy light thief at 4:04 PM on January 24, 2012


They gave Lateralus 1.9, not 9.1.
posted by neuromodulator at 4:05 PM on January 24, 2012


Thanks. That's a typo, not a personal attempt to editorialize their score, I swear.
posted by filthy light thief at 4:07 PM on January 24, 2012


Since people will inevitably miss this in their rush to comment, it should be said that there are at least two distinct Pitchfork eras - the first which had lots of very freeform experimental love em or hate em reviews and was indie to the core to the exclusion of commercial music, and the second that was more standardised, started reviewing Justin Timberlake etc, and recruited a slew of the best writers from blogs for features and reviews.
posted by kersplunk at 4:08 PM on January 24, 2012 [2 favorites]


Looking forward to digging into that ILX thread on the article. I found the piece really … dumb? It has a somewhat interesting critique of Pitchfork but then paints all of "indie rock" with the same brush.
posted by wemayfreeze at 4:09 PM on January 24, 2012 [1 favorite]


I mean, it's in the second para of the second link, but a lot of people won't even read that far/
posted by kersplunk at 4:09 PM on January 24, 2012


They're very good for most genres of music, except dance music. Case in point.
posted by hellojed at 4:10 PM on January 24, 2012 [1 favorite]


I don't find myself going to them as much as I used to. They did help me discover Jay Reatard and the White Stripes so it'll always be a place I look. I made a Spotify playlist of songs from the best of the 60s list that I was unfamiliar with and it's quite good.
posted by zzazazz at 4:13 PM on January 24, 2012


hellojed, that's my point (sorta) - the link you posted is over a decade old, from the first era. Since then they've had plenty of people who write good stuff about electronic music.
posted by kersplunk at 4:16 PM on January 24, 2012


Jesus, I remember working at a record store (with Nitsuh Abebe) during what felt like the First Great Pitchfork Backlash.
It seemed VERY important at the time.
posted by 235w103 at 4:17 PM on January 24, 2012


hellojed, that was 2001, and most of the US didn't understand house/ techno/ dance music. By 2007, Pitchfork agreed with the general public that Daft Punk is awesome.
posted by filthy light thief at 4:17 PM on January 24, 2012 [1 favorite]


I read this article a few days ago. I thought its use of Pitchfork as a lens to examine the changes in music production and consumption. However, Richard Beck's take on M.I.A. drove me up the wall. Here's the paragraph that had me chewing my throat with frustration:
M.I.A.‘s politics worked in the same way, making the particular brutalities of oppression in Liberia or Sri Lanka danceable by lumping them into a vague condition of sexy global distress. “She’s not exploring subcultures so much as visiting them,” Scott Plagenhoef wrote in a review of her first album, Arular, “grabbing souvenirs and laying them out on acetate.” Plagenhoef didn’t see anything wrong with this, although in true Pitchfork style, he made sure to let you know that some people might object: “An in-depth examination of demonizing The Other, the relationship between the West and developing nations, or the need to empathize with one’s enemies would likely make for a pretty crappy pop song.” Around the same time, a contributor reviewing M.I.A.‘s live concert defended her politics in a similar vein. “Maybe that’s how brilliantly innocuous Arular actually is,” he wrote. “It subtly imprints manifestoes in the brain, inspiring the masses to pull up the poor, without ever really teaching how or why.” Reading these strained, convoluted efforts to justify the cultural exploitation of global violence, I began to wonder why Pitchfork’s writers had such trouble saying the things they knew to be true. Maybe it was because they felt the truth would make for crappy pop songs, and that therefore the best thing would be to ignore it.
Say what you will about M.I.A.'s music (which I happen to like quite a lot) but she has every right to process the facts of her life through her art. She's not some revolution tourist, picking up random Third World causes to accessorize her personality. She's a refugee from the Sri Lankan civil war. Her father was on the run from Sri Lankan authorities for his advocacy for Tamil rights. I'm not saying you have to agree with her political opinions, but let her make art from her life experiences without accusing her of cultural exploitation.
posted by Kattullus at 4:17 PM on January 24, 2012 [13 favorites]


Well, hellojed, you can't really link to Ryan Shreiber's 2001 panning of Daft Punk's magnificent Discovery album without also noting that Pitchfork, like the rest of the indie kids, ended up loving Daft Punk by the end of the decade. Also, Ryan was an idiot. I'm not sure if that's changed, but he panned Pet Sounds as "played out." I mean, come on.
posted by koeselitz at 4:18 PM on January 24, 2012


I'm about as big a Beasties fan as they come, but 7.9 for To the 5 Boroughs is a bit generous.
posted by Hoopo at 4:20 PM on January 24, 2012 [5 favorites]


That 7.1 score for the Black Eyed Peas makes me said, because I'm reminded that they were actually a decent group at one time. That time was before they added Fergie to the line-up.
posted by asnider at 4:22 PM on January 24, 2012 [1 favorite]


I consider myself lucky that Rolling Stone published a joint review of Double Nickels on the Dime and Zen Arcade. (Giving both 3-1/2 stars, as I recall.) Otherwise I wouldn't have heard of them until much later. And learning about them in retrospect could never equal the thrill of hearing them in their own time.

My point being that even mediocre music journalism can be a force for good in the world. I bet a lot of people found musical treasures of their own time through Pitchfork.
posted by Trurl at 4:25 PM on January 24, 2012 [1 favorite]


Fuck you, man, we have songs that sound exactly like those guys from the Jet review still makes me laugh.
posted by minifigs at 4:26 PM on January 24, 2012


Pitchfork's review process: Is it Pavement or Sonic Youth? No? Well then, it's worse than Pavement and Sonic Youth.
posted by jimmythefish at 4:32 PM on January 24, 2012


Katatullus, there's actually some debate about those facts. I think they were outlined in a NYT Mag article last year.
posted by spicynuts at 4:32 PM on January 24, 2012


props for plenty linkage. that is all.
posted by dabitch at 4:34 PM on January 24, 2012 [1 favorite]


I remember coming across a couple of Pitchfork Top 100 Tracks compilations on a torrent site and giving them a listen. I think they were for 2008 and 2009 or thereabouts.
I liked exactly one track from each compilation, so the overlap on the Venn diagram of their taste vs my taste is pretty slim. I haven't paid much attention to anything Pitchfork says since then.
But now I see these old reviews and find they loved a lot of the same stuff I did (and still do) ten years ago. Did they really change that much?
posted by rocket88 at 4:36 PM on January 24, 2012


Did you really change that much? (sorry)
posted by kersplunk at 4:37 PM on January 24, 2012


They're very good for most genres of music, except dance music. Case in point.

I dunno, I don't think he was way off there. I'm not sure about the score, but yeah I wasn't wild about "One More Time" as much as some of the other songs they've done.
posted by Hoopo at 4:39 PM on January 24, 2012


Who else here used to/still does post on Hipinion?
posted by michaelh at 4:39 PM on January 24, 2012


I'll admit to finding a bunch of stuff through Pitchfork that I enjoyed and wouldn't have encountered otherwise, but it's never been a 9+ score.
posted by tumid dahlia at 4:42 PM on January 24, 2012


Pitchfork Gives Music 6.8

"Music, a mode of creative expression consisting of sound and silence expressed through time, was given a 6.8 out of 10 rating in an review published Monday on Pitchfork Media, a well-known music-criticism website.
...
Schreiber's semi-favorable review, which begins in earnest after a six-paragraph preamble comprising a long list of baroquely rendered, seemingly unrelated anecdotes peppered with obscure references, summarizes music as a 'solid but uninspired effort.'
...
'Music used to be great, but let's be honest, it's a 6.8 now at best,' said Los Angeles resident Lowell Radler, 23, who admitted that he just looked at the rating rather than reading the whole review. 'I seriously might never listen to music again.'"
posted by Paragon at 4:50 PM on January 24, 2012 [11 favorites]


While it certainly was gimmicky, I didn't think that The Flaming Lips' Zaireeka deserved a 0.0. The guy never actually listened to the album, he just complained that he couldn't scrounge up the 4 CD players needed for it.

That review also seems to have been dropped from the archives.
posted by hwyengr at 4:51 PM on January 24, 2012


Pitchfork's review process: Is it Pavement or Sonic Youth? No? Well then, it's worse than Pavement and Sonic Youth.

Nah. That would actually be a fairly reliable system. Pitchfork isn't that smart.
posted by The World Famous at 4:51 PM on January 24, 2012


spicynuts: Katatullus, there's actually some debate about those facts. I think they were outlined in a NYT Mag article last year.

Perhaps you're thinking of this New York Times article:
Her father remained in Sri Lanka (whenever they saw each other, he was introduced to Maya as her uncle, so that the children wouldn’t inadvertently reveal his identity). Maya claims that she has not seen him in years. Diplo told me a different story. “I met her dad in London with her,” he said. “He was very interested in sustainable living and was teaching in London. But he wasn’t a good father.” Whatever the truth is, Maya has gone from trumpeting her father’s revolutionary past in order to claim that lineage to playing down his politics to support a separate narrative. “He was with the Sri Lankan government,” she now maintained, when I saw her in Los Angeles. “He’s been with them for 20 years. They just made up the fact that he is a Tiger so they can talk crap about me.” (Her father could not be reached for comment.)
And then there's the fact that M.I.A. is herself criticized for her pro-violence support for the Tamil Tigers, "one of the most organized, effective and brutal terrorist groups in the world" (according to Time Magazine, for what it's worth).
posted by filthy light thief at 4:53 PM on January 24, 2012


Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

Imagining that your opinion is special and objective enough to require a numerical score with two significant digits is kinda pretentious.

That being said, I'm generally happy with about 30-35 of the albums on their annual 50 best list, even if it does usually includes 10 or so albums I never have heard of and probably never listen to. I guess its too bad that the outlet that has the tastes most similar to my own has a review process I find particularly obnoxious. I guess that's to be expected with indie music, where youthful passion and unreasonable demands of earnestness and authenticity are bandied about with so little perspective.
posted by midmarch snowman at 4:54 PM on January 24, 2012


Pitchfork's review process: Is it Pavement or Sonic Youth? No? Well then, it's worse than Pavement and Sonic Youth.

In the linked "perfect 10.0 scores" list, there's 1 Sonic Youth record and 3 Pavement records, and I could accept an argument of this as being too many, but the rest of the list puts the lie to this. Yeah they like Pavement. They also like Bob Dylan, The Clash, The Beatles, The Who, Bruce Springsteen, Radiohead, and Kanye West. I think Pitchfork gets the "hurf durf hipster" treatment because they talk about music you maybe never heard of and don't always like the same records you have heard of. Know what? You might like different music too if everybody sent you new music all the time and your job was to listen to it and write down your thoughts.
posted by Hoopo at 4:54 PM on January 24, 2012 [3 favorites]


[obligatory]
Pitchfork still sucks.
[/obligatory]

Carry on.
posted by jonmc at 4:56 PM on January 24, 2012 [1 favorite]


jimmythefish: Pitchfork's review process: Is it Pavement or Sonic Youth? No? Well then, it's worse than Pavement and Sonic Youth.

Unless you're talking about Sonic Youth's NYC Ghosts & Flowers, which got 0.0.

And from the archives of the archives: The Flaming Lips Zaireeka gets 0.0
Here's the concept: four CDs to be played simultaneously, creating some sort of quadraphonic stereo sound by which you may smoke hash or perhaps stare at your lava lamp.

Here's the reality: Do I wanna buy three more CD players with which to enjoy Zaireeka or, say, eat?
Good news, Pitchfork reviewer from the past! The Flaming Lips gives you food AND music! One word of warning: they were $150, so you could probably buy three more used CD players (or invite three friends with their own CD players and buy some pizza for them) for less than one gummy skull/vagina.
posted by filthy light thief at 5:02 PM on January 24, 2012


I read Pitchfork pretty regular because it makes is particularly easy to decide what new music to get. I find myself enjoying their "best new music" pics about two thirds of the time, which is a pretty good track record. What other sites make it as easy to determine what new music to listen to, that cater to genres across the board rather than specific scenes of genres?
posted by Rinku at 5:05 PM on January 24, 2012 [1 favorite]


I was hanging around with Airborne Toxic Event when their album came out a few years ago, and I remember the hullabaloo surrounding the 1.6 Pitchfork review (by the same guy who wrote about monkeys peeing in their own mouths re: Jet). The band took the "fist-pounding, shoe-stomping anger" as a compliment, not nearly as damning as the faint praise of so many 5.4-7.1 reviews, and making it the impetus for a lot more people to check out their (highly promoted and, yeah, only sort of OK musically) album. The open letter response is pretty funny.
posted by carsonb at 5:06 PM on January 24, 2012 [1 favorite]


Much like dubstep, I'm surprised that there's significant controversy or care being devoted to Pitchfork in the year of our Lord, 2012.

Anyway, the article doesn't really seem to go anywhere (and has one of the lamest concluding paragraphs I've read recently), but does make a few good points. Pitchfork has always been about a self-legitimizing cult of influence. It was a pretty bad website that was in the right place at the right time and became the defacto taste-maker almost by default. I think that tying it with the similar rise in music sharing is probably the best thing that the article has to offer.
posted by codacorolla at 5:11 PM on January 24, 2012 [1 favorite]


They've made me pretty furious in the past, but I won't completely hate Pitchfork as long as they've got XTC's back.
posted by Rustmouth Snakedrill at 5:11 PM on January 24, 2012 [1 favorite]


While I thought the main article's survey of "indie rock" (Arcade Fire, M.I.A., Animal Collective, etc.) was pretty laughable, I think the author's overall conclusion is pretty sound: Pitchfork isn't a catalog of music so much as a catalog of taste, and we're all kind of worse off for it, the site being as popular as it is.

Of course they've introduced me to some of my favorite musical artists, and I'm thankful for that, but I'm bothered that they give review space to artists in order to "weigh in" rather than use that space to promote lesser-known artists that deserve attention. Recently they reviewed albums by Childish Gambino and Mac Miller, rappers with dedicated fanbases, in order to trash the albums (and certainly enrage those fans). What's the point, especially now when they don't give out bad scores like they used to? For that matter, why did they review Beyonce's latest album? I go to Pitchfork to discover music by lesser-known artists, not to find out what mainstream pop music they approve of. I guess it's inevitable with their blowing up, and there are many other sites out there covering any genre or sub-sub-genre you can think of, but I miss the Pitchfork of 2003 that introduced me to Out Hud when I was in college.

Anyway I give Whining About Pitchfork by palidor a 4.6; it's clearly not his best effort.
posted by palidor at 5:23 PM on January 24, 2012


I like this part of the n+1 article:
A Pitchfork review may ignore history, aesthetics, or the basic technical aspects of tonal music, but it will almost never fail to include a detailed taxonomy of the current hype cycle and media environment. This is a small, petty way of thinking about a large art....
posted by hyperizer at 5:32 PM on January 24, 2012 [2 favorites]


I think Richard Beck short-changes Brent DiCrescenzo. I discovered Pitchfork back in the day through DiCrescenzo's reviews. If I remember correctly, I came across the site when I was searching for reviews of Blur's 13. DiCrescenzo's review isn't earth-shattering, but it perfectly captured how I felt about it at the time. I read other reviews by him and he mapped pretty carefully to my tastes and he wrote about them in ways I connected with. Dominique Leone was another Pitchfork critic who served a similar function for me (as a sidenote, Leone is now a musician who gets middling Pitchfork reviews). DiCrescenzo especially, articulated my excitements and disappointments very well and he's one of the few music critics I've enjoyed reading even if the music didn't interest me very much. Leone introduced me to a lot of music I probably wouldn't have come across elsewhere (e.g. Ruins). I read Pitchfork every day from about 1999 to... 2008 or 9. I'm not entirely sure why I quit, though a lot of my more music-obsessed friends moved away around that time from the city I was living in, and it's also when my musical tastes stopped defining my character. But it was a fun decade and while the site certainly has its faults, I still have a fondness for Pitchfork.
posted by Kattullus at 5:32 PM on January 24, 2012 [3 favorites]


Not to pile on, but Pitchfork always struck me as a manifestation of the aphorism that if all you have is a hammer everything looks like a nail, in this case the hammer being "a college degree." Being in a position to critique something is not the same as being good at it.
posted by rhizome at 5:36 PM on January 24, 2012 [1 favorite]


I've played my copy of Zaireeka on 4 cd players simultaneously. That reviewer made the simple mistake of assuming it was like just about every other music CD put out—meant to be listened to by a person. Zaireeka is for people. It's an occasion, a gathering, and if you can't get three of your buddies with their shitty CD players in a room with yours (with enough plugs and before y'all get too stoned to press PLAY when you have to) then yeah it's gonna suck for you. Also, dammit, the fucking liner notes acknowledge the difficulty in getting four players in a room together and explain that the whole thing is designed to be listened to in any permutation. It's not gonna sound spectacular if you're just playing one disc, but any two of them make for an interesting listening experience.
posted by carsonb at 5:39 PM on January 24, 2012 [1 favorite]


Zaireeka has been available premixed as an MP3 for years now, if not a decade.
posted by rhizome at 5:41 PM on January 24, 2012


Pfft.
posted by carsonb at 5:47 PM on January 24, 2012


Leone introduced me to a lot of music I probably wouldn't have come across elsewhere (e.g. Ruins).

I will love him forever for introducing me to the aforementioned Out Hud.
posted by palidor at 5:47 PM on January 24, 2012 [1 favorite]


Hey guys that gives me an idea: we can totally turn this thread around if we start reminiscing about Pitchfork writers introducing us to awesome artists!
posted by palidor at 5:49 PM on January 24, 2012


One thing that really bugs me about a lot of criticism of Pitchfork is this assumption that there is any kind of normalizing factor both in terms of any given review's opinion or the stupid numerical score.

As I understand it, most of their reviews are written by freelancers (sometimes regularly, sometimes not), and it's not like anyone sits down and gives them all a once over to make sure they fit some overarching standard. From what I've heard, they give the freelancers quite a lot of freedom in terms of what they write (for both better and worse).

I can think of a lot of really good writing they've put out over the years (Philip Sherburne's lamentably-ended techno column was must-read stuff pretty much every time, just to pick one example), and lots of bad stuff as well. Speaking of which:

in which long-time reviewer Brent DiCrescenzo said farewell to Pitchfork

"Said farewell" is an interesting choice of phrase. My recollection is that the original version of the review contained some blatantly false things about, I believe, radiohead's PR people and a few other things. The review then got edited and he was fired.

That might be an inaccurate recollection.
posted by sparkletone at 5:52 PM on January 24, 2012


I'm glad this turned into a discussion of Pitchfork. Can I just get an AMEN on the BS of the author conflating Pitchfork with "indie rock"?! Just one AMEN? It's annoying and dumb and who does he think he is anyway? Grar grar grar.
posted by wemayfreeze at 5:53 PM on January 24, 2012 [3 favorites]


This is a very good article. I think it makes two mistakes.

Firstly, it complains (with some irony) that music now is too nostalgic and backwards-looking, when back in the day it was self-consciously innovative in developing new sounds. The entire history of pop music consists in recombining existing popular musical traditions, starting with the idea of playing hillbilly and blues music with electric instrumentation, running through the split in the Beatles about whether to be build bonsai Chuck Berry songs or reinvent music hall, and including the development of sampling and the subsequent invention of hip-hop. The only time I can think of rock music being purely forward-looking is Kraftwerk's arty utopian synth sounds, which became subjects of recombination as soon as they were set to vinyl.

Secondly, it complains that music now is about avoiding or santising important issues, giving the example of M.I.A. trivialising postcolonial militancy, and the general indifference to "selling out" that now pervades indie. I think it's wrong to expect musicians to lead this charge. That expectation comes from an optical illusion: in the 1960s and 1970s, huge social movements effectively bullied innovative musicians into joining their cause; if you wanted to be seen as an innovator, you couldn't be indifferent to, or opposed to, the civil rights and antiwar movements. Those movements are dead now, but the music remains, and people who valorise music think musicians courageously led the charge. In fact they generally were towed along. There's no movement big enough now to influence status-seeking, approval-hungry artists in that direction any more.
posted by wwwwwhatt at 5:55 PM on January 24, 2012 [13 favorites]


I don't care that much about Pitchfork one way or the other, but I Love Music is the best music forum in the world by a large factor and I hope this post will draw people there.

I Love Music is where I discovered Cardiacs, which pretty much makes it the best music forum in the world right there as far as I'm concerned.
posted by dfan at 5:56 PM on January 24, 2012 [1 favorite]


I suppose this is as good an opportunity as I'll ever have to throw a fist up for one of those "10.0" bands, a band I played bass guitar in for a couple of years: ...And You Will Know Us By The Trail Of Dead.

Not only did "we" (I didn't play on that album) score a 10 from Pitchfork, "we" single-handedly* caused Apple, in the early days of the iPod, to rethink their artist listing heuristic. We always came first in everyone's iPods because of the ellipsis, so they started ignoring initial punctuation in band names.

Also that album that got a 10.0, Source Tags And Codes, (which, again, was recorded before I joined the band) is a stone cold motherfucking rock and roll classic.

Thanks, y'all.

*Spurious and conjectural.
posted by sklero at 5:58 PM on January 24, 2012 [18 favorites]


Oh balls. All kinds of editing mistakes there.
posted by sklero at 6:00 PM on January 24, 2012


That they named their band 'Airborne Toxic Event' actually sounds like something out of a Don DeLillo novel; Great Jones Street maybe.

I like Pitchfork.
posted by Flashman at 6:07 PM on January 24, 2012


That 7.1 score for the Black Eyed Peas makes me said, because I'm reminded that they were actually a decent group at one time.

I don't think they were ever a decent group. That Good-Life-lite fake-Native-Tongues shit is better than 'My Rump' and 'Boom Boom Bap' or whatever, but I wouldn't go as far as 'good.'
posted by box at 6:09 PM on January 24, 2012 [1 favorite]


9.7
posted by narcoleptic at 6:14 PM on January 24, 2012


Who else here used to/still does post on Hipinion?

yeah

my favourite thing about pitchfork is when they re-did their top albums of the 90s and acknowledged rap music
posted by rap and country at 6:25 PM on January 24, 2012 [2 favorites]


Being in a position to critique something is not the same as being good at it.

Well said, rhizome.

The problem with any review is that it offers anecdotes that can alter experience. If someone tells me an album is [insert adjective], I often feel an alignment or struggle (variably depending on both the source and the content) with that person's reasoning, as opposed to having my own, original thoughts. I prefer to take the work at face value.

Admittedly, and conversely, the problem with not consulting with others is that by the time that I have taken the work at face value, I have already invested - and subsequently risked - my time and money. I occasionally try to balance this struggle by checking an aggregating source (e.g. Metacritic) to take a glimpse at what is generally liked or disliked. This doesn't always work, but it's typically better than going off an often polarizing Pitchfork score.
posted by Jeff Morris at 6:33 PM on January 24, 2012


That they named their band 'Airborne Toxic Event' actually sounds like something out of a Don DeLillo novel; Great Jones Street maybe.

White Noise, actually.
posted by Panjandrum at 6:56 PM on January 24, 2012


I unashamedly love Pitchfork. I've been turned on to a lot of stuff that I'd never of heard of otherwise.

That said, I wish they'd just stop reviewing hip-hop or set up a hip-hop specific spinoff, because when you're "Best of 201_" is 95% white hipster indie shit and then coming in at No. 1 is the new Andre 3000 joint, well, that reeks of tokenism. Or hilariously self-conscious anti-tokenism.

Yeah, that's what it its -- HSCAT.
posted by bardic at 7:02 PM on January 24, 2012 [1 favorite]


you're = your, even
posted by bardic at 7:03 PM on January 24, 2012


Sklero! Thank you for reminding me how much I used to play the everloving fuckballs out of both those albums. Source Tags & Codes was my morning commute album so consistently for so long that I started timing my schedule by it. Even to this day, whenever I hear "How Near How Far" I think, "Well, that's my train arriving now."

Which ex-...AYWKUBTTOD bassist are you, so I can play the everloving fuckballs out of your stuff too?
posted by Panjandrum at 7:16 PM on January 24, 2012


So, yeah. Pitchfork sucks overall. And I can't listen to Animal Collective. But I love Arcade Fire (like pitchfork) and Muse (unlike pitchfork)
The real question is: where should I head to find unpretentious (or pretentious) good new music?

What's the alternative? (see what I did there? Heh)
posted by Riton at 7:58 PM on January 24, 2012


Also that album that got a 10.0, Source Tags And Codes, (which, again, was recorded before I joined the band) is a stone cold motherfucking rock and roll classic.

I listened to this for the first time in a couple years a few months ago. It has aged extremely well, IMO.
posted by sparkletone at 8:38 PM on January 24, 2012 [1 favorite]


Everyone no one knows that Z-Trip's Live in LA kicks Uneasy Listening's ass, but they should totally know. Goes harder than a Girl Talk mix ever has (or will, imo) AND... all performed from vinyl (before Serato [or even Final Scratch] even existed). I totally understand that mixing Tool and Outkast or Joplin and Shadow isn't Pitchfork's oeuvre, but damn are they missing out.

If there was one (and only one) live dance/DJ/electronic album that I could share with people, that would be the one. It totally flies in the face of TFA's assertion that "[t]he biggest misconception about the mashup was that it was meant for dancing."

Hell, if anyone reading this wants a copy of the disc (in the jewel case and all that... not a burned one), shoot me a message via MeMail. I have a few lying around the house. :)
posted by raihan_ at 9:07 PM on January 24, 2012


I don't read Pitchfork (it seems odd to me to listen to music on the basis of what someone writes, when it would take less time to just listen to it), but I have to say I don't understand the hate for "indie" music.

Really, you don't like the Arcade Fire? The Suburbs was probably the best album in the last 15 years. You don't like M83's "Midnight City"? Is it a medical thing?

The pitchfork and blanket indie hate represent the death throes of GenX's pop culture relevance. For that generation, weaned on the belief that the critic as important as the artist, an indictment of a music magazine suffices as cultural criticism. Their dislike of bands like AF or Bon Iver should be read as a dislike of what they represent: a return to effort and craft in the making of music. That's anathema to the generation that embraced "whatever" culture of grunge in all its aspects and forms.
posted by Pastabagel at 9:14 PM on January 24, 2012


Pitchfork makes a lot more sense when you realize that most of the writers are like 21 years old.
posted by dobie at 9:22 PM on January 24, 2012 [4 favorites]


The hate for "indie" music is probably just part of the whole hipster scapegoating thing, where people vent their general angst towards society at people they perceive as inauthentic in their tastes ("hipsters"). One of those tastes involves "indie" music, I think.

As far as Pitchfork is considered, I've done my share of bitching about them, but they've introduced me to many artists and usually their favorite albums of the year are mine as well (at least up through 2007 or so). So any complaints I have are just frustrations with the way they've shifted their coverage and perspective over the years.

Also... hipsters.
posted by palidor at 9:22 PM on January 24, 2012


Well, hellojed, you can't really link to Ryan Shreiber's 2001 panning of Daft Punk's magnificent Discovery album without also noting that Pitchfork, like the rest of the indie kids, ended up loving Daft Punk by the end of the decade.

Hell, *I* liked Discovery, and I generally don't like much contemporary music that doesn't have guitars, because it's that brilliant. I could understand criticising it from the point of view of a dance/electronic music fan for being "too mainstream", but other than that? Feh.
posted by rodgerd at 9:51 PM on January 24, 2012


"The Suburbs was probably the best album in the last 15 years."

Nope.
posted by bardic at 9:56 PM on January 24, 2012 [7 favorites]


I used to be a devoted Pitchfork reader too. I stopped because...I developed other interests, I guess? I stopped working at the college radio station and started appreciating other musical styles?

I don't know. Lately, I get most of my music from The Current. The reason I bring this up is that I think there's a place for them to regain some integrity. Where? As a radio station. With the Current, I just leave it on, and when I hear something that sounds good, I plunge the depths of google to find it. If pitchfork's reviews were tied to a radio station broadcasting tracks from everything they've ever reviewed, their cachet as tastemakers would give readers a whole new way to appreciate what they do while sidestepping their reputation as gatekeepers. Random broadcasts from a well-curated library, with reviews that listeners could look up on the spot as they listen, good or bad, would allow them to simply say, "We play everything, we also share our opinion of it."

How revenue would be generated from something like that, I'm not sure, but I think that approach to music reviews, rather than operating as an online magazine, is the way forward for them.
posted by saysthis at 10:07 PM on January 24, 2012 [4 favorites]


Shit, cat. We'd be remiss not to note Schreiber's worst-ever review, of Coltrane's Live at the Village Vanguard. Removed from P4k but available here. (Third post down.)
posted by meadowlark lime at 10:59 PM on January 24, 2012 [1 favorite]


Riton: Sometimes I read Drowned in Sound. I'm also a big fan of Electrical Audio's forum (EA is Steve Albini's Chicago-based studio).
posted by samizdat at 11:33 PM on January 24, 2012


@Riton: I find listening to new music to be a better way to find new stuff than just reading about it.

The British music magazines Uncut and Mojo both come with CD samplers each month that very often feature the poppier side of indie rock while avoiding much of the abrasive stuff. Uncut also has a big thing for Americana. Both magazines are generally well written and have pretty good taste.

The now former print magazine now for-pay online magazine Paste similarly provides a bunch of mp3s in addition to the articles and is kind of a cross between the soft indie crowd and the NPR set.

And speaking of NPR, both the national organization and many local stations have excellent podcasts.

And, of course, there's Pandora and the like.
posted by Candleman at 1:26 AM on January 25, 2012


it seems odd to me to listen to music on the basis of what someone writes, when it would take less time to just listen to it

Not really.

To be able to listen to something to see if you like it, you first need to be aware it exists, then have to be able to get it, then play it. A crucial first step in that process is somebody telling you that you will like it, be they some knowledgable friend, the dude at the indie record store, or some bloke on a blog.

It is of course easier than ever to find everything of a given band online, but that only makes having some filter in place to know what you should get even more important.
posted by MartinWisse at 2:37 AM on January 25, 2012 [1 favorite]


I thought their review of Dykehouse's "Midrange" was a real hatchet job on a hit-and-miss album and killed the guy's career.

"Chainsmoking" was, indeed, a horrible track, but "Sunset Rose" and "Burden of Proof" were really nice and I still listen to them all the time.
posted by dunkadunc at 2:39 AM on January 25, 2012


I lost interest in Pitchfork when they slated Badly Drawn Boy's best album. Even though they got the scores of all his other albums pretty much right.

But I regained interest when Tom Ewing started writing for them.
posted by rory at 3:56 AM on January 25, 2012


This is a very funny thread.
posted by maura at 6:21 AM on January 25, 2012 [1 favorite]


Fucking can't stand Pitchfork.
posted by eustacescrubb at 6:58 AM on January 25, 2012 [1 favorite]


I know it is a bit predictable to hate/dislike Pitchfork, but their style of review, such as seen in some of the examples here, does set my teeth on edge.
posted by MartinWisse at 7:00 AM on January 25, 2012


What's all this I hear about criticising organ music with pitchforks?

If their criticism of organ music is so influential, how come I don't see any reviews of Jimmy Smith, Virgil Fox, Brian Auger, Booker T Jones, Barbara Dennerlein, or even Joey DeFrancesco? Sure, the first two guys are dead and all, but the others are still releasing albums last time I checked!

This rinky dink stuff makes 'Baby' Cortez very very unhappy. Hang 'em high, I say! For a few dollars more I'd give 'em an express ticket to oblivion, but time is tight and I've got to focus now and get back to the chicken shack.
 
posted by Herodios at 7:49 AM on January 25, 2012 [2 favorites]


Never been to Pitchfork. Probably never will, though that is mostly because I don't feel the need to read about music any more.

Does it have nice pictures? I like nice pictures.
posted by clvrmnky at 8:17 AM on January 25, 2012



wwwwwhatt: verrr nase!

. . . the split in the Beatles about whether to build bonsai Chuck Berry songs or reinvent music hall. . . .

Thanks for that. So yer thinkin Come Together vs Maxwell's Silver Hammer? I'm not 100% convinced, but that's a very succinct capsule analysis and a nice turn of phrase.

. . . an optical illusion: in the 1960s and 1970s, huge social movements effectively bullied innovative musicians into joining their cause. . .

Right. See also: Revolution #1, My Back Pages.

Meanwhile, if I was sitting somewhere else, I could prolly find you at least one skad of links to radio commericals for coke, pepsi, etc. featuring prominent 1960s and '70s rock and pop artist. Most of Motown's acts come immediately to mind.
 
posted by Herodios at 8:27 AM on January 25, 2012


How has Pitchfork achieved and maintained such mindshare? They bring nothing to the table but bad music reviews.
posted by whuppy at 9:24 AM on January 25, 2012 [1 favorite]


meadowlark lime: Shit, cat. We'd be remiss not to note Schreiber's worst-ever review, of Coltrane's Live at the Village Vanguard.

We have you covered. It was mentioned in the article, and I linked to the Archive.org copy of it.

whuppy: How has Pitchfork achieved and maintained such mindshare? They bring nothing to the table but bad music reviews.

That's the point of the article - it provides a history of the site and why it's as big as it is today. But because it is a long article, here's my summary: Pitchfork was the first big "indie" music review outlet, starting back in 1995 when it was basically an internet 'zine (because the kid who wrote it didn't have the money to actually print and distribute zines). It was prolific enough to keep people coming back, and probably the often-snarky reviews helped craft a persona for the site.

The article has a footnote reference to AllMusic, which apparently went online in 1995, and cites AMG's dry take on music as the reason it failed to compete with Pitchfork.
posted by filthy light thief at 10:06 AM on January 25, 2012


The n+1 article fails to trace the "mashup" concept back to the last days of disco. Prelude Records put acapella versions on 12-inch dance singles at least as far back as '82.
posted by hyperizer at 11:07 AM on January 25, 2012 [1 favorite]


sparkletone, I believe this is what you were looking for.
posted by hyperizer at 11:21 AM on January 25, 2012 [1 favorite]


hyperizer, I think they're after a different point:
Music began to register the overabundance of supply almost immediately by inventing a new subgenre of dance song that made it possible to listen to your whole music library at once: the mashup
Overabundance of supply, music availability post-Napster, is the discussion there. It follows into "what's the role of a review magazine/site if money isn't your limiting factor." But back to the discussion of mashups in the article, it's about cross-genre-mashing, no intra-genre mixes. A dance-pop song (Genie in a Bottle) mixed with a pop rock song (“Hard to Explain” by The Strokes) was fairly novel (but not completely so -- see The Whipped Cream Mixes, or hear a sample, from 1996).
posted by filthy light thief at 12:35 PM on January 25, 2012


Few standout Pitchfork reviews not elsewhere mentioned (since Lateralus, Get Born and Source Tags & Codes have already been covered):
Mclusky's Mclusky Do Dallas
Interpol's Turn On The Bright Lights
Godspeed You! Black Emperor's Lift Your Skinny Fists Like Antennas To Happen

Anyway. Despite their incessant sneering, for the first half of the previous decade Pitchfork pointed me toward a lot of fantastic music. Then 2007 hit, I stumbled into an Infected Mushroom show while on a press junket in SF, went home and listened to the Electrochoc station throughout my GTA4 playthrough, discovered Pandora and suddenly any lost any reason to be reading reviews of music featuring guitars.

By and large my friends went through similar transitions - in one direction or another - around the same time; self-guided exploration of new artists and genres is now accessible for a vast mainstream audience. The sneering I loved throughout my misanthropic early twenties seems trite and sad, now, so it's probably all for the best.

Most people grow up, eventually.
posted by Ryvar at 12:54 PM on January 25, 2012 [1 favorite]


In the last decade, no organ of music criticism has wielded as much influence as Pitchfork.

What about American Idol? :D

I don't read Pitchfork much, but I've always liked it. I don't understand the level of hate.

whatever attracts people to Pitchfork, it isn’t the writing

that's not true. I only really read reviews, and I don't bother with the number (using the ZAP bookmarklet usually kills the rating, which is an image now).

I want to hear what the reviewer has to say about the music. Honest.

Compare Tiny Mix Tapes vs. Pitchfork. Pretty much the same quality. (TMT is a little better, imo.)

By and large my friends went through similar transitions

Well yeah. Album reviews are a LOT less important know that you can usually just go online and listen to the whole thing yourself for free.

Now, I mostly read reviews when I'm deciding if I want to bother downloading something that I don't have time to (or can't) listen.

One year later, the debut album by a Montreal band called Arcade Fire received a 9.7.

I think there's a chicken-egg thing here. Did Arcade Fire blow up because of Pitchfork? Or did Pitchfork just realize (they weren't the only one) that Funeral was a fucking great album that was going to be huge? I'd say the latter, for sure.

If a good Pitchfork rating meant huge success then Girls would be playing MSG instead of Terminal 5.

They're very good for most genres of music, except dance music.

And rap music. They are horrible. Stick to indie rock.

How has Pitchfork succeeded where so many other websites and magazines have not? And why is that success depressing?

I don't think that article answered either question.
posted by mrgrimm at 4:44 PM on January 25, 2012


filthy light thief, I know that was the point of the article. But as mrgrimm says above, I don't think it answered my question.

I can accept that Pitchfork had some sort of first mover advantage and won the initial lottery, but I don't get how they've held on from the time of AOL and Geocities, through the MySpace era and up to the current Facebook hegemony.
posted by whuppy at 6:43 AM on January 26, 2012


I can accept that Pitchfork had some sort of first mover advantage and won the initial lottery, but I don't get how they've held on from the time of AOL and Geocities, through the MySpace era and up to the current Facebook hegemony.

I don't think there's an easy answer. How does any business become an industry leader? Good people; good products. Here's my guesses as to the secrets of their sucess.

1. Tight relationships with important artists and labels. Check out Pitchfork TV performances or the free tracks. There's a lot of good stuff in there. (My personal TV favorite (so far) is Sunset Rubdown's Mending of the Gown or Dan Deacon's Vantastic! mockumentary.)

2. Good SEO - Duh. They own the fucking year-end list game.

3. Talent - High-quality Web design, features, reviews.

4. Web integration - Lulu didn't pan out, but they seem to use Spotify well, For example, here's a Spotify playlist for their Top 100 Tracks of 2011 (open.spotify.com link).

5. Zeitgeist maintenance - Arcade Fire/Animal Collective/BSS - these guys were gonna get to some level of big no matter if Pitchfork existed or not. PF has been pretty good at being one step ahead of the zeitgeist (indie rock wise). Indie rock and with electronic music have to be the Internet's big music drivers.
posted by mrgrimm at 10:49 AM on January 26, 2012 [1 favorite]


sparkletone, I believe this is what you were looking for.

That is exactly it! Maybe he was done with writing "concept reviews" or whatever for Pitchfork anyway. I just remember there being a big stink about that review and the retraction of the portions in that link.
posted by sparkletone at 3:48 PM on January 26, 2012


Hasn't pop music criticism been super wanky for decades, and Pitchfork is just the current apex of wankiness, conveniently located for target practice? I mean, it's all been downhill since Adorno amirite?
posted by speicus at 10:52 AM on January 29, 2012 [1 favorite]


I know this thread is getting a little old, but I (finally, after reading it off and on for probably.. ok I can't even remember when I started reading it) joined mefi just to respond.

Where's the pitchfork alternative for someone like me who grew up musically raised by the Talking Heads, Tangerine Dream, Jean Michel Jarre, and Zazen Samurai?

I went over to the "I love music" forum after reading this thread, but two days later my registration email has not appeared, and I suspect gmail's obsessive rules for mail servers is probably silently rejecting theirs, given the very cobbled-together appearance of ilxor.

Anyway, nearly all the pop music coming out today just sounds like a wall of overproduced noise to me.

Just for fun, here's a track I fell in love with a year or two ago by an artist that didn't produce much of anything afterwards. Pink's So What, Dinosavrvs Rex Foray into Professional Wrestling remix: http://www.myspace.com/dinosavrvsrex/music/songs/so-what-dinosavrvs-rex-foray-into-42430837
It is fairly flawed, but the first half has such a lushness to it.

And the delightful vaguely similar Aeroplane remix of Grace Jones' Williams Blood:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ilUw-oaM3xc

I will refrain from adding a thousand links to random minimal / techno / progressive tracks by people like Function and Peter van Hoesen.
posted by mochimochi at 12:16 AM on January 30, 2012 [1 favorite]


mochimochi: "I will refrain from adding a thousand links to random minimal / techno / progressive tracks by people like Function and Peter van Hoesen."

don't!

refrain, that is.
posted by dunkadunc at 12:20 AM on January 30, 2012


dunkadunc, ok!

I wish I had a recording of Peter's 2011 Labyrinth set, but alas, this will have to do:
Berghain set a year or so ago, and in 2009 for fairtilizer.

Not as well known, but I really hope he gets invited to Labyrinth soon, Dave Twomey. Here's a unique mix by him last year.

Function has just such a powerful sound, yet very hard to appreciate it without a wall of super-well-tuned speakers with chest-rattling yet precise accurate bass.
But I'll try. Function's TWO CLR podcasts 088 and 060, you'll have to scroll way down.
posted by mochimochi at 7:12 PM on January 30, 2012 [1 favorite]


A better question than how did Pitchfork come to dominate Internet music publishing, is how the hell did indie rock come to dominate Internet music?! Sure, sure, there's plenty of music everywhere, but "indie rock" has been ascendant on the Web for decades now. Wha' happen?
posted by mrgrimm at 8:58 AM on February 1, 2012 [1 favorite]


A better question than how did Pitchfork come to dominate Internet music publishing, is how the hell did indie rock come to dominate Internet music?!

A semi-serious two- part answer:

1. "Indie Rock" is not actually a genre at all, but a label affixed to an ever-broadening category of largely unrelated music. It refers far less to the music itself than to the characteristics of the people who write about and like the music.

2. Indie Rock, by its very nature as a social label rather than a genre description, lends itself to commentary and metacommentary better than any other sort of music. Part of what makes something "indie rock" is the very fact that a certain group of people like to write and read about it. When determining whether or not something is "indie rock," the question is not "what does it sound like?" but rather "who writes about it?"
posted by The World Famous at 10:03 AM on February 1, 2012 [1 favorite]


Good answer, but I dunno. I hear a song with no context, I can pretty easily guess whether it is "indie rock" or not.

I agree with the first part of #1, but not the second, I don't think.

its very nature as a social label rather than a genre description

Couldn't you say the same thing about "classic rock" or "emo"?
posted by mrgrimm at 12:24 PM on February 1, 2012


"Classic rock" generally refers to rock (a genre) that was popular during a certain period of time (the "classic") part. "Emo" also has certain musical characteristics that connect, say, Sunny Day Real Estate and Further Seems Forever.

Indie rock, on the other hand (and particularly in the Pitchfork sense of the term) does not have those musical defining characteristics. Pavement may sound like Built to Spill, but neither of them sound like Sonic Youth, which doesn't sound like Mike Watt, which don't sound like The Mars Volta. In fact, to the extent The Mars Volta is some sort of indie rock, it is in spite of the fact that they sound exactly like Rush trying to play Santana songs.

I would submit that a fairly workable definition of "indie rock" could be "non-hip hop music that Pitchfork writes about."
posted by The World Famous at 2:22 PM on February 1, 2012


Pavement may sound like Built to Spill, but neither of them sound like Sonic Youth, which doesn't sound like Mike Watt, which don't sound like The Mars Volta.

I suppose we will have to agree to disagree. I'd say there's only one true "indie-rock" band in your list:

Pavement = Indie Rock (Lo-Fi, Noise Rock)
Built to Spill = Alternative Rock
Sonic Youth = Post-Punk, Experimental
Mike Watt = Punk or Post-Punk (or Jazz Fusion, IIRC)
The Mars Volta = Prog Rock or Hard Rock

Any who reads MP3 blogs must know that "indie rock" is an actual genre. People my disagree on the definition and inclusion of certain acts, but there is definitely a common sound and style for the indie-rock genre.
posted by mrgrimm at 2:36 PM on February 1, 2012


What is the common sound and style for the indie rock genre if it includes Pavement but excludes Built to Spill?
posted by The World Famous at 2:46 PM on February 1, 2012


shorter songs, less guitar solos.
posted by mrgrimm at 9:47 AM on February 3, 2012




Wow, that article by Schreiber on M.I.A. at the Superbowl is the worst.
posted by Kattullus at 1:08 PM on February 7, 2012


Another good article about Pitchfork's reaction to M.I.A. at the Superbowl by Scott Creney (also includes what is quite possibly the meanest thing anyone has ever said about Sufjan Stevens). It also links to this fine defense of M.I.A. by The New Yorker's Sasha Frere-Jones.
posted by Kattullus at 2:07 PM on February 11, 2012


« Older Is your food spending normal?   |   The Legal Stranger Project Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments



Post