The MW blog is helping you Pitchfork readers get your slosh on early on the morning with a fun-for-everyone drinking game! Ready? Grab yer drinks, pull up a review, and read these rules (thanks, Doc!):
If all but one of the reviews of the day are of bands you’ve never heard of, take a drink. If you’ve heard of none of them, take two. If the reviewer begins the review you’re reading with a story that has essentially nothing to do with the record he or she is reviewing, take a drink. If the review starts with a question about whether the band in question can ever acheive popular success or implies that they’ve abandoned their fan base by acheiving popular success, take a drink. If the amount of time between the current album and the band’s last album is mentioned within the first two paragraphs, take a drink. If the entire review is framed as some grand historical study of significance on the same level as a formal research paper on the Cold War, take a drink.
we jus pkayed a round nd were druinKkkk sams towns AWESME!!! Hahahjahhha jk/jk
 |
 |
%s1 / %s2
the sams town comment was actually made me laugh.
OMG. I just spewed my morning tea all over my monitor with huge giggle fit. Bwah ha hah ha hah!!!!
Funny this should be posted since Stereogum is essentially a Pitchfork reblog.
Let the scheudenfreude commence! Lame.
hahah luvs you
joe, I feel the same thing about the ‘gum lately unfortunantly. when you start to get big and review bands like k-fed, fergie, jay-z .. well, you fucked up and now have to appease the bigwigs in fear of making a bad name for yourself, otherwise no more cds for you to review. that’s what happens when sellout your blog/review site to big labels, or uber popular indie labels like subpop.
Um, for those saying Gum is ripping off the Fork’s content, it’s the other way around. I notice shit up here well before P4K rips it off–I mean borrows it.
I doubt P4K does much of their own work anymore. They’ve been ripping off news, videos, mp3 links, and stories from the noteable indie blogs and sites for awhile now.
hehehe sam’s town
The only PF review I can think of which doesn’t fit into any/all of those of those points is their review of Jet’s Shine On:
http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/article/record_review/38853/Jet_Shine_On
Will the little man complex never cease?
Recent headlines:
New Justin Timberlake Video – “My Love”
Grey’s Anatomy Is The New The OC
Good News For People Who Like The OC Mixes
New Jessica Simpson Video – “I Belong To Me”
Fuck you stereogum, fuck you.
notice how it doesn’t say who posts what here anymore either? so much for taking ownership of your own material scott, has it really become that embarassing for you?
one drink if they give an album a 7.2
that’s pretty funny.
not the pitchfork game but all the people ragging on ‘gum ripping off pfork. total crap, i say. fork is always “appropriating content” from blogs, etc. especially this one.
i do think there has been a bit too much emphasis lately on some of the bigger acts but i think ‘gum keeps it interesting with bands to look out for, funny vids, etc.
anyway, if you are unhappy with what ‘gum has become, then go somewhere else. no reason to be trashing it here.
i also love how all the people trashing stereogum (Porkie, dead_red_eyes, joe, etc) never use their real name/e-mail address, etc.
real brave guys.
that review for jet’s “shine on” was clever. a bit harsh (come on, jet isn’t that bad!) but amusing nonetheless. i have a newfound respect for them… until i found out they gave jt’s album an 8.2 rating. please tell me they must have been kidding.
What would posting my email accomplish? I dont think its a big deal trashing stereogum when theyre posting about Justin Timberlake… If I wanted to hear about JTIBS I could go read vogue or good housekeeping or some shit, and Im pretty sure any sane person would agree with me
you forgot, “drink on every reference or comparison to Pixies or Radiohead”
here’s a drinking game: every time a blog makes fun of pitchfork, take a drink.
and pitchfork is the best news osurce for indie news. they dont take shit from blogs, they always have it first. stop fooling yourselves.
Joe is my real name, and I use my real email address. It’s absurd to say you read things here first, because usually they directly quote or link to Pitchfork. Do you think any label publicists are directly contacting Stereogum? No, they’re sending pr releases to Pitchfork, and then the reblogs ensue.
hahaha joe! good one! like how stereogum was hours before the post on ryan adams (today) and the oc mix lineup (yesterday)? and that’s just me scanning back two pages! so, you were joking, right?
People in glass houses shouldn’t wag their junk. It’s just offensive and shocks the old ladies what can’t get none no more and have to fantasize about the dude from Smallville.
I realize as well as anyone that Pitchfork can be pompous, pointless and generally obnoxious to anyone outside of their parameters of “indie-cool-obtuse”. But making points of bashing Pitchfork on Stereogum is just catty and bitchy. Kinda like the fat kid that rags on the cheerleader ’cause, face it, she ain’t putting out for him. The old lady with the Superman fetish might, but that’s a tale for another day…
DwD
i think i lost my mind a bit back there with the whole “real e-mail” thing. was confusing this blog for others where the e-mail addresses are what’s hyperlinked, not a website.
anyway, back to the issue.
perfect example of pfork ripping off the gum:
http://www.stereogum.com/archives/003687.html#comments
Posted at October 15, 2006 1:56 PM
http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/page/news/Two_Gallants_Show_Erupts_Into_Violence#39161
Mon: 10-16-06: 09:00 AM CDT
Screw Pfork. Same Story, almost one complete day later and no credit given to GUM.