Monday, April 10, 2006

Pitchfork gets forked over…and takes it with a smile

It’s one thing to get duped into printing a false news story, it’s another thing when that fake news story involves shit-stained, lame ass college rocker, Sufjan Stevens.

Pitchfork reported last week that Sufjan Stevens was having a baby with Rosie Thomas, some chick he was collaborating with. I don’t know anything about her and I don’t care enough to go back and check (kind of like Pitchfork) but I can imagine if she’s aligned herself with the likes of Suckjan, then she’s gotta be just as shitty.

So the story was about their collaboration on some album that college-rocking wusses will eat the ass out of, AND that Thomas and Sufjan were going to have a baby. I read the story, for some reason, and since I don’t care about this kind of news item, I took it for what it was. I wouldn’t know anything about these people; if they reproduced asexually like amoeba or if they stick in like the rest of us. So I just figured it was true.

Now, the funny part (and not “ha ha” funny like Pitchfork tried to spin it) is that Thomas was bullshitting the popular music website. There was no baby, they weren’t an item and Sufjan has no genitals that we are aware of. They actually ran the story and it was nowhere even close to being true. As I mentioned before, Pitchfork tried to play it off as “oh you kids!” and “how clever! They sure pulled one over on us,” but really all this did was make them look even more like douchebags. To be fair, Stevens himself apparently wasn’t involved in the hoax, but that would just make me even more pissed that some no-name pud, leeching off the fame of Suckjan would have played me like this.

"I kid around so often, I forgot that some one might take me seriously," Thomas was quoted as saying.

Oh yeah, you forgot? Well maybe we’ll forget to review whatever crappy album you put out next? That’s what I would have said to her. I know Pitchfork is just a website, but it’s a website that a lot of people read. Fucking around like this really demeans everyone working on it. I can sit here all day and make fun of them because what you’re reading is a website based on criticism. But if I were in the music making business, I would want Pitchfork to review my music. And if I fucked with them like this, I would fully expect them to banish me forever. That’s just the way it goes.

I’m sure this happens all the time: some flighty musician or artist rattles off some bullshit and it gets printed. I mean, who’s going to verify some small detail like whether this person really ate Mexican food that day? But when this does happen and it turns out to be false, most people who printed the lie are pissed. But Pitchfork wasn’t pissed. They took it in the ass because Sufjan Stevens was involved. Hell, if I was Sufjan, I would have pissed that this dummy used my name and jeopardized my relationship with the music site; considering how much press he gets from them, fucking with Pitchfork could ruin his career!

If Beck blatantly lied to Rolling Stone about something along these lines and they printed it, RS would blow a fucking gasket. And unless Beck (or someone of equal stature) made nice with them, the fallout would huge. I would wager his albums wouldn’t get reviewed and interviews would certainly not appear anymore. But this doesn’t happen to Rolling Stone or Spin etc. because most people looking for publicity know this is essentially career suicide. Not to mention the heaps of trouble that would follow because of it.

That one guy who lied to Oprah will never be taken seriously again. If you did something that basically made the most powerful woman in the world have to apologize and look like a fool, you’re done. Fuck with Oprah and you not only get the horns, but you might have someone come and break your kneecaps as well.

Now, Pitchfork isn’t Oprah. In the power rankings of journalistic media, I’m sure they’re waaaaay down there. Somewhere below The Smoking Gun and somewhere above the guy counting down until the actress who plays Hermione Granger is 18….oh, and good ol’ War Time Smile. But since Pitchfork is a music news site, shouldn’t the people they are reporting on take it seriously? Musicians who send press releases to the Fork and hope for interviews to promote their ear diarrhea should respect them enough to tell the truth. Paul McCartney doesn’t have to respond to a request for a Pitchfork interview. The lame woman who claimed to be having Sufjan Steven’s baby should be showing up at the office for a round of blowjobs just to get the press.

Even if you were the smallest publication, web or otherwise, you couldn’t take this with a smile. You would have to make someone pay for this. I don’t give a shit that Pitchfork dedicates half of its daily news section to the musings of Suckjan Stevens; in my world of small time media (and I do mean SMAAAAALLLLL) someone would have to answer for this. If a local band played me like this, even one that had some clout, they wouldn’t get one more letter printed from me. No matter what you gain from the journalist/musician relationship, if you’re on you’re knees all the time, and they’re making a joke out of you, it’s not worth it.

As I’ve said countless times, I read Pitchfork on a daily basis. At one point I really thought it was the cream of the crop for music journalism (on the web and in print). But now it’s apparent that they’re really just a bunch of half-asses journalism students who can write, but are too blinded by shitty indie rock musicians to simultaneously pull the dick out of their ass and mouth. It’s obvious that they don’t want to overreact because their beloved Sufjan Stevens is involved in this hoax. After all, if they cut him out of their site, there’d be nothing to report on.

I can’t help but think the editor over at Pitchfork isn’t hopping mad about this. I’m hoping (and not just because I hate Sufjan Steven’s crappy music) that there will be a reprisal. If not, it just further cements my belief that Pitchfork is like the creative geek in high school: independent and rebellious…until the head cheerleader looks his way and in classic “Can’t Buy Me Love” fahion, he abandons all he was for a shot at just being near her.

The hilarious thing is while Suckjan might be the head cheerleader of indie rock, his collaborator Rosie Thomas is more like the fat, smelly chick from biology class. And Pitchfork just fingered the fat, smelly chick from biology class to keep their seat next to the cheerleader. Way to go dumbasses, way to go.

JR

5 comments:

Trouble said...

Pitchfork is populated by hipster doofuses. I hate them like poison.

Captain Sensible said...

JR -

Been reading you for years and find myself to have similar taste in music, similar past, etc. However, I'm wondering about the Stevens character. I'm willing to give you the benfit of the doubt, but why does he suck so bad? Maybe I'm just too far out of the music loop, last show being the Charlatans (ancient band). BTW I've never heard any Sufjan, I just am interested in why he sucks.

Is it that he embodies limited creativity and media hype, like Henry Rollins or the Offspring?

Curious to know the cogent argument behind the vitriol.

A fan -

J Reidy said...

no, that's cool. i guess i owe it to suckjan to at least explain why i think he blows.

first of all, yes, the hype. when something is hyped this much and everyone is creaming over it...and you hear it and it's just weak...it pisses me off more.

i know, don't believe the hype, but it's hard not to be curious about it when a lot of people are going ape shit over it. you want to know what's making them so crazy. usually when this happens and something is not good, i just chalk it up to public taste and figure it will go away soon.

not so with sufjan. people have really bought into this crap, and i guess that's why i've carried on like i have. the music itself isn't horrible. i mean, he's got to be talented right? i'm sure structurely he's made competent music. the aspect that i don't like is that it's kind of goofy, quirky college dork music that well, college dorks like.

i guess it has its place, but combined with the hype and all of the writers and knuckleheads proclaiming its greatness, it makes a pretty big target for me.

but listen to it for yourself. i'm curious what you think about it. maybe i just heard a small portion of it that made my ears bleed.

JR

Anonymous said...

I've been reading you for a while too and I can't quite believe that your main reason for your dislike is simply the fact that all the hype and dorkishness bothers you. I haven't heard the guy myself so I have no opinion. All I can say is that you used to hate on the Barenaked Ladies...so I gave them a listen...and for some reason their music just makes me angry...too cutsey. And to me that's a real reason to dislike something. There must be something else bugging you about this guy.

J Reidy said...

no, the hype is a side hatred.

i actually don't like the music.

it makes me angry. just like the barenaked ladies makes me want to beat up old people....you too apparently.

both of these are good examples because without the hype they'd be less offensive because it would mean i woudn't have to hear or see anything about them. the music is sucky and harmless...unless it's making the CNN guy's top 20 list (insert your favorite bad music journalist here). then it pisses me off because now it's bad while being hailed as genuis...a dangerous combination in my opinion.

but when it comes down to it, i'd rather be forced to listen to sufjan stevens than the barenaked ladies any day. oh man. now those guys SUCK.

JR