8.11.2005

heh heh... heh....

Whoa, okay, last post just a touch extreme. Sorry y'all, that's what happens when my rabid Toriphilia and my rabid Pitchfork hateration combine into one, I guess.

So, I wonder about those who don't like Tori Amos (or, Torn Anus as I like to refer to her) all that much. My musical tastes have shifted quite a bit since high school when I was first introduced to Tori. I am no longer pubescent and angsty (just angsty), and I realize that the angst naturally fueled my obsession with Tori. But I am still convinced that several of her 90's releases really are "Top 100" material. Am I just blinded by my fandom, or do you think she deserves more credit than she gets nowadays?

* * *

Along those lines (those lines being my growing irritation with a certain website), what's with Pitchfork being all selective and shit with the mainstream releases reviewed? They usually fall into one of three categories: (1) Indie artist that gets picked up by a major label (the majority of these get poor reviews. Surprise!!), (2) Rap or hip-hop artist, (3) Older artists that have established themselves by releasing good material in the past (see Weezer, Beck, Ben Folds). 1 & 3 are fairly self-explanatory, I guess, but what's with #2? Are the Pitchfuckers just not as hip to the indie hip-hop scene as they should be? Or do mainstream rap releases tend to be better than the underground stuff anyway?

Now, why should they cover albums by R. Kelly and Jay-Z while ignoring legit mainstream pop/rock acts such as System of a Down and Madonna? I mean, I don't care if they get godawful reviews, but they at least deserve the same coverage as, uh, Liz Phair. What gives, Pitchfork?

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home