notes from
the MUCK . . .

How does your garden grow? With muck, muck and more muck! I spent much of today finishing the final muck box and then shifting muck from one box to the next. The first box, which the Big Lad is enthusiastically pointing out, has been rotting down for two years now and once we’d removed the top quarter of unrotted material, we found we’d hit the pay dirt.

Friday, June 09, 2006


Articles like this one are why I hate Pitchfork. It's a rambling, cutesy essay on how popular and annoyingly "meta" everything is. I admit I stopped reading about half-way through, but it was fairly clear to me that there was no point to be made that doesn't get made right off the bat (and joking that there's no point doesn't excuse the fact that you've wasted my time.)

However, there is this helpful quote:

One of the commonly emailed/web-boarded complaints about Pitchforkmedia is that it contains too many metareviews, despite how few, proportionate to "straight" reviews, actually slumber/grumble in the site archives.

I thought about that for a moment and realized that, yeah, that's what bothers me so much about the writers at that site. Their articles are always so hyperaware and transcendant. As soon as a genre, sound, movement, dance, or artist is "defined," Pitchfork treats it like it's already peaked and died. They are too caught up with being music reviewers to genuinely review music. That's an exaggeration, and a little unfair, but in general this is nature of their particular brand of pretentiousness.

And besides, Magnificent City ain't that bad.