« Arctic Monkeys & Art Brut on Sale | Main | Doveman played w/ Sprinsteen too | Samamidon »
Posted in music on January 18, 2006
The Cloud Room respond to Pitchfork Article
"Pitchfork -- such an odd, intriguing multi-headed beast (and I mean multi-headed beast in the best of senses). It's great to be their weekly feature, and to get our story out there, etc. But we come off as quite a bitter bunch, wouldn't you say? We've certainly come up against the complexities of mainstream radio we had no real idea about, and the limitations an indie label has when it comes to money. But, Gigantic has done a wonderful job supporting us, getting us out there, and we've learned and adjusted and are really excited about, well, everything--even dirt. Just kidding, I'm still not that excited about dirt.
The success we've been having in Australia--radio, MTV, Rolling Stone, etc.--has proven that we weren't crazy; that a new label and band could in fact achieve success in a country that required less money. So we'll continue pursuing US radio, head down under, expand to the UK and elsewhere, but most importantly we'll concentrate on the music (see new Sunlight Song demo).
Honestly, life is so damn short, it's important to learn from the past, but not to continue living in it." [The Cloud Room]
---
Tags:
Posted on January 18, 2006 12:35 PM
Leave a comment
Powered by Ajax Comments
« Arctic Monkeys & Art Brut on Sale | Main | Doveman played w/ Sprinsteen too | Samamidon »
---
Comments (10)
FIRST OF ALL: What a stupid bunch of idiots pitchfork is. That song is a "smash"?? Are you fucking kidding me? On what fucking level can it go up against what's on radio now? song? no. production no? vocals? no. It's a mediocre little indie song with highhats. Really no biggie. To say it was a smash hit that could have been just shows how much they have thier heads up their own asses and have no fucking clue. Tools.
Posted by helter | January 18, 2006 1:28 PM
Helter, the title of the article is a reference to the expectations of those involved in creating the song-- like it says in both the front page subhead ("To those involved in its creation and marketing, the Cloud Room's "Hey Now Now" seemed like a sure-fire hit..."), and the article itself ("It was such a perfect song," says Ryder when asked about her first exposure to "Hey Now Now". "There was no doubt in my mind it was a hit.")-- not the author's or site's assessment of the song's quality or commercial potential.
Posted by tsp | January 18, 2006 1:42 PM
pitchfork is still a load of crap and i cant wait for everyone to stop listening and caring about what they have to say. and that will happen soon.
Posted by Anonymous | January 18, 2006 1:53 PM
Yes, Pitchfork's influence really seems to be waning, whereas the importance of angry, uninformed internet posters is clearly on the rise. Ad hominem attacks are the new music criticism.
Posted by Anonymous | January 18, 2006 2:07 PM
I find it funny that the people who claim to really hate Pitchfork clearly read it every day, otherwise it wouldn't get under their skin so much.
Posted by paul | January 18, 2006 2:42 PM
Pitchfork is the premiere tastemaker today, bar none. You might not want it to be true, but it is. Regardless of what you think of them, there isn't a better mousetrap out there right now.
Pitchfork doesn't get the daily traffic it does for nothing.
Clearly Pitchfork is attempting to see if they can turn an otherwise forgotten song into a hit. No other music publication is in a position to even attempt to do that. The song sucks, but The Cloud Room should be thankful that they get any press at all.
Posted by Anonymous | January 18, 2006 7:58 PM
I think that Pitchfork is an extremely well-written site, and despite the occasional bandwagonesque tendencies (Annie, anyone?), they're entirely deserving of their large readership.
"Hey Now Now" is actually a pretty great song, though I can't say the same for the rest of the album. I've put it on a number of mixes over the last year or so and almost without fail those I've given it to have singled it out as a standout track.
Posted by Anonymous | January 18, 2006 8:24 PM
i am a daily pitchfork reader, def. love to hate it.
but i have to disagree with anyone who says pitchfork's well-written. on any give day read, or at least try to read, one of their single reviews. maybe they know a little about music (that is to be debated as well), but they do not know anything about writing.
Posted by am | January 18, 2006 10:20 PM
i am a daily pitchfork reader, def. love to hate it.
but i have to disagree with anyone who says pitchfork's well-written. on any give day read, or at least try to read, one of their single reviews. maybe they know a little about music (that is to be debated as well), but they do not know anything about writing.
Posted by am | January 18, 2006 10:20 PM
not too bad
Posted by WOW GOLD | December 2, 2008 10:08 PM