Music-news sites discover “G.L.O.W.”, aren’t over themselves
October 13th, 2008 by jjbtags: idolator, G.L.O.W., stereogum, pitchfork, analysis
Within a three-hour span this afternoon, music-news websites Stereogum, Idolator, and Pitchfork all posted the same recording of “G.L.O.W.” sourced from the song’s radio debut on Chicago’s Q101. “NEW SMASHING PUMPKINS” blared a Stereogum headline, with the accompanying article stating that “it finally hit the airwaves”. Shortly thereafter, Idolator promoted the recording as “Leak Of The Day”, declaring that today marks the song’s “WEB DEBUT”. Pitchfork followed, saying “Chicago’s Q-101 played it, someone upped a rip to YouTube, and now you can listen to it in rather abysmal sound quality.”
The YouTube clip of “G.L.O.W.” embedded and hailed as newsworthy by all three sites? It’s been on YouTube for a week. The Q101 debut featured in the clip? That happened two weeks ago. And the song has been in the top 40 at alternative radio for eight days now. Links to various recordings of the song (even to perfect-quality versions) have been appearing in comments on HU posts over that entire span, and of course similar links are all over Pumpkins messageboards.
It’s one thing for these sites not to cover the Smashing Pumpkins well and therefore not to have the story on day one; really, that’s fine and no one should much care. But for them to claim that they are right on it, to act as though the music world has shrunk to the size of a three-site circle jerk, is in every sense of the word…wait for it… pretentious.
October 13th, 2008 at 5:46 pm
From pitchfork:
“Personally, I haven’t enjoyed a note of this band’s music since “1979″ (which by now seems like it came out in 1979), so who cares what I think. Which is to say that to these ears it sounds absolutely awful, but the Smashing Pumpkins fanbase might hear it differently.”
Oh ho ho pitchfork, score another one for you in the superiority department.
October 13th, 2008 at 6:12 pm
I’d rather they not report on the band at all, period.
What’s aggravating is that they do - shittly that is, while some of us are sucked into giving them traffic for it as well.
October 13th, 2008 at 6:45 pm
If he really wanted to strike me as a true former fan, he would have said “the last thing I liked from them was the song “Eye” from the Lost Highway soundtrack.” Then I’d have a better time believing that he wasn’t just phoning in what he thought people wanted to hear.
October 13th, 2008 at 7:23 pm
This article is why more of you guys need to be writing for me!!!!!
October 13th, 2008 at 9:58 pm
If I had a dollar for every time a journo used the former fan bit in order to add some extra kick to thier damning of any new Pumpkins song/album/t-shirt/breakfast cereal/whatever since the band reformed I have as much as the fellow above me.
October 14th, 2008 at 9:07 am
Absolutely agree 100% with this. When I read Pitchfork this morning, I thought the same thing… “What a bunch of schmucks.” It’s as if the website is designed by those kids in the cafeteria who always had an argument to get into, but never a solution or an agreement on anything without some sort of snide remark to buffer it.
I hated those kids then and I do still.
October 14th, 2008 at 10:27 am
wow. that does sound pretentious (and pretend-ious) all the way around.
(so it’s all become a “speed” contest. who knew? who news?)
October 14th, 2008 at 10:28 am
“me first”
“me first”
“me first”
*sigh*
October 14th, 2008 at 2:25 pm
Pitchfork and Stereogum remind me of this guy who sat behind me in high school geometry class and at least once a week had to tell me how he used to like all of my favorite bands back when they were good and then tell me how they sold out and how I shouldn’t like them anymore either.
Until the day I realized “O my god, he’s right!” and I burned all my records and tapes and bought all the ones he approved of.
October 14th, 2008 at 3:58 pm
I’m the one who uploaded the clip. I new how old it was when i posted it, and there were other, better, touched up versions available when I uploaded it. I literally google’d ’smashing pumpkins glow’ and through the rip up for a few people that wanted to hear the studio version. I also hate the hell out of pitchfork, and the fact that they would report the video I took 5 minutes to make is pretty hilarious to me.
October 14th, 2008 at 4:16 pm
^^ god i suck at spelling. I took the clip down, because, really, the audio was horrible quality and it doesn’t do the pumpkins enough justice if websites like pitchfork are going to base their reviews off of it. If someone wants to post a higher quality clip, feel free.
October 14th, 2008 at 4:33 pm
Oh, please, please let one of those sites accuse the band of having the song taken down. Hahahahaha…
rC: “refused stock”
October 14th, 2008 at 4:47 pm
I feel pretty bad about all of this, honestly. It just never even crossed my mind that something like this would happen..
Great job on the reporting, and calling those sites out on their lack of it.
October 14th, 2008 at 4:54 pm
For anyone who doesn’t know, by the way, Michael Roffman (who commented above) writes for Consequence of Sound, a general-interest music news site that has excellent coverage of the Pumpkins and had timely coverage of “G.L.O.W.” Not all music-news sites are alike…
October 14th, 2008 at 5:24 pm
This is actually were I found the audio for the youtube clip. I didn’t want to give credit to the site because I wasn’t sure of the legality of posting a radio rip at all. To Michael Roffman, and the rest at Consequence of Sound, I apologize. For both posting your audio and for indirectly causing pitchfork and the other music news sights involved for using it. I’m a big enough person to realize when I’ve done something stupid, and this is one of those times. I’m Sorry.