Oh, Pitchforkmedia.com, the site that everyone seemingly loves to hate yet everyone frequents daily. For such a seemingly hated source of opinions, it would definately seem to me that a whole lot of people hang on their every word.
You see, when you're by far the biggest source of reviews and news for what I'll go ahead and call "good" music (as opposed to Spin and Rolling Stone which will write a mini-essay on the latest Puddle of Mudd album), you make yourself an easy target. If they simply give a meat and potatoes "track-3-is-very-nice, track-7-isn't" review, it is a Rolling Stone review, however if they give it a nice long personal account of the music and give more insight into the music itself as opposed to just taste testing it, then they're branded as pretentious assclowns. While sometimes Pitchfork has been pretentious assclowns (see: Their "Kid A" and "Agaetis Byrjun" reviews. They got a deserving score, and they definately gave those two albums the lavish praise they deserve, however...the reviews are just downright embarassing).
The truth is, without Pitchforkmedia, a lot of amazing bands would probably have slipped through the cracks into musical obscurity (or at least would have had a much harder time getting noticed). It was Pitchfork that started the whole Broken Social Scene mini-craze, they also broke bands like The Unicorns, Menomena, and certainly raised the profile of others. On this point alone they deserve a lot of respect.
Pitchforkmedia's "Best New Music" section is still the authority on what's both new and very good. What other site has the ability to take an amazing band who hadn't even sold 100 albums one week, and thrust them into the international (indie) spotlight the next?.
Their reviews certainly aren't anywhere near as bad as some make them out to be as well. It all comes down to the individual reviewer as well. Indie fans are truely children at heart however, and they hate when their favorite band doesn't get the review they think they deserve. And what better target to focus you're hatred against then the biggest "bully" in town?. Why hate Stylus when there is a bigger fish to fry?. Hell, even I think they're dead wrong in their reviews of The Mars Volta's "De-Loused...", Damien Rice's "O", and Modest Mouse's "Good News...", but Pitchfork makes it clear that each review is simply the opinion of that specific reviewer and not the site at large. I think it'd be more appropriate to target the hatred towards individual reviewers. Ryan and Brent, get ready for the tidal wave of hate
quote:Originally posted by cutshallow: Well done...spreading your Pitchfork-defending indie-love from the shores of At Ease to the mountains of Metacritic.
I, for one, stand up and say I love Pitchfork.
LOL, you never have to go far on the internet to find a fellow ateaser
Speaking of which, I hope they get their issues sorted out quickly...
I agree with the reviews in Pitchfork more often than not. Although I do find some of their reviews unbelievable. (e.g. giving B&S's The Boy With The Arab Strap a 0.8!) But generally I am a fan of their honesty.
"When chickens get a taste of your meat."
Posts: 29 | Location: Manila | Registered: 13 May 2004
Agree or disagree with anything and/or most things Pitchfork says, they often have the proverbial cajones to oppose masses of critical hyperbole, which is nice. I, for one, think the site is great.
Posts: 571 | Location: Boston | Registered: 17 May 2004
quote:Originally posted by Buck "Sweetie" McGuck: I'm bummed that when they were cutting stuff from the Best New Music list, they cut Espers and Architecture In Helsinki, but kept Cee-Lo.
Also, who were the retards that didn't understand the featured/unfeatured system?
I didn't know they cut stuff; I just read the reviews and don't check out the Best New Music section.
That's really annoying that they cut both of those. The Espers and Helsinki albums are easily better than Cee-Lo's, IMO.
Posts: 571 | Location: Boston | Registered: 17 May 2004
I must say Pitchfork is the main place where I pick up new bands and artists to explore... without it i'm sure I would be languishing in some sort of music ignorance hell...
Of course you aren't going to agree with some of their reviews, mainly because even though Pitchfork has these overwhelming "cool" image... the reviews are still that one person's opinion...
many of their 7.something albums I love a hell of a lot more than some of the crap they give 9.something (I mean, The Walkmen? 9.2? get off it )
quote:Originally posted by Buck "Sweetie" McGuck: I'm bummed that when they were cutting stuff from the Best New Music list, they cut Espers and Architecture In Helsinki, but kept Cee-Lo.
Also, who were the retards that didn't understand the featured/unfeatured system?
Yeah I was wondering that too...who the hell are these people who don't understand the featured/unfeatured thing?. It's bizarre, any seven year old would understand it.
I was also sorta pissed off that they cut out the Esper's album, Architecture in Helsinki and Ghost's Hypnotic Underworld, all of which are among my favorite albums of the year. I also preferred the expansion of the Best New Music section...I need more than a new album every week and a half or so
Yeah I was wondering that too...who the hell are these people who don't understand the featured/unfeatured thing?. It's bizarre, any seven year old would understand it.
I was also sorta pissed off that they cut out the Esper's album, Architecture in Helsinki and Ghost's Hypnotic Underworld, all of which are among my favorite albums of the year. I also preferred the expansion of the Best New Music section...I need more than a new album every week and a half or so
Yeah, they should update it much more often than they do. With the 8.x's it was a lot more diverse and frequent than it is now.
As for the featured/unfeatured... in retrospect I can sort of see how someone might think that there was corporate sponshorship, but really now.
Posts: 571 | Location: Boston | Registered: 17 May 2004
i'm somewhat of a pitchfork whore. i read their album reviews every day, and i generally will check out anything that gets a score of 8.0 or higher. that being said, i don't always agree with their ratings and i often find that the rating does not correspond with what the reviewer has to say about the album. after all, the good writers at pitchfork are just regular people with opinions about music, not omnipotent music gods whose words becomes law in the indie world. i just happen to agree with a lot of their opinions. and yes i am one of the people who misses the We Are The World monthly mixed cd recommendations.
I don't have a problem with Pitchfork. They're just like any other music critics...sometimes they get things right, sometimes they don't.
Pitchfork do seem to get a lot of unfair stick. I think the fact that they're one of the biggest indie websites has something to do with it too unfortunately, rather than the reviews themselves.
Posts: 24 | Location: Birmingham, England | Registered: 19 May 2004
You have to take into account the fact that just because they review an album with a crap score that I or anyone else may like doesn't mean they got it wrong! Im a fan of ryan adams, and his rock n roll album got 3.4 or sommat like that on pitchfork, but that doesn't mean it's wrong, it will always be the same, people and reviewers will always disagree!
However when pitchfork get it right, they do seem to get it very right, some of my fav albums have come from pitchfork reviews.
Posts: 33 | Location: United Kingdom | Registered: 20 May 2004
Pitchfork certainly chooses interesting albums to review, no arguments there. And most fans of indie music would agree it's a must-read. So, why do people take issue?
Well, the downright pomposity and prolixity of many of the reviewers is definitely a factor. Hey, review the record. Don't talk down to me, don't impress me with the depth and breadth of your geeky fandom, JUST GIVE US THE DIRT AND BE DONE!
Of course, if they did that, they'd be Entertainment Weekly, not pitchfork. Oh well...
quote:Originally posted by Void: I think the fact that they're one of the biggest indie websites has something to do with it too unfortunately, rather than the reviews themselves.
Of course! Being popular (which Pitchfork definitely is, at least on the independent-music axis: a traffic of 250k would be enough to make an album go gold two and a half times!) is the least indie thing in the world -> it is not indie to like Pitchfork -> it is indie to hate Pitchfork. I'm not trying to say that this is the reason why all people hate them- there are many, many reasons to hate Pitchfork, quite a few of them pretty good ones- but it certainly plays a role in the ironically-image-obsessed world of indiedom.
Best wishes, ~V
Posts: 571 | Location: Boston | Registered: 17 May 2004
The problem with Pitchfork is that its writer are just embarassingly bad. I mean, I cringe when I read most of those reviews. It's like a bad high-school literary magazine. Spare me.
quote:Originally posted by PacoJastorious: The problem with Pitchfork is that its writer are just embarassingly bad. I mean, I cringe when I read most of those reviews. It's like a bad high-school literary magazine. Spare me.
I don't know, I think DiCrecenzo's (SIC SIC SIC) reviews are pretty damn interesting, for one. At the very least, he offers incredibly inventive perspectives on some records that give you new ways to think about them: see his You Are the Quarry review for a great example.
Best wishes, ~V
Posts: 571 | Location: Boston | Registered: 17 May 2004
Pitchfork is just awesome- ridiculously, horribly, awesome. Sean basically summed-up why their reviews are better than any mainstream mag; and when their reviews aren't helpful (what was that about Kid A being an aquarium and all other music being blue construction paper? Classic!) they're damn funny - even when they don't intend to be.
What I love about Pitchfork is it has broadened my taste in great music ten-fold. And even though their reviews are sometimes off the mark (and it's also totally right that their rating system borders on schizophrenic) their two best-of-decade lists are dead-on-accurate. I can't wait for 2010 to roll around!
Oh, and apologies to Tool fans- the Lateralus review is the funniest piece of critism I've ever read. Even if the album wasn't that bad...
