quote:

Originally posted by brighteyes215:
Listen everyone ripping apart Pitchfork, which is unbeleivably easy to do I know, alot of the problems that I think arise from Pitchfork is the fact that their editors require a 600 word minimum article and that some of their writers must be failed English majors. This requires the authors of the articles to embellish and start off with rediculously tangential subject matter and then finally get to the review. When they do get to the review I find that though their writing can oftentimes be obtuse and pretentiously rife with metaphor that ultimately becomes unsustainably incoherent but damn if they don't do a good job of picking damn great albums. I mean even with all of their flaws Pitchfork I feel does the most professional and coherent job of reviewing albums and with providing interesting features(even if they too sometimes are annoying) and at the job that they're supposed to be doing (recommending and reviewing albums to assess their value) I feel they do a pretty good job. And from what I've seen of other sites, while they do review alot of the same albums that Pitchfork does, the reviews I've read from tinycokemachines, which to be fair haven't been that many, were sometimes even worse then Pitchfork. So I guess I understand your frustration I mean it's always annoying to read a music review and not actually get a review of the music, but still I think that Pitchfork, aside from the pretentiousness, really does a good job(most of the time).

quote:

Originally posted by RavingLunatic:
I find it harder and harder to figure out what Pitchfork is doing with their ratings and "Recommended" and "Best New Music" categories. There is an increasing disconnect between the two. Today they gave the Futureheads' new album a 7.7 and Recommended status. How many albums this year have they given higher than a 7.7 and yet haven't seen fit to designate as Recommended? Dozens I'm sure.

quote:

Reply