why Pitchfork is a fag

For me, pitchfork is immediately discredited on all accounts by the fact that they use a 100 point scale in their reviews.

just the other day i was bitching about Pitchfork...

ive never had much respect for their reviews but i do visit the site for the news...

but the other day they really crossed the line with the Deerhoof VS Evil review...

that just did IT for me.

i understand giving your opinion but the tone of it is just so "holier than thou"...

It makes for pretty pointless reading unless you're scouting around for "if you liked this you might also like..." tips. Music critics in general are a bunch of fools unfit to comment on, or even to notice, all but the most obvious features of the music they're reviewing (and even of these they have a sickening tendency to focus on indie credibility). Enya could release the greatest album of the last ten years tomorrow and they'd never know it.

#1. I don't base opinions from reviews. I've read a few pitch fork review but only to see what think about something I like... but never form an opinion on their critiques.

#2. AT&T Park!

Blog sites are better for recommending stuff. Some of them have their niche, but some of them are pretty eclectic and cool about it.

  On 2/1/2011 at 3:18 PM, LOL Alzado said:

I understand that individual reviewers have their own opinions about any given album, just like we do. But I don't go to a music reviewing publication to read random opinions that we could all come up with ourselves. I'm looking for a little institutional consistency...something that will give me the feeling that I'm being guided by an informed set of view points that keeps history in perspective rather than getting a perspective-less opinion from whomever happens to get the assignment.

people only hear what validates their opinions. by printing both ends, they can make everyone feel validated.

i read the one-liners on pitchfork reviews everyday, only click through occasionally if intriguing, and only pursue those further rarely. the positiveness or negativeness of the review doesn't matter as much as an interesting description or favorable comparison. it's just a quick way to maybe find something new---couple minutes a day.

for example, today i checked out some samples of the demdike stare album after just scanning the review because it sounded interesting. turned out to be wank. and now i know something new!

pandora has been much more fruitful for finding new things lately. i'm sure watmm would be good too if i put in the time.

  On 2/2/2011 at 10:57 PM, vodor said:

pandora has been much more fruitful for finding new things lately.

Pandora recently set me off on a new tangent of bands and sounds that I wasn't previously familiar with and it is showing no signs of stopping any time soon. Pandora is amazing.

  On 2/1/2011 at 9:55 PM, LOL Alzado said:

  On 2/1/2011 at 6:41 PM, Deep Fried Everything said:

the only thing here that would be kinda nice would be for the later reviewer to go back and look at prior reviews and possibly reflect on the previously-stated opinions and observations from same. but i don't see how as an organization you could dictate that, it's really the reviewer's choice.

 

i don't think you can ask for anything more than that; one person's opinion might vary quite widely from any other given person on something that is otherwise an "established classic" (or not even... just any piece of work).

 

This is exactly what I'm talking about it. Pitchfork, as an entity, is responsible for this, not the individual reviewer. That's my understanding as to what, in part, an editor is for. It's the editor's job to read the review, critique it, and consider it as a part of the organization's greater body of work. The proper method of doing it would look something like this: [Editor's Note: whether Death's last album lived up to the hype is unsettled, as our review of that album indicates.]

hmmmm yeah i see your point, i guess i don't have as clear an idea of how the editor is meant to function in this position, but your explanation does make sense.

my guess is, just like with many new media companies, the time gets put into pumping out reviews but not necessarily researching and cross-referencing them for a coherent vision (quantity over quality, as always) due to the small size of their staff. i know a guy who works there, i'll ask him next time i see him and see what he thinks.

Last.FM >>>> Pandora

last.fm doesn't have only hand selected music by a small group of people working for the company. i like the democratic aspect of last.fm , pandora is more of a 'if you're famous enough well put you in the database' type of thing. so you're really missing out on a lot of stuff. I havent used either one in at least a year though so for all i know last.fm has gone down hill and Pandora actually has some zoviet france or rapoon in it now (Doubtful)

  On 2/1/2011 at 10:29 PM, disparaissant said:

  On 2/1/2011 at 8:49 PM, MAXIMUS MISCHIEF said:

animal collective... sadly

 

but i think they got big by virtue of touring a whole cock load all over the place

 

probly a mixture of the two

man whatever you got to tell yourself to sleep at night

next thing you know you'll be sporting an ironic mustache and wearing glasses with no lenses in them

what are you talking about

youre one of those people who wont listen to animal collective because pitch fork gives them good reviews huh

you cant be "too" hip, cause you got an image to keep

sorry , i listen to good music, i dont care who else does, and i wont change my opinion on something just because someone else sees it a certain way.

youre a sheep, and youre closer to wearing ironic glasses than i am

um i think disparaissant was kind of joking, take it easy man

I don't think I've ever even been on pitchfork or any other music review site. who cares what other people think innit. if you like it then that's that innit

innit

  On 2/3/2011 at 10:17 PM, Awepittance said:

um i think disparaissant was kind of joking, take it easy man

nope shes on my nuts all the time on this forum

  On 2/4/2011 at 3:41 AM, MAXIMUS MISCHIEF said:

  On 2/3/2011 at 10:17 PM, Awepittance said:

um i think disparaissant was kind of joking, take it easy man

 

nope shes on my nuts all the time on this forum

haha what? i've had maybe three conversations with you, all of which were you needlessly antagonizing me and failing at reading comprehension over and over and over again. persecution complex much?

and for the record: i was, in fact, joking. sung tongs is one of my favourite albums of the last decade.

  On 2/2/2011 at 1:17 AM, remy marathe said:

to me, pitchfork is a few steps up from listening to the radio and developing your musical taste based on that.

if we were comparing it to clear channel or corporate owned radio i can agree with this statement, otherwise i think if you are a fan of (or meant )college radio or nicely curated shows by people working independently of a large company you are much more likely to get a unique and diverse palette of music not effected by payola or profits. Pitchfork are undeniably influenced by payola (probably far less so than Electronic Musician magazine reviewers who get free keyboards for giving positive reviews) and advertising revenue (bottom line profit) in their reviewing process, and cynical but somewhat true it makes them much closer to Clear channel than to a college radio show assortment. So in that sense the gap seems much bigger in my eyes than just a few steps

edit: from my limited experience actually looking through ad rates for music websites and magazines, i can tell you that Pitchfork outranks almost the ones ive seen in advertising costs.

edit2: and in case i wasn't clear enough, putting geek in quotes above is because i value that word and i meant people who aren't actually hard-geeks but want to be

edit3:t's never been easier to find new music than it is right now in 2011. You have myspace, facebook, youtube (as xxx mentioned) and a multitude of other websites and tools that you can use to discover new music on your own. Even Last.fm for christ sake, which is probably the only completely democratic/automatic form of 'hey here's what music you're going to like' service out there.

There is no excuse except laziness for relying on online or music journalism anywhere for your new musical discoveries.

In essence you are relying on the opinions of people you do not know and whom you've never met. Luckily people can download things before buying blind, so it's somewhat better than it used to be.

  On 2/4/2011 at 8:22 AM, disparaissant said:

and for the record: i was, in fact, joking. sung tongs is one of my favourite albums of the last decade.

sarcasm wavelength ftw

  On 2/4/2011 at 8:33 AM, Awepittance said:

  On 2/4/2011 at 8:22 AM, disparaissant said:

and for the record: i was, in fact, joking. sung tongs is one of my favourite albums of the last decade.

 

sarcasm wavelength ftw

kinda figured my remarks are generally over the top enough to get sarcasm across but someone is always surprised.

  On 2/4/2011 at 8:22 AM, disparaissant said:

  On 2/4/2011 at 3:41 AM, MAXIMUS MISCHIEF said:

  On 2/3/2011 at 10:17 PM, Awepittance said:

um i think disparaissant was kind of joking, take it easy man

 

nope shes on my nuts all the time on this forum

haha what? i've had maybe three conversations with you, all of which were you needlessly antagonizing me and failing at reading comprehension over and over and over again. persecution complex much?

 

and for the record: i was, in fact, joking. sung tongs is one of my favourite albums of the last decade.

lol reading comprehension..

maybe if you dont want someone to think you are spoiling the last level of a game you should refrain from saying "this is what happens in the last level"...

you cant expect everyone to get your secret hidden meanings every time

Animal Collective are awful, let's not them come between us.

dan, dont make me punch you

You wouldn't punch a man wearing glasses would you?

  On 2/4/2011 at 8:47 AM, MAXIMUS MISCHIEF said:

  On 2/4/2011 at 8:22 AM, disparaissant said:

  On 2/4/2011 at 3:41 AM, MAXIMUS MISCHIEF said:

  On 2/3/2011 at 10:17 PM, Awepittance said:

um i think disparaissant was kind of joking, take it easy man

 

nope shes on my nuts all the time on this forum

haha what? i've had maybe three conversations with you, all of which were you needlessly antagonizing me and failing at reading comprehension over and over and over again. persecution complex much?

 

and for the record: i was, in fact, joking. sung tongs is one of my favourite albums of the last decade.

 

lol reading comprehension..

maybe if you dont want someone to think you are spoiling the last level of a game you should refrain from saying "this is what happens in the last level"...

you cant expect everyone to get your secret hidden meanings every time

are you dyslexic? you must be dyslexic.

also lol at you saying i'm "on your nuts." i can't decide whether that's wishful thinking or projection.

anyways, enough threadshitting.

Music is personal so reading a review of how it makes somebody else feel isn't that relevant to me. The most useful info a review might contain is comparing to other releases so you have an idea of what to expect. Things like "if you like X you'll like this too." But that info can be found more easily at lastfm or pandora without having to read a review. They just play other stuff for you.