[Jeremy]

Hah. That Pitchfork parody was awesome.

That said, Pitchfork make my head spin. Some things they love about records that they give high scores to will be the same things they hate about other records. I've seen them get song names wrong, confuse the record to the point you wonder if they even gave it a decent listen (Or even maybe a full listen), and try so damn hard to be witty and show how great their vocabulary is that I sometimes can't even get through a review in one sitting. That bad.

They also jump on the bandwagon, like say for Neutral Milk Hotel (An 8.9 I think for the first review, and then a ten once everybody started talking about it).

~Jeremy~

[ZEROpumpkins]

Originally Posted by atsonicpark

I never understood the point system, actually. 0.0 to 10. That's, what, 101 possibilities for a score? How do they factor this? How can you listen to a record and know, out of 101 possibilities, what to score something? I can understand.. you know.. rating out of 1-5 or 1-10, or whatever; that seems pretty simple. But 101 different possibilities for a score?

Can you imagine the dilemmas (you know, if their scores weren't based upon ad revenue, rock-star-cocksucking, record label handjobs, and their own public image): "Man. I just gotta call somebody up. This record is totally deserving of an 8 or 9. But I gotta think of the number after the demical point. An 8.5? No, too high... 8.4? Eh. That looks like I don't know if this deserves an 8 or a 9! Dilemmas!"

(oh wait, somebody just called the writer up and said, "Such and such shit band's record label just bought ad space! You better give them a good score!"

"Oh shit," says the writer, "This record is 8.6 yo! Problem solved!"

That's one of the main things that shits me about Pitchfork. It's like they want to tell you exactly how good an album is.

[TheFoxBen]

This thread is terrible

0.0/10 for sure !

 

[Jeremy]

I might catch heat for saying this but that album completely deserved the score it got. One of the few times Pitchfork was right with a review.

~Jeremy~

[MellySingsDoom]

You know, I don't think I've ever bothered to look at Pitchfork. A state of affairs I'm more than happy to continue.

[Glice]

Originally Posted by atsonicpark

Either way, this has to be the worst review ever penned by a "critical music site" (some will say the nyc ghosts and flowers one is worse, but at least it was FUNNY, if misguided; this is just embarassing... read it aloud!):

[Review of Kid A]

I think you obviously don't have a very thorough knowledge of Radiohead-related fanzines based in the UK, c1995-2000. That review is Proust in comparison to some of the journalistic bilge I have in a pile I've marked 'fanzine shite'.

Kids, just remember: never get involved in fanzines, you will only regret it.

[Glice]

Originally Posted by MellySingsDoom

You know, I don't think I've ever bothered to look at Pitchfork. A state of affairs I'm more than happy to continue.

I read it once. It reminded me of SYG. Opinionated, indier-than-thou pricks with ever-so-slightly different tastes.

I read it twice because I was linked to it regarding a band that I like. It's beyond criticism, too bland for hatred. Atsonicpark sure reads it a lot, for someone who dislikes their opinions.

[SYRFox]

I quite like Pitchfork myself. I see no problem with them. I read it pretty often: their news are okay. I often disagree with their reviews, but so what? Opinions are opinions. I don't really care about their opinion, and I rarely even read their reviews, but I can always check out the bands they review - if I don't know them yet - and make my own opinion about them.

[Kylerobert]

I'm not gonna lie, I actually read pitchfork a little. I don't really care for it but I don't know where else to go to find new music suggestions. If there's one good thing I've gotten outta pitchfork recently, it is Kurt Vile. They didn't give that record too high of a score which is funny because it's better then most the stuff they review.

[Theremin]

Originally Posted by Jeremy

I might catch heat for saying this but that album completely deserved the score it got. One of the few times Pitchfork was right with a review.

~Jeremy~

No.
Also, that review never seems to be about the actual record. Then again, the dude who wrote the NYCG&F en Kid A's reviews quit working for Pitchfork years ago.
It's a very hip, indier-than-thou thing to dislike that site in general btw. I mean, maybe it's just not your taste but In Rainbows for instance is a pretty fine record that fully deserved that high score it got and you'll have to look hard to find a review anywhere who dislikes it.

Why so often when someone dislikes a band or something music-related they have to be tagged as trying to be hip/contrary at all cost? Can it not be accepted that often somebody just doesn't have the time for a band or website simply because they don't have any interest in them?

[SYRFox]

Originally Posted by sarramkrop

Why so often when someone dislikes a band or something music-related they have to be tagged as trying to be hip/contrary at all cost? Can it not be accepted that often somebody just doesn't have the time for a band or website simply because they don't have any interest in them?

Well, often when someone likes a band he's tagged as trying to be hip as well. I guess we're just all hipsters following the hype blindly like zombies

[infinitemusic]

A lot of people are