I Abhor Pitchfork.com And All It Stands For

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
I've come to a bit of a truce with Pitchfork. They're pretentious and their rating system is inexplicable, but I can't deny the quantity of wonderful music I've discovered there. The contributors at Pitchfork write what they do for their love of the medium, and receive little in return. Besides, cokemachineglow is even further up its own ass, if you're grading on a scale.

For the record, 6.2 is a fair rating for Them Crooked Vultures. The concept was exciting, but, as is the case for albums by supergroups, the thought and inspiration involved in memorable songwriting is rarely present. I found it to be a fun way to spend an hour, but little more.
 
If the Fork gives something a really high score it's usually pretty damned good.

In the world of popular music criticism that's more or less enough for me these days.
 
Hmmm. I disagree with their album ratings from time to time but, other than that, I think the site does a great job of compiling the latest music news, conducting interesting interviews, providing links to new songs/videos for the listening public, etc. I've discovered a good amount of stuff because of Pitchfork, so they can't be all bad. Oh yeah, and I think they do a pretty damn good job with all their big year end lists and things like that. The recent P2K thing was a lot of fun.

But, I guess this thread is for making fun of the site so don't pay attention to me.
 
I've come to a bit of a truce with Pitchfork. They're pretentious and their rating system is inexplicable, but I can't deny the quantity of wonderful music I've discovered there. The contributors at Pitchfork write what they do for their love of the medium, and receive little in return. Besides, cokemachineglow is even further up its own ass, if you're grading on a scale.

For the record, 6.2 is a fair rating for Them Crooked Vultures. The concept was exciting, but, as is the case for albums by supergroups, the thought and inspiration involved in memorable songwriting is rarely present. I found it to be a fun way to spend an hour, but little more.

my thoughts exactly. :up: i was very pissed about their NLOTH rating, especially because i think it influenced a lot of young hipsters to not even try the album. if they would have given NLOTH a fair rating, maybe, just maybe the album wouldn't get slammed on other band's message boards (atease, i'm looking at you :wink:).

but like you said, i've found some great shit their, most recently the new Bear In Heaven album, which is quickly becoming one of my top albums of 2009.
 
Don't really agree with their reviewing style, as sometimes they review albums without discussing the merits (or lack of) in any of the tracks and just whinge about/fellate the artist, but I reckon it was PFORK who prompted me into purchasing In Ghost Colours. Mind you, it could be them who get me into The White Lies (which they gave 3.6 or something for their album, so even their negative reviews are encouraging to me).

I wanna know why they still haven't reviewed the new Editors album. Have Editors reached that stage where PFORK deems them an artist not worthy of them reviewing, as they have with other artists.
 
hipster2.jpg


if you're these guys, pitchfork is your god.
 
I wanna know why they still haven't reviewed the new Editors album. Have Editors reached that stage where PFORK deems them an artist not worthy of them reviewing, as they have with other artists.

If they haven't reviewed it yet, it's most likely that they never will. I feel like the Fork posts their album reviews within a day or two of the album's release, and often on the actual day of release.
 
One thing I will never, ever go to Pitchfork for is hip-hop reviews, however.

6a00d4143667316a4700e398e8e0f90005-500pi


I mean, for fuck's sake.
 
They're pretentious and their rating system is inexplicable, but I can't deny the quantity of wonderful music I've discovered there.

Oh don't get me wrong, I have the site bookmarked :wink: ... Yeah, they certainly do the job of highlighting worthwhile new music, but the anti-mainstream, cooler-than-thou, keep-it-all-bottled-up-and-underground finally grated today to the point where I lost it :angry:
 
1. That's the Pitchfork staff?

2. If so, how did you find a picture of the Pitchfork staff?

3. Why are they all bald?

I found that pic ages ago, forum-hopping. If you trace it back, vox.com follows music and culture, so I do believe that pic was taken at Pitchfork Fest '08.

Apparently, PFest is also a skinhead convention. NSW would be safe in the douchebag seats though.
 
It at least partially explains why he left Chicago.

And I'm going to stay out of this for now. The "hipster" generalizations are already grating on me.
 

Those aren't hipsters. At least not ones from Los Angeles, New York, Chicago, or any other place where people actually have style. Those clothes look like they were all bought at the mall. The stylist of that picture could have at least dressed them with shit from Urban Outfitters and made it remotely believable.

Anyway, I've been a vocal critic of THE FORK! from time to time, but the bottom line is that you don't judge someone (or an entity) by what they DON'T like, but rather on whether the stuff they recommend to you is crap or not. While they have bashed a healthy amount of stuff I think is great, they've also introduced me to some of my favorite music, ever. And I couldn't possibly be any more indebted to them.
 
Those aren't hipsters. At least not ones from Los Angeles, New York, Chicago, or any other place where people actually have style. Those clothes look like they were all bought at the mall. The stylist of that picture could have at least dressed them with shit from Urban Outfitters and made it remotely believable.

i will admit, i did get lazy using image search and just used the first one i could find with a hat.
 
Honestly, I don't hate the website for their reviews so much as for the fact that if they want to be serious music journalists, you can't name an article "Holy shit, Pavement are getting back together." Or whatever it was called, it just throws journalistic presentation out the window for me.
 
Anyway, I've been a vocal critic of THE FORK! from time to time, but the bottom line is that you don't judge someone (or an entity) by what they DON'T like, but rather on whether the stuff they recommend to you is crap or not. While they have bashed a healthy amount of stuff I think is great, they've also introduced me to some of my favorite music, ever. And I couldn't possibly be any more indebted to them.

Yeah, this.

They're assholes. But they're assholes with taste.
 
Yeah, if you understand Pitchfork and use it for what it is, it's a useful site.
 
i will admit, i did get lazy using image search and just used the first one i could find with a hat.

that made me laugh. Did you see the image that came two after the one you posted? apparently these are also called hipsters

myhipster.jpg


I wouldnt mind wearing that as a hat, if you get my meaning
 
Uh, I think I speak for everyone when I say I'd like to hear more from Jive Turkey.
 
that made me laugh. Did you see the image that came two after the one you posted? apparently these are also called hipsters

myhipster.jpg

some might say it also makes a good statement about pitchfork. oh, and i definitely did see.

Uh, I think I speak for everyone when I say I'd like to hear more from Jive Turkey.

i can agree with this.
 
I agree with many things said in this thread.

Except for the last topic/picture. I disagree with that, because I don't call those "hipsters," I call them "boy shorts."
 
^:lol:

what are the albums you're referring to laz, that they've scored crap but you love? i'm interested to know.

i second mikal and jive turkey's points here.

they are arseholes, but i have bought some music because of the site and i go on it a few times a week.

the nloth review just annoyed me. i like the album.
 
Their biggest problem is that they're so obviously biased. It's not just about the music they hear. The name of the artist and the background (whether it is the glorified indie scene or an artist on the verge of mainstream, or God forbid - a veteran band like U2) present a factor almost as important as the music itself. That arrogant elitism is one of the reasons why I cannot force myself to read any review from beginning to the end.

Still, one can acknowledge the fact that plenty of bands did benefit from the exposure they had gained on Pitchfork. Inevitable generalizing aside, they just have to hope that - God forbid - they don't go on making more than three records and sell a couple of million records in between.

Their obsession for Radiohead is amusing. I love Radiohead as they are one of my favorite bands, but I don't know if Amnesiac and Hail to the Thief are that good.
 
That's a fair butt that.

Aside from Yield, Pitchfork don't seem to have much time for Pearl Jam I've noticed.
 
Yeah they totally dropped the ball on Sea Change. But it feels like they've had a change of heart regarding that one in recent years, so it's all good.
 
Back
Top Bottom