why Pitchfork is a fag

[GORDO]

well I dunno, to me a lot of the stuff they review is obscure, and i have no idea if they are touring or how many people go to their shows, but it is believed (i think) that pitchfork helped arcade fire a greta deal.

 

i can think of stuff like wavves, maybe even clap your hands say yeah, or titus andronicus i have no way of knowing how succesful they were previously.

 

in the end, pitchfork just gives exposure, and a band will be successful if they are good. I don't think, as some people do, that pitchfork are opinion makers.

[Guest vodor]

here's a good one:

black kids - wizard of ahhhhs http://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/10743-wizard-of-ahhhs-ep/

black kids got super hyped up after this EP, which led to the release of their first LP

black kids - partie traumatic http://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/11617-partie-traumatic/

LEGITIMATE MUSIC JOURNALISM!!!

 

i dunno i think that's pretty cool that they apologized. and cute!!! awwwwww.

 

the ratings out of 100 are completely asinine and meaningless though. metal of any great 8+ rating still can't be BNM. why even bother? and why such granularity then? even out of 10 is pretentiously granular imo. anything they like gets some random score from 6.2 to 7.9 (90% of their reviews), BNM is 8.2 and up (unless metal), and shit they don't like is under 6, or under 4 if they feel the need to be particularly conniving about it. they seriously only need 3 or 4 scores, but they have 100. fuck.

[Guest Ricky Downtown]

I didn't realize the new death was out, thanks

[MAXIMUS MISCHIEF]

oh yeah, chill wave i think is a pitch fork creation

[Alzado]

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.]

[Alzado]

Acknowledging that there is more than one viewpoint is the way to go, especially when your site rates releases on a numeric scale which tend to be etched in stone for that release for eternity.

[karmakramer]

Pitchfork is a business which strives off of keeping a certain group of people happy with recommendations that fit their desires. They make most of their money off of their yearly festival, and the best way for them to get artists to participate is by giving out good reviews. I understand peoples complaints and whatnot, but just don't visit the site ffs.

[Alzado]

thank you for not reading the original post and completely missing the point of the thread, which has sailed clear over your head like a Barry Bonds home run leaving the confines of Candlestick Park only to splash down in the frigid bay waters.

[karmakramer]

thank you for not reading the original post and completely missing the point of the thread, which has sailed clear over your head like a Barry Bonds home run leaving the confines of Candlestick Park only to splash down in the frigid bay waters.

 

"I understand peoples complaints and whatnot"

 

aka their reviews are shit...

 

... and does every post have to be a direct response to the OP?

 

also

 

relax

[Guest disparaissant]

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

[awepittance]

thank you for not reading the original post and completely missing the point of the thread, which has sailed clear over your head like a Barry Bonds home run leaving the confines of Candlestick Park only to splash down in the frigid bay waters.

 

was Barry Bonds even playing for the giants when the Giants played at Candlestick and not pacbell?

edit: nevermind i was 7 years off, haha

obviously i'm out of my depth going to toe to toe with Alzado's sports knowledge, but i thought i'd try

[GORDO]

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.]

 

one had a 7.1 score and is an overall positive review, and the other a 5.3 score. there is no inconsistency anyway, you only chose to focus on one phrase.

 

I see no reason why an institution of this type should try to have one coherent line of thought anyway, they don't have an agenda to push, they just put reviews out there.

[Guest vodor]

thank you for not reading the original post and completely missing the point of the thread, which has sailed clear over your head like a Barry Bonds home run leaving the confines of Candlestick Park only to splash down in the frigid bay waters.

 

was Barry Bonds even playing for the giants when the Giants played at Candlestick and not pacbell?

edit: nevermind i was 7 years off, haha

obviously i'm out of my depth going to toe to toe with Alzado's sports knowledge, but i thought i'd try

 

indeed, he played there a lot, but you can't hit it out of candlestick and if you did it wouldn't land in the bay. that's all att park.

 

so nyeh alzado.

[awepittance]

thank you for not reading the original post and completely missing the point of the thread, which has sailed clear over your head like a Barry Bonds home run leaving the confines of Candlestick Park only to splash down in the frigid bay waters.

 

was Barry Bonds even playing for the giants when the Giants played at Candlestick and not pacbell?

edit: nevermind i was 7 years off, haha

obviously i'm out of my depth going to toe to toe with Alzado's sports knowledge, but i thought i'd try

 

indeed, he played there a lot, but you can't hit it out of candlestick and if you did it wouldn't land in the bay. that's all att park.

 

so nyeh alzado.

 

nice, so we got one over on him at least in some regard, thanks Vodor

 

, but it is believed (i think) that pitchfork helped arcade fire a greta deal.

 

i'm willing to believe this, but if this is the best evidence you have of Pitchfork 'making' a band famous that they discovered or plucked from obscurity it's not very convincing.

[GORDO]

nope i don't have evidence. nor i wish to search for it. there probably isn't one such example since they review released music and not bands playing at bars.

[awepittance]

there probably isn't one such example since they review released music and not bands playing at bars.

 

lol come on, all it takes is an internet connection and a little bit of time and resources in 2011 to 'release' music. we aren't in 1991 anymore.

 

so basically what im asking is when has Pitchfork taken an unsigned band and elevated them to a status where they've gotten signed or gone on tour as a result from pitchfork's exposure

 

to my knowledge they did this with some of the witch-house acts, and maybe that's not even the case. but as far as being real taste makers, they have very very bad taste in electronic music if that's the best they've done.

 

edit: so i guess the reason i'm bringing up this point, is what service does Pitchfork provide besides already regurgitating into a semi curated format music that's hyped elsewhere? There are many other reviewing entities that don't stick inside this box, and it's surprising to me Pitchfork is still so well regarded when virtually everything they talk about is not unique to them.

[GORDO]

well, maybe because they were one of the first sites to do the indie music review thing and got sort of popular fast, the nature of the internet is that something that is already somewhat popular is more likely to become even more popular. i hardly visit pitchfork anymore, only when I remember they exist, but through them i've found music that i like a lot. but i have to say that when you say that everything they talk about is not unique to them, i don't know many other sites that's similar except tinymixtapes and i honestly can't think of any other.

 

 

so who knows? could've been just dumb luck at the beginning and then it just kept growing.

[remy marathe]

there probably isn't one such example since they review released music and not bands playing at bars.

 

lol come on, all it takes is an internet connection and a little bit of time and resources in 2011 to 'release' music. we aren't in 1991 anymore.

 

so basically what im asking is when has Pitchfork taken an unsigned band and elevated them to a status where they've gotten signed or gone on tour as a result from pitchfork's exposure

 

to my knowledge they did this with some of the witch-house acts, and maybe that's not even the case. but as far as being real taste makers, they have very very bad taste in electronic music if that's the best they've done.

 

edit: so i guess the reason i'm bringing up this point, is what service does Pitchfork provide besides already regurgitating into a semi curated format music that's hyped elsewhere? There are many other reviewing entities that don't stick inside this box, and it's surprising to me Pitchfork is still so well regarded when virtually everything they talk about is not unique to them.

 

it's kind of annoying having to argue in favor of pitchfork but in the earlier days of the last decade they were pretty instrumental in introducing "underground" music to people who might not have had time or know a number of musicians and couldn't find what you would consider obscure stuff. it might be a tastemaking site, i don't really know. like i said before, they definitely review a lot of music, and i don't think there's a banner anywhere on the site stating that it's the be all end all of obscure niche music. saying that a review site is somehow a lazy alternative to "finding music on your own" is kind of idiotic. people have to start somewhere.

[awepittance]

they were pretty instrumental in introducing "underground" music to people who might not have had time

 

this i can get on board with. I'd like to reinforce what i said earlier, that it's not idiotic to call it lazy if you rely on Pitchfork for all of your new musical exploration. It's not lazy perse, but you are missing out on a lot of good music if you entirely rely on music press in general to fill you in on the good stuff. What i find ultimately the most bizarre though are people who use Metacritic to actually find out about most of their music.

 

I think as always it's better to have a wide variety of information coming from many different sources (not just different writers working for one website) I feel the same way i do about mainstream journalism, you can rarely read articles from one website and get an informed perspective.

 

And i think it cannot be denied that there are many people out there who want to seem cool or hip who completely rely on Pitchfork for the new 'underground' sensation so they can show off to their friends. So i call this idiotic, and many people are guilty of it. There are people who do this with the Wire as well, they are probably the hardest to contend with because the Wire does know their shit and actually covers a very wide scope of obscure music.

[Boxing Day]

You are a bigger fag for caring.

[remy marathe]

they were pretty instrumental in introducing "underground" music to people who might not have had time

 

this i can get on board with. I'd like to reinforce what i said earlier, that it's not idiotic to call it lazy if you rely on Pitchfork for all of your new musical exploration. It's not lazy perse, but you are missing out on a lot of good music if you entirely rely on music press in general to fill you in on the good stuff. What i find ultimately the most bizarre though are people who use Metacritic to actually find out about most of their music.

 

I think as always it's better to have a wide variety of information coming from many different sources (not just different writers working for one website) I feel the same way i do about mainstream journalism, you can rarely read articles from one website and get an informed perspective.

 

And i think it cannot be denied that there are many people out there who want to seem cool or hip who completely rely on Pitchfork for the new 'underground' sensation so they can show off to their friends. So i call this idiotic, and many people are guilty of it. There are people who do this with the Wire as well, they are probably the hardest to contend with because the Wire does know their shit and actually covers a very wide scope of obscure music.

 

i agree with all of this, but i think a lot of people just don't have the time to devote to finding out about music, or simply don't care that much. to me, pitchfork is a few steps up from listening to the radio and developing your musical taste based on that. personally, i don't really read the site, but occasionally i'll see what they're saying is "best new music" if i've been out of the loop for a bit. i don't really rely on any music review sites, i usually just go through a label that i like artists from, listen to everything on it, then find artists related to those artists, work outward, etc. but most people don't want to devote that much time or energy, and i don't find that particularly lazy. it's just not a priority. it's when those same people try to act like authorities on niche or obscure music, like they have this very nuanced, eclectic taste, because they read pitchfork or stylus or tmt or whatever, then i have a problem with that.

basically, the best way to find out about music is a combination of internet research and attending shows for artists you like. and then sometimes i like to just blind buy things from labels, but i'm weird like that.

[Candiru]

I remember reading that someone interned at Pitchfork, who found out that they will give something a high rating if they can book them at their Pitchfork music festival. This way, the band has a level of hype going in, and hyped bands will increase ticket sales. So in a sense, Pitchfork are bunch of swindlers.

[Guest Wall Bird]

I have a question. How many people here read music reviews/critics/etc? How many of you give weight to what these writers have to say?

 

If a journalist or professional critic reviews a current release (let's just say Aphex Twin) and shat all over the album, would that dissuade you from listening to it? I guess my question is, who gives a shit what someone else, especially critics (well steeped in music or not) have to say about albums. If anything I trust this forum's multitude of opinions over that of a single person.

 

A review will never dissuade me from listening to/buying an album. At most it will only convince me to check it out if the reviewer is enthusiastic. I find writing about music in any matter other than philosophical or analytical to be completely useless because it's the music itself that will likely tell you everything you are going to need to know about it.

[remy marathe]

well, again, i think the positive, constructive side of it is why people read music reviews. i don't think people have the time to wade through every piece of recorded music that might sort of interest them and look to review sites to narrow down the search to something manageable, and then assume the opinions of the reviewers aren't terribly biased. that's an idealistic way of looking at it, but that's ultimately why anyone would read a music review site. although, as many have pointed out, in the age of streaming video and last.fm, there's really little point for sites like these to exist.

and personally, i don't place much weight in anyone's opinion of music. it's such a subjective thing, i'd rather just learn that the artist exists and is worth listening to, than why it's worth hearing. i'll figure that out on my own.

[solarion]

On the whole, sometimes I will buy albums off the basis of a negative review. I recall in the Wire they bashed Themselves' CrownsDown for being "cacophonous showboating"; which I would have bought it on the strength of if I hadn't bought it already. I -like- cacophonous showboating.

 

(the album was actually shit in the end but that's neither here nor there)