2. "nothing is wrong with the writing IMO" In response to Reply # 0
it tends to get a bit grandiose and overly-long at times, but sometimes, when covering artist i listen to i think their writers get things right. some times like anybody they get things terribly wrong...
for me most of the hate stems from the way they prop of very mediocre non-rap music as cutting edge / progressive when it really isn't. as David Banner highlighted in that post earlier, it's just more honest (not necessarily better) not popular pop music
Joe Corn Mo Member since Aug 29th 2010 15139 posts
Thu Mar-01-12 09:57 PM
3. "here's why i dislike them. " In response to Reply # 0
my favorite rock critic is robert christgau. he used to write a consumer guide.
the objective was simple: to write a clear, consise review that can give you an idea of whether or not you should spend money on a particular album.
pitchfork tries so hard to be clever that you don't even have an idea of what the album sounds like after you finish the review.
also, and this is just a pet peeve of mine, they also deify the Beatles in a way that's obnoxious. (sorry, the white album is not a perfect 10 album. and seeing as they grade on a 10 point scale that deducts tenths of a point for every minor flaw... giving the white album a perfect ten rating was a political move, not a critical one)
and I really don't wanna hear anything they have to say about black music. that includes rap and soul. they frequently talk out of their asses about that.
also, they seem to be contrarians.
I really don't care for them at all.
>Was it something i missed about the quality of that website? > >i never think it's bad at all.... > >please inform
to Pitchfork's credit they've really strayed from these sorts of conceptual screeds in the pastfour/five years. Though their Youtube reviews of certain bands they built up only to tear down are equally if not more disappointing.
Also I've said many times here that it bothers me as they've become more popular and their writers less underground-obsessed (around the time they started posting year-end singles charts including numerous artists they'd panned throughout the year or payed no attention to like Rihanna) their rap coverage has come to almost completely ignore the Def Jux/anticon. scenes they were instrumental in introducing me to in favor of lionizing Gucci Mane, Future and others. I enjoy those artists, but their review of Future's Astronaut Status mixtape actually made this claim:
"Future has said in interviews that he wants to make stadium music, and though that's enough of a jump in ambition that it could lead him down a disastrous path, he does succeed on Astronaut Status when he widens his scope or pushes himself vocally. The obvious standout in this regard is "Deeper Than the Ocean", a track with Spanish guitars and a squealing solo that finds Future singing in a cracked, raspy voice about the pain in his life. The sentiment is real and the lyrics a bit jarring, even if the execution is slightly ridiculous-- but it would only be a small leap of faith to close your eyes and imagine Future as Adele performing "Someone Like You" at the Brit Awards."
Not only is that mixtape not even on the level of Future's previous tapes (particularly True Story), but you're really going to try to stand behind that? We're talking about this for christ's sakes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ivq6m-knZ0
It's a good song (curb that debate, I know most hate Future-types here) but, no, it's not just a small leap of faith to imagine that scenario.
9. "Allmusic is so much better" In response to Reply # 0
Following up on what Joe Corn said, especially. They feel like they need to unlock some hidden meaning in the album that only they can see, and be condescending and snooty about it all at the same time. They're not bad, just annoyingly uppity about their shit.
12. "Allmusic gave Paris Hilton's album a 4.5" In response to Reply # 9
now I love that site and would take it in a blind, dumb and deaf taste test over PF but when they miss, THEY FUCKING MISS
__________________________________________ CHOP-THESE-BITCHES!!!! ------------------------------------ Garhart Ivanhoe Poppwell Un-OK'd moderator for The Lesson and Make The Music (yes, I do's work up in here, and in your asscrease if you run foul of this
21. "their words have always been more useful than their ratings" In response to Reply # 12
I used them a lot when I was in middle school, haven't been to the site in years since I discovered P4K and cokemachineglow.
probably because, to be honest, I sort of prefer the album-as-narrative style. even if it's pompous, it's entertainly pompous. I read reviews when I'm already listening to the album; I use scores to recommend if I should listen to it. So allmusic doesn't really work for me either direction.
22. "oh, the ratings I just let fly over my head mostly unless it's crazy" In response to Reply # 21
the words were key to understanding what the album was about.
For example, I remember their review of Commodores 13 clearly -- they described it as "life after Lionel", said that the Commodores were producing themselves, and also mentioned that Harold Hudson was taking over Lionel's spot on some songs as the lead singer. As I remember he was the voice behind "Painted Picture", I needed to hear it for myself.
13. "One thing I never got about" In response to Reply # 0
okp, some of the Pitchfork hate.
I love pitchfork it's introduced me to a lot of great music when I first started getting into music outside of Hip-Hop. I just went to their site one day and searched for all reviews with 8.0+ ratings and went on a pirating spree.
>_>.
I trust Pitchfork's ratings more than anyone else's, if I see a pretty good rating I know the album will be good.
They do however, often give albums that /I/ think are good, low scores like ridiculously low scores. That's kind of annoying, but I chalk it up to differences of opinion.
In a very basic way: everything they do seems to have much more to do with whatever they think the artist's intention is, as opposed to what their art actually sounds like.
34. "RE: This is part of the reason:" In response to Reply # 16
>In a very basic way: everything they do seems to have much >more to do with whatever they think the artist's intention is, >as opposed to what their art actually sounds like.
BINGO. You nailed it.
Their writers come across as a lot of failed musicians who try to show how obvious the influences and ideas behind everything are, as if musical creation is just a matter of charting a strategy. No that's what creating a music WEBSITE is ladies and gentlemen (well, that and payola.)
It's just irrelevant to me because their opinions don't aid me in finding good music or deciding what to listen to. I think music reviews in general are largely irrelevant because it's so easy to try before you buy now (legally and illegally).
26. "A fully developed alt/indy market would be ideal" In response to Reply # 25
Ran into this problem running the college show.
College radio can survive never playing anything popular (which means 90% indy rock). None of the hits all of the time. - the audience wants that - there are enough artists doing interesting work
Hip Hop? - some of the audience wants to hear Nas B-sides - some of the audience only wants to hear Aesop rock demos - some of the audience wants that brand new Pimp C or Celly Cel.
OKP is already left of center, but we're all grounded in hip hop. For it to become Pitchfork, it'd have to focus on Roots/Dilated peoples type hip hop, and leave Project Pat (too "country") and Jay Z (too hot 97) on the side.
Who would that attract though?
Would being the authority on alt R&B, afropunk, and not-as-popular hip hop be worth not dealing with the hip hop that the so-called urban market loves?
But if you do cover the urban market type records, you've become what everyone else is.
28. "Ever since the Spotify deal, I've been very pro-pitchfork" In response to Reply # 0
There hasn't ever been a time that I've visted Pfork and not left knowing something or hearing something new. They're completely too cynical, but, in the long run, that's totally forgivable.
33. "All the important reasons been" In response to Reply # 0
covered.
The negative:
Are they too wordy and do they try and use the review as a medium to show off their writing instead of focusing on the music? Yes.
Did older generations of reviewers care more about the music and less about impressing you with rhetoric? Yes.
Are they sometimes much too harsh on an act that is similar to one they just propped up? Yes.
Do they lack understanding of certain genres? Yes.
The positive:
Is 95% of the new music you're going to hear about in the indie and hip-hop genres going to be pitchfork approved before you hear about it? Yes. So they're reliable for finding new interesting shit.
Are they miles ahead of their contemporaries? Yes. Presently they're by far the most reliable big music site. Some blogs here and there might cover specific things better, but no one has the total package like Pitchfork right now.
Do they throw a ridiculously good show every year with all the years new interesting artists? Yes.
MY PERSONAL BEEF: Most people don't analyze themselves or music culture enough to notice this or care about it. I have a problem with how their music reviews thoroughly shape music nerd and hipster culture. Like if you bring up an act to someone that isn't covered on Pitchfork, it's somehow like less official or something. Like if a review of an album doesn't exist (good or bad) than that band isn't validated to many people. The majority of blogs seem to follow pitchfork. Let's face it, at this point they're big enough that they're going to get information sent to them constantly and will hear most music before other sources.
Secondly, other reviews have less balls than ever (at least the ones I run into). I don't see much divergence in opinion. If Pitchfork raves, expect 90% of other reviewers to rave. If they hate, expect to see the same. Only occasionally does this vary.
Basically, somewhere along the line Pitchfork went from that smart guy you talk to about music that recommends you some interesting shit to the all knowing, irrefutable Dictator of music who decides what will or will not be played on computers, I-pods and car stereos nationwide.
Hell, some of the people I've gotten into arguments about with shit here are more interesting than loyal Pitchfork readers. At least I know they have original opinions.
35. "RE: This is so important:" In response to Reply # 33
> >MY PERSONAL BEEF: Most people don't analyze themselves or >music culture enough to notice this or care about it. I have a >problem with how their music reviews thoroughly shape music >nerd and hipster culture. Like if you bring up an act to >someone that isn't covered on Pitchfork, it's somehow like >less official or something. Like if a review of an album >doesn't exist (good or bad) than that band isn't validated to >many people. The majority of blogs seem to follow pitchfork. >Let's face it, at this point they're big enough that they're >going to get information sent to them constantly and will hear >most music before other sources. > > >
Good call.
I hate how ignored some bands are because they don't have any press on Pitchfork.
37. "To play devil's advocate though..." In response to Reply # 35
Pitchfork *does* give a lot of shine to artists that are not on anyone's larger radar... we can always complain that they don't pay more attention to this or that sort of smaller act, and I think that complaint might be legitimate, but that's always going to be a potential gripe... and if they decided to focus more on local music in a given city or something, then we'd complain about *that* and say that they were just trying to get their filthy hands into more of the industry, lol...
I also think that the whole "how much they influence nerd/hipster culture" thing is... I don't know, I understand why folks get annoyed with that aspect, but I'm still of the opinion that the mythical pretentious douchebag hipster is probably 85% imagined, pieced together from blurry 15% interactions with real live people... Pfork is a culture site, yes, and in that sense it plays a role among a certain group of people, but I think we overemphasize its "power" sometimes..
40. "Don't you need someone to tell you something is cool though" In response to Reply # 0
Rolling stone The Source Spin
Wasn't their job to break bands in the mainstream and have everyone else follow their lead? They weren't as cruel as our Pitchfork overlords if you fell out of their favor, but id argue the past kings were pretty heavy on the favoritism and maintaining their cult of cool.
41. "i don't listen to music to be cool" In response to Reply # 40
i've taken to not even talking about music with people in real life because it's such a weird conversation for me in 2012... so i need music that is enjoyable on its own merits, not cool, so i don't value richdork in that regard
Printer-friendly copy 
Email this topic to a friend
The Lesson
