PDA

View Full Version : ATTN: Pitchfork Writers/Bloggers



psychoc&ndy
04-17-2008, 07:35 PM
Why are you such stuck up pricks? Do you honestly believe that what you say is right or even relevant for that matter? All you do is either A.) suck a bands cock off until it cums in your face because you like the way they wear trendy bright colored clothes and play minimalist or "avant garde art rock" nonsense

or B.) dismiss a band as horrible, talentless, effortless, unoriginal, worthless, cheesy, blah blah blah without even giving it a good chance because it's trendy to be a critic and talk shit about musical talent even though you most likely wouldn't even know the first thing about strumming a guitar, touring non stop, or pouring your soul into your music

last but certainly not least, YOUR ARTICLES ARE FUCKING BIASED. you're horrible at reporting and talking about bands because you're all trendy indie hipster fucks who have some bullshit standard that somehow onlyyou have the knowledge to determine whether it's good enough or not. fuck off

orbit
04-17-2008, 07:41 PM
does anyone still read pitchfork reviews?

betao
04-17-2008, 07:42 PM
Kevin Bronson approves of this thread.

PassiveTheory
04-17-2008, 07:42 PM
I enjoy their video channel and the updates on tours and stuff. That's all.

Thank you, Pitchfork.

woogie846
04-17-2008, 08:01 PM
I read their News section.

bartelby
04-17-2008, 08:05 PM
I enjoy their video channel and the updates on tours and stuff. That's all.

Thank you, Pitchfork.

I agree with this statement...

roberto73
04-17-2008, 08:07 PM
Yeah, I hate it when music publications have an opinion. All music reviews should be factual, empirical, and unbiased. Because music is so, you know, scientific.

kreutz2112
04-17-2008, 08:17 PM
they have been right on a few things, but they are complete shit more often than not.

arbouler
04-17-2008, 09:12 PM
i hardly read pitchfork reviews but i do read the news section. the tv section is super super awesome.

bballarl
04-17-2008, 09:13 PM
I only read the news section. I get my reviews from allmusic.com. You should too.

psychoc&ndy
04-17-2008, 09:36 PM
no, i totally agree - they are a very legitimate source of news that is pretty good at covering a wide range of artists, and im pretty thankful for that because i find out about interesting updates on bands, tours, interviews, videos etc. so i applaud them for all that. what i was directing this to was to some of the writers who are very arrogant and snobbish, and outride rude to artists that put their whole heart into making a record/song. just because it doesn't live up to their opinion doesn't mean the band should fall off the face of the earth.

and off topic, critics who say the new m83 is lame because it's "20 years too late", are actually complimenting what gonzales was going for. he specifically wanted to make a legitimately 80's sounding record, not an 80's ripoff record like many bands these days do. he's using it as a sincere influence, not as a novelty. my question is, why is too late? you're basically saying that you'd be into it if it was actually released in the 80's, so you'd like it for retro purposes along with depeche mode, devo, etc?

kitt kat
04-17-2008, 09:53 PM
I enjoy their video channel and the updates on tours and stuff. That's all.

Thank you, Pitchfork.

as do i

xxxxxxxxxx
04-17-2008, 10:25 PM
I don't think I have read an album review on Pitchfork in years, but I still visit the site daily for music news, interviews, etc.

Sonicifyouwantit
04-17-2008, 10:35 PM
I read playboy for the articles

BlackSwan
04-17-2008, 10:41 PM
Yeah, I hate it when music publications have an opinion. All music reviews should be factual, empirical, and unbiased. Because music is so, you know, scientific.

there we go... something that makes sense.


what i was directing this to was to some of the writers who are very arrogant and snobbish, and outride rude to artists that put their whole heart into making a record/song. just because it doesn't live up to their opinion doesn't mean the band should fall off the face of the earth.

and off topic, critics who say the new m83 is lame because it's "20 years too late", are actually complimenting what gonzales was going for. he specifically wanted to make a legitimately 80's sounding record, not an 80's ripoff record like many bands these days do. he's using it as a sincere influence, not as a novelty. my question is, why is too late? you're basically saying that you'd be into it if it was actually released in the 80's, so you'd like it for retro purposes along with depeche mode, devo, etc?

the new m83 is mostly lame cause it all sounds the same. you really have to do something special to pull off creating a song that is just composed of a pad synth, i didn't hear anything special. i do however enjoy we own the sky. you just don't like pitchfork because arrogance and snobbery don't amuse you on any level or you have deep seeded issues that i am not going to guess at here.

i read pitchfork reviews, but i also end up reading spin, rolling stone, paste, urb and remix... maybe you just need to learn to appreciate different perspectives, but oh no, your right, it's pitchfork's fault for having an opinion.

Sonicifyouwantit
04-17-2008, 10:45 PM
ii also end up reading spin, rolling stone, paste, urb and remix... maybe you just need to learn to appreciate different perspectives, but oh no, your right, it's pitchfork's fault for having an opinion.

FILTER

dorkfish
04-17-2008, 10:50 PM
http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/article/feature/10279-guest-list-david-cross-albums-to-listen-to-while-reading-overwrought-pitchfork-reviews

humanoid
04-17-2008, 11:00 PM
I read Pitchfork all the time, but quite often it pisses me off

paulb
04-17-2008, 11:20 PM
I only read Blabbermouth, Consequence of Sound and here for music news.... I cant stand Pitchfork...

digitalface
04-17-2008, 11:25 PM
Why are you such stuck up pricks? Do you honestly believe that what you say is right or even relevant for that matter? All you do is either A.) suck a bands cock off until it cums in your face because you like the way they wear trendy bright colored clothes and play minimalist or "avant garde art rock" nonsense

or B.) dismiss a band as horrible, talentless, effortless, unoriginal, worthless, cheesy, blah blah blah without even giving it a good chance because it's trendy to be a critic and talk shit about musical talent even though you most likely wouldn't even know the first thing about strumming a guitar, touring non stop, or pouring your soul into your music

last but certainly not least, YOUR ARTICLES ARE FUCKING BIASED. you're horrible at reporting and talking about bands because you're all trendy indie hipster fucks who have some bullshit standard that somehow onlyyou have the knowledge to determine whether it's good enough or not. fuck off

Ummm... everyone has a right to express an opinion. You have the right to ignore it or not. That's the beauty of it. You even have the right to express your displeasure with it. However, you react as if they have some obligation to be an authority. HAHA.

Grow up.

mountmccabe
04-17-2008, 11:33 PM
Pitchfork puts out a large quantity of high quality reviews of a significant length.

Yes, you sometimes have to read through the attitude and ignore the rating but other than that it's a great resource.

I like AMG and Scaruffi impresses me to no end but I find I disagree a lot with the former on favorite songs/albums when I know the artist well before checking AMG (though for artists I'm barely familiar with I tend to agree more, which tells me that their reviews tend towards the disposable and superficial approaches to the music) and Scaruffi can only do so much on his own; his well thought out and referenced reviews tend towards the short side, there aren't enough of them and they're not as timely as those from Pitchfork.

Actually mostly what I do for new stuff is check Metacritic and click for any full reviews that seem like they're actually going to give me an idea what to expect from the album. In situations like this don't care if somebody likes an album or not; I want to know if I will like it.

digitalface
04-17-2008, 11:36 PM
Agreed. The key, here, is to recognize the Pitchfork do not have any RESPONSIBILITY of opinion. As with any resource, you have learn the leanings and decide your place with regard to them. It's pretty inuitiive stuff.

Believe at your own risk.

bmack86
04-17-2008, 11:58 PM
Why is John consistently the most intelligent person on this board? Pitchfork reviews are frequently good if you ignore the annoying, pedantic writing that they use. The reviewers have good taste, and the best new music is an excellent guide for good new releases coming out. They aren't perfect by any means, but they're a review site, and no reviewer is perfect. Allmusic has the same problem, although I feel that they skew towards being too friendly to artists, and Scaruffi interests me to no end, but I disagree with his reviews so frequently that I can't use him as a guide.

Hannahrain
04-18-2008, 12:03 AM
I just wait for John and Bmack to review other reviews so I know which ones to read.

wmgaretjax
04-18-2008, 12:49 AM
what i was directing this to was to some of the writers who are very arrogant and snobbish, and outride rude to artists that put their whole heart into making a record/song. just because it doesn't live up to their opinion doesn't mean the band should fall off the face of the earth.

You're right, we should keep bad music around to soothe people's egos.

jazzz
04-18-2008, 01:25 AM
XLR8R kids!!!!

HunterGather
04-18-2008, 01:38 AM
I don't really read their reviews, but I'd have to say they serve as somewhat of a central source of the news I get for acts I like.

They don't really tune me on to new acts.
Theres so many people they report on that I don't know of or care to know of. Not to say they are shit music, but I just haven't got the time unless friends of mine tune me on to them.

But it's a nice little hub for info on sheeit.

This forum would come 2nd as far as doep info is concerned.

SoulDischarge
04-18-2008, 05:14 AM
The only thing worse than writing for Pitchfork is bitching about Pitchfork. Honestly, it's a damned good site. Five new record reviews, news, one feature/interview/column/guestlist/etc, and highlight tracks and videos are posted every weekday. That's an excess of material to cover. I sure as hell can't keep up. And because they're elitist snobs, you can actually trust their recommendations. Like someone else before said, allmusic, while infinitely useful, is 'too friendly' towards bands. Overwrought and incomprehensible they may some times be, I get the impression that most Pitchfork writers know what the fuck they're talking about and are genuinely enthusiastic about music. I don't think they go around looking for records to be disappointed by, they just have high standards, which in the era of message boards and blogs filled with 'OMG this is the best/worst thing I've ever heard!!!!1' for every album that drops, it's good to have some kind of well-considered filter. Take it with a grain of salt and you'll get a lot out of it. Pitchfork's probably why I know about half the bands on this year's Coachella line-up and why I'm super excited for at least 15 bands a day. Not to sound like a PR tool or anything, but it's worth defending.

C DUB YA
04-18-2008, 07:02 AM
Why is John consistently the most intelligent person on this board?

He just types that way

luckyface
04-18-2008, 08:49 AM
Even their news is biased, and more often than not ganked from other sites. Every now and then they will have a nice piece of exclusive material to write about, which keeps me coming back.

BlackSwan
04-18-2008, 11:14 AM
URB pretty much said the same exact thing about the M83 album btw...

http://www.urb.com/reviews/cd/feature.php?ReviewId=572