Pitchfork 2.0/10 (1999)

>Pitchfork 2.0/10 (1999)
>8.7/10 (2017)

what did they mean by this?

Other urls found in this thread:

pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/5804-pretty-hate-machine/
pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/14890-pretty-hate-machine/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

>reviews are 18 fucking years apart
>different people reviewing
>hurr durr why is the score different

You literally can't be this retarded.

Re-scores of all Mars Volta and Tool albums when? Maybe now they'll score them properly instead of worrying that they aren't hipster enough

But shouldn't Pitchfork exercise some editorial consistency?

they do, they are consistently pandering to trendies

they grew up

Still cunts

>ppl can't change their mine
man u need 2 grow up

The reviews they're truly ashamed of they've deleted. Also some albums simply age better than others. I Get Wet is a good example.

But this album hasn't aged well or worse... it sounded good yesterday and sounds good now. They just were afraid of appearing as edgy teenagers back when they were obsessed about KID A

>they
you mean the original reviewer?

it is clear that they had a bias against certain type of rock music back then. I don't think the same reviewer was the one behind Mars Volta or Tool's albums (or any NIN album until Ground Zero, where suddenly he was respectable again)

they were fags afraid of not appearing hip enough. The mask is now dropped because now they're the mainstream

I think changing the review of an old album is fine.

But it could and should be done so much better.
They should start by at least acknowledging the old review. Talk about why or what has changed since then that has merited the change. You could even, if possible, bring in the old reviewer and have a conversation about if they also think the old score was misguided. The old review should also remain accessible, maybe it link it at the bottom.
You know make it more than just another review.

They became bad at reviewing music.

Yep this is what I was thinking. It's kinda awkward just jumping straight into to it without acknowledging any prior effort

This just proves there's no dumber group on this board than the people who bitch about pitchfork but keep going to it

pitchfork is a meme and you should feel bad for falling for it

Idk how many times people have to explain this, but that's not how p4k works. They decide on a score as a publication and pick someone to write a review based on that score. It doesn't matter who writes the review because the score represents the views of the site, not of the author.

>being this spooked

guys
everybody changes
look at me
i used to be tiny

>ive never disliked an album only to like it later

The people here are fucking retarded.

Because it's 10/10

Pretty Hate Machine 2006 reissue - 5.6: pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/5804-pretty-hate-machine/

Pretty Hate Machine 2010 reissue - 9.5: pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/14890-pretty-hate-machine/


AGENDA: CONFIRMED

But pretty hat machine is really good. What's the adgenda here?

also they've changed how they've rated albums. It used to be that the reviewer would pick the score for himself. Now, it's just the average vote from the P4K staff.

I'd revisit the review too if this faggot gen-xlord was placed in charge of the original review.

2006 PHM reissue was a cash grab by tvt which Reznor never endorsed and went out of his way to bash.

The Fragile was actually terrible though, they were right the first time.

Nothing wrong with changing your mind, but the fact that Pitchfork deletes their old reviews.

pitchfork doesn't review music, they review how cool an artist is. Trent in 1999 was a musician for 15 year olds. Trent in 2017 is an oscar-winning composer. The music didn't change, his status did.

who gives a fuck about Pitchfork