Pitchfork

Thoughts on pitchfork as provider of reviews for albums. They have well written and thought out reviews for most stuff. I don't think they cover very obscure stuff that some of you might like but is it Sup Forums approved?

Other urls found in this thread:

pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/6656-kid-a/
web-beta.archive.org/web/20041028143714/http://www.pitchforkmedia.com:80/record-reviews/b/belle-and-sebastian/boy-with-the-arab-strap.shtml
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

>is it Sup Forums approved?
Fuck no. It's literally the worst thing to happen to music since Mtv.

Mtv gave us jackass and pimp my ride all p4k gave us is pretentious reviews and white guilt

they didn't give this a 10/10 so fuck em

I liked their earlier reviews - some were pretty clever.
Now the reviewers just go out of their way to sound verbose.

Could you please elaborate. am noob

pic related?

...

it was a good indie rock website, now it hires people who are embarrassed by the genre, so its shit.

Pitchfork definitely buys into and pushes hype and buzzbands a lot. High scoring albums in the #1 slot on their daily reviews usually fall into this category.

That said, there are plenty of times they've introduced me to good albums, usually in the #2-#4 slot. The sweet spot is an album that's 8.0+, no BNM, in the #2-#4 slot. Those tend to be great for whatever reason, probably because the score isn't inflated by hype or clickbait.

They were okay up until about five years ago. The founder has always been a cunt though.

One of their worst issues is deleting old reviews that don't fit the current zeitgeist. You know how Andrew W.K.'s 'I Get Wet' is a classic party album? It was panned originally by P4K but they gave it a 'best new reissue 'a couple of years back.

also read this epitome of trash
pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/6656-kid-a/

It's like something from ledditr

That panned review wasn't deleted though, it's still there. Or is your issue that they shouldn't have a different view on something 10 years later?

I know some of the older reviews by writers no longer there were removed when Conde Nast bought p4k because of some legal issues they could run into.

I do agree that they got into a revisionist mood when things get reissued that they originally panned but everyone else ended up liking a la Andrew WK, I think American Football, Daft Punk - Discovery, shit like that.

I used to read it all the time but now every time I look at something that isn't a review I see some bullshit man.

And even the review are full of bullshit too these days.

Indie rock is dead anyway who cares.

Pitchfork is an agenda-driven joke of a website.

They've deleted reviews in the past.

The original Melon Collie and the Infinite Sadness, The Boy With The Arab Strap, The Cure, Hail To the Thief

I know, I was saying your example was wrong.

Though HTTT was because Chris Ott demanded they take all of his old reviews down. But yeah they've sneakily deleted or adjusted plenty of old reviews and scores.

Yeah, all of Chris's reviews were taken down for some legal reason he told them about via Twitter I think. He did put all of them up on his medium page if you want to read them.

Here is an example of a deleted review
web-beta.archive.org/web/20041028143714/http://www.pitchforkmedia.com:80/record-reviews/b/belle-and-sebastian/boy-with-the-arab-strap.shtml

It's kinda shoddy if you ask me.

What are you trying to prove, I was agreeing with you

I wasn't trying to prove anything to you, I was just digging it up so others can see

Reminder that absolutely nothing changed when p4k got bought by conde nast
p4k has been equally shit long time before that

A relic of the past.

Pitchfork used to the be the tastemaker, but with the fading of the Indie Rock scene into the abyss, combined with the ownership of Conde Nast and the rise of Pop and Hip Hop as the Zeitgeists new driving force pushed it into a wider market, but a market that already had enough occupants.

It doesn't really serve a purpose anymore.

And that's not getting into it's pushing of political agendas and poor quality writing.

Oh ok, this is Sup Forums so I assume all (You)'s are telling me to go to hell

The best deleted review is the racist one where Ryan is roleplaying a retarded black old timey jazz guy

Their retrospective reviews and journalism about older music is pretty solid. Their top 100 70s, 80s, 90s lists introduced me to a lot of good stuff.

I don't trust them much when it comes to new music though. Like most music sites try hard to be "hip" which means dick-sucking trap and R&B, and just generally giving 9.0+ to albums that are pretty bland

That said, I still glance through their 8.0+ reviews section when I'm looking for new artists to check out

>That said, I still glance through their 8.0+ reviews section when I'm looking for new artists to check out
I do this too. If they give it an 8.0+ I feel like it's at least worth 5 seconds of my time to listen to a clip.

I agree. They've been shit for a long time now. I was only pointing out why some reviews got deleted. Their revisionist ways have been around for a while and are most likely just there to keep them relevant.