Which Music Website Makes You Want To Spew? - Music

Guest

I've just discovered that if Pitchfork doesn't like a band no matter what they do they would never give them 8.0+ ratings. And they always give 7.0+ to Schreiber's favourite bands. Although they pretend to be heralds of new obscure music, for the most part they are dismissive of new bands or albums that won't be deemed to be offshoots of Pitchfork. They mainly just review albums from a limited set of record labels and if you go deep they are just arbitrary.

useless

meccalecca wrote:

YES! Did you know my blog post is on their wikipedia page for uncovering that crap about deleting reviews. A highlight of my blogging days.

That's cool to know! Probably their most hilarious attempt was deleting the 0/10 Zaireeka review. Now they are Flaming Lips fanboys/fangirls all of a sudden for the last 14 years. Laughing

meccalecca
Voice of Reason

Gender: Male
Location: The Land of Enchantment

tekin wrote:

I've just discovered that if Pitchfork doesn't like a band no matter what they do they would never give them 8.0+ ratings. And they always give 7.0+ to Schreiber's favourite bands. Although they pretend to be heralds of new obscure music, for the most part they are dismissive of new bands or albums that won't be deemed to be offshoots of Pitchfork. They mainly just review albums from a limited set of record labels and if you go deep they are just arbitrary.

There's a lot of circle-jerking going on there. They're friends with bands and labels, and that's where the attention goes a lot of the time. This industry is all about who you know. And they're not the only ones guilty of this.

As much as I hate Pitchfork for certain things (Ian Cohen being the worst of it all), I do appreciate their non-review stuff. I like that they've moved towards long form features and solid video content, when some other music sites (stereogum) are just posting click bait top 10 lists.

this is probably the most embarrassing this Pitchfork ever deleted
http://meccalecca.com/blog/2010/04/crit...s-edition/

ptaylor1989

Age: 34

tekin wrote:

I've just discovered that if Pitchfork doesn't like a band no matter what they do they would never give them 8.0+ ratings. And they always give 7.0+ to Schreiber's favourite bands. Although they pretend to be heralds of new obscure music, for the most part they are dismissive of new bands or albums that won't be deemed to be offshoots of Pitchfork. They mainly just review albums from a limited set of record labels and if you go deep they are just arbitrary.

Its unfortunate that the owner and creator, Schreiber, has that much power. There's a reason Pitchfork is so successful though. They know their audience and they pander that audience. As you know, the more obscure the music, the more obscure the audience. The more obscure the audience, the harder it is to target advertisements and generate significant income.

Every news aggregate has some sort of core readership to draw dollars from. Pitchfork is one of the reasons many of our favorite bands rocketed to the mainstream and their focus on certain bands reveals how powerful Pitchfork knows it is. The magazine's focus has certainly changed with the times. Wanna know why, just follow the dollars.

Overall, I agree with you and this is infuriating. Either this is journal ethics problem or their editors suck. I say both.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pitchfork_...ed_reviews
_________________
http://www.last.fm/user/ptaylor1989

meccalecca
Voice of Reason

Gender: Male
Location: The Land of Enchantment

ptaylor1989 wrote:

Overall, I agree with you and this is infuriating. Either this is journal ethics problem or their editors suck. I say both.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pitchfork_...ed_reviews

Wow. I had no idea that this got its own wiki page. It used to just be a small blurb on P4k's wiki page. I still get a massive amount of web traffic to my blog from the link on wiki.

it's bad journalism ethics. I've had twitter arguments with Shreiber about it in the past. He defended the re-writing of their Neutral Milk Hotel review by saying "they wanted to write a better review." The original review was actually very positive. just not a 10.0.

Needless to say, I can't imagine them writing about any music I release.

GeevyDallas
WATTBA

Am I the only one who doesn't care about the publications I don't visit?There's quite a few I dislike and would never get recommendations from there,but why would you want the opportunity to talk about them,especially if they 'make you want to spew'.Life's too short,listen to some Drake and forget about them.

meccalecca
Voice of Reason

Gender: Male
Location: The Land of Enchantment

DLGGLD wrote:

Am I the only one who doesn't care about the publications I don't visit?There's quite a few I dislike and would never get recommendations from there,but why would you want the opportunity to talk about them,especially if they 'make you want to spew'.Life's too short,listen to some Drake and forget about them.

I run a small label, and most of my friends are in bands or publicists for bands, so it's hard not to pay attention to that stay. I've seen bands I know get a lot of love from sites like Pitchfork and Tiny Mix Tapes, but I've also seen others completely torn apart. It can be really demoralizing for a young band.

Then there's this... Vice writing a ridiculous review about one of my bands, Unicycle Loves You, and going after me. I loved it.

"The label rep for this band is named Jonny Leather, and this band just SOUNDS like the sort of band that WOULD have a label rep named Jonny Leather. I could fart marbles against a tin sheet and sound better than this. Come over and test that theory if you want. Bring Jonny." —Vice

Guest

And wait for a 6.5 (or less, at least definitely not higher than 7.0) for upcoming (leaked) CocoRosie album (Tales of a Grass Widow) from Pitchfork.

meccalecca
Voice of Reason

Gender: Male
Location: The Land of Enchantment

tekin wrote:

And wait for a 6.5 (or less, at least definitely not higher than 7.0) for upcoming (leaked) CocoRosie album (Tales of a Grass Widow) from Pitchfork.

Cocorosie might be due for a 9.2 from P4K. It'll attract more attention to the site. Otherwise, it'll be in the 2.0-5.0 range.

Guest

meccalecca wrote:

Cocorosie might be due for a 9.2 from P4K. It'll attract more attention to the site. Otherwise, it'll be in the 2.0-5.0 range.

But honestly that's a great album (I'm listening to it now) but considering past ratings for their albums it doesn't seem that they care for their music (for whatever reason) and this great album will be neglected because it's CocoRosie and we've given em 3s and 5s so give this one 6.5 because it's an improvement but maybe the point of exhaustion of their talent.