Pitchfork Media

[bcaie16]

What do you think of them? I know the get a bad reputation for being insanely pretentious for review. I get that but as a music new site they keep me informed on most of my favourite current bands and anything deemed as best new music I generally like. The review themselves are drivel, but I find myself on the site quite a bit. I agree more than I disagree, which is more than I can say for any comparable reviewing site.

[purple]

I use them for discovering recent music (and this site for discovering older music), so I'm on there every weekday checking for either (1) albums rated 9.0 or above or (2) new albums from bands I usually enjoy. Any album rated >/=9.0 I automatically buy, and I haven't been disappointed yet. It's a good source, with sometimes interesting interviews; just stay away from the reviews or columns

[bcaie16]

Agreed you can't go wrong with an album 9+... with the exception that I believe there has only been one this year (James Blake's new one). I might be mistaken though.

[Wombi]

http://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/9464-shine-on/
http://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/111...ock-music/


I actually like some of their reviews. For the most part they come across as assholes but generally funny assholes. Also stuff they give good reviews to I genrally like about 75-80% of which is a pretty good ratio.

i think it's got to the point where it's cool not to like them and so people rip on them. But there's no way certain bands/albums would get anywhere near as mcuh exposure if not for pitchfork. And to be honest to some extent institutions like pitchfork (and it is practically an institution) help keep the album as an art-form alive.

Also I have to admit whenever they d a new feature (i.e top 100 albums of the decade etc) like a lot of people I wait with baited breath.

[bcaie16]

Their lists are perhaps my favourite part. And that is a great point about them being unpopular, as well as keeping the album alive.

[Applerill]

I like Pitchfork. Sure, they're a bit snobby, but they're better than basically any other source (other than here, of course ). However, I'm always surprised at what they end up actually reviewing. They miss out on enormous classics like Electric Wizard, yet they pay a ton of attention to these random mixtapes? Really?

[teacherman]

I use Pitchfork more than any other reviewer cause I find I agree with them more often then not. Not that I dont disagree with them a lot, but usually any album they rate as a 9 or better I will like.

[SquishypuffDave]

I like them. Although they've had their moments of awfulness:

The Mars Volta - Frances the Mute: 2.0
Tool - Lateralus: 1.9
Lady Gaga - The Fame Monster: 7.8
(the first two are by no means perfect, but they at least try to do something original)

Also, they haven't even once reviewed a Porcupine Tree album. What's the deal?

[Wombi]

[40footwolf]

It seems like somebody does this damn thread every few weeks, but regardless, not a fan. I use them to see if anything new looks interesting but I don't trust their reviews at all and I think the culture they further is somewhat absurd. Plus a lot of their interviews are usually good in spite of the reviewer. Did anyone read that Brian Eno interview from November? It was like, "Check it out Brian Eno, I'm just going to talk at you for a bit and not actually ask you that many questions, listen to my ideas please" but it was still wroth reading just because Eno is an interesting guy.
_________________
I love all music. It makes you feel like living. Silence is death.

-John Cassavettes