Pitchfork Discussion

[Revolution909]

Taste makers OR career breakers?

Self-absorbed ramblings for directionless, tasteless hipsters OR legitimate and essential music resource?

Have your say!

Here is where I hope you'll join me in discussing both Pitchfork as a whole and also specific reviews and features (past and present) on the site.

Do you use Pitchfork as a music resource? Do you trust their judgment? What is your opinion on their writing style? Do you agree or disagree strongly with a particular review of theirs?

[Puncture Repair]

Pitchfork is a decent enough start to get people listening to new music. I think they have a heightened opinion of themselves, but that just comes across in their way of writing. I really like how they review a lot of less known stuff, though.

It's created a lot of sheep. I wonder if My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy would be held to prestigiously among fans as it is now if Pitchfork hadn't gone and given it a 10, especially when earlier review gave it just decent to good scores. No other critics seem to have that power in the music community, and I feel like that's a problem.

[Patman360]

I guess Pitchfork is good for getting into music, I've never really used it myself though and have only ever clicked onto the site once or twice, must have a proper look around it and gather my thoughts. Started with Rolling Stone and ended up on BEA after that, I get enough recs from here to keep me going.
_________________


2023
2022

[Dingerbell]

I think Pitchfork's fine for getting new music, but it's not really essential. I reckon that they play far too safe in giving out high scores, often giving BNM to either well-established artists or, frankly, artists who are quite boring. There's only a handful of BNM that aren't indie rock which, seeing as the genre is not as strong as it's been in past years, makes me think that Pitchfork aren't really moving on from their original target audience; they hardly ever give BNM to metal or hip-hop artists, for example. And, whilst they used to give 10's or high 9's, that has pretty much stopped completely, which makes me question whether they are too cowardly to fully endorse an album from newer artists- again shown by them really only giving high scores to artists with a few other releases in them.

[newbands1]

It seemed like every other rock publication(Rolling stone,Spin,etc.) were forced to follow suit some time during 2004-6 to cover those bands that they didn't even recognize back when Pitchfork first covering them and giving them attention.Correct me if I'm wrong but which other site had praised many of the now classic albums when they first came out initially?(Ágætis Byrjun,Since I Left You,Yankee Hotel Foxtrot..) .Nowadays it's a different matter.

[revolver94]

I definitely still use Pitchfork a lot, not as much as I used to though. If not for the reviews, it's cool just to keep up w/ music news and upcoming releases that I might not have heard about otherwise.
_________________
My top songs of the 2010s
and
Spotify link

Last.fm

[Revolution909]

[RepoMan]

Unless you have time to listen to every album ever made and have a musical appetite bordering on Skinny's, music critics and sites like Allmusic, Pitchfork, The wire, Spin, Under the Radar, Paste, and here are essential at separating the wheat from chaff. Since every site has a bias, BEA being no different, I typically check out albums that are given strong reviews from several sites first. Since I'm into indie rock, I do find that my tastes align (at least in the remote past) with Pitchfork's the best. (I've been in a relative musical cocoon these past five years so not sure that's still true.)

I've discovered countless awesome bands, albums and singles from Pitchfork's reviews, lists, and book. it's definitely taken the place of Spin since its inception as my go to source for "alternative" music.

The Wall is awesome.

[meccalecca]

Pitchfork is a music publication that eventually has to answer to the higher power of advertising revenue. Over the years, I've personally clashed with Pitchfork. I know some P4K writers, I despise some P4K writers. But to their credit. They're doing a much better job than most publications out there. RS is garbage. Spin had a chance until they got rid of a few great writers. NME is trash. NPR is good for certain things. Pitchfork does some things really well, and some things really poorly. The video content, interviews and advance album streams (along with the overall design of their website) are great. The music festival is incredibly well run with some good lineups. The reviews can be vile, pretentious heavy-handed jibberish. They definitely play is safe compared to when I first discovered P4K like 15 years ago. What I like most about Pitchfork is that they aren't baiting with bullshit lists and picture galleries (Stereogum). They've recently ditched the Tracks section to focus more on long form journalism, and I think that's respectable in a time period when most publications are just copy and pasting a press release and hoping that the bands direct their fans to the site to generate page views to make the advertisers happy.
_________________
http://jonnyleather.com

[RepoMan]