Topic: what the hell is wrong with pitchfork (Read 17487 times)

FreshJive787 · « **on:** 13 Sep 2006, 22:11 »

i really hate pitchfork, my friend brought this to my attention.

http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/article/record_review/38447/Justin_Timberlake_FutureSex_LoveSounds

8.1 for a fucking justin timberlake CD? they gave ratatat worse, i really hate their editors.

so question, does anyone even care what pitchfork has to say anymore?

nuisance · « **Reply #1 on:** 13 Sep 2006, 22:35 »

Don't even look at the ratings, the editors have said long ago they treat them as a joke and encourage their reviewers to do the same.

That review of the Timberlake album is great, IMO: really descriptive, well-informed, and passionate. Did you think it was badly written? What would you prefer to see in a review?

I should say upfront that Tim Finney's one of my favourite writers on the web, I'm glad he's stepped beyond his blog into some paid (I guess) gigs. I don't always agree with his opinions, but he's exciting to read... and, to be honest, I'd definitely rate the new Timberlake album more highly than stuff like Ratatat.

I also really respect the editors for apparently broadening the remit of the site. Things like those "month in dancehall" and "month in dubstep" columns are really good ideas, IMO.

All that said, I probably only take a look at Pitchfork every 6 months, because its main focus is still American indie, which I largely don't give a shit about.

ALoveSupreme · « **Reply #2 on:** 14 Sep 2006, 00:09 »

They also gave the Destiny's Child Greatest Hits CD a great review. Pitchfork is ridiculous and if you really take it seriously, there's something wrong.

That being said I love Justin Timberlake and have yet to hear the new album.

Skittish · « **Reply #3 on:** 14 Sep 2006, 03:46 »

You realize a pop album can be good, right?

I'm more disappointed at the Black Keys (6.0) review.

Inlander · « **Reply #4 on:** 14 Sep 2006, 04:45 »

Another month, another Pitchfork-bashing thread. Managed to work Justin Timberlake in there, too. GET OVER IT, PEOPLE. PLEASE.

Kyros · « **Reply #5 on:** 14 Sep 2006, 08:06 »

I always enjoy reading a Pitchfork article only because they really are very well written. You can't take them too seriously though, I mean christ it's just a friggin record review.

And cmon, for all you know that Timberlake record could be amazing, willing to be you haven't listened to it correct?(Niether have I, just saying)

Lines · « **Reply #6 on:** 14 Sep 2006, 08:45 »

Quote from: Skittish

You realize a pop album can be good, right?

I'm more disappointed at the Black Keys (6.0) review.

pop can be good. i like it every once in a while. i had a TA 2 years ago who taught one of my studio classes who loved justin timberlake. the class was going to chip in and buy it for him for christmas, but since we didn't tell him, he ended up buying it himself. we listened to it in class. (i don't really like what timberlake talks about in his songs, but he is talented.)

the black keys thing is sad. those guys are amazing.

ImRonBurgundy? · « **Reply #7 on:** 14 Sep 2006, 09:17 »

Pitchfork hates Jawbreaker. So fuck 'em.

Praeserpium Machinarum · « **Reply #8 on:** 14 Sep 2006, 09:31 »

I used to have a lot of animosity towards Pitchfork but now that I am more zen I do like tommy. I ignore them.
That said, that review is actually pretty decent.
The cd might be good(despite the ridiculous name) but I really think Timbaland should shut up and stick to making funky beats.

Quote

Don't even look at the ratings, the editors have said long ago they treat them as a joke and encourage their reviewers to do the same.

Then why do they have them? I write for a music mag that has no ratings and it works brilliantly. A number says little about the music and when that number is just a joke...

thermodynamics · « **Reply #9 on:** 14 Sep 2006, 09:58 »

pitchfork can be bad but it can be good as well.

i don't have time to keep up with everyone who releases a cd, so once every week or two i'll go to pitchfork and see what came out. most of their reviews i don't agree with, but if they praise something or say it is interesting, you can go to amazon (or the like) and listen to 30 second clips to see if it is agreeable or not. The last ten or so albums i bought have been because of reviews someone had written (not just pitchfork) and i listened to clips and fell in love.

Pitchfork reviews pretty much everything i am potentially interested in listening to, so if nothing else, you can treat it as a resource for raw info.

pat101 · « **Reply #10 on:** 14 Sep 2006, 10:36 »

Quote from: thermodynamics

pitchfork can be bad but it can be good as well.

i don't have time to keep up with everyone who releases a cd, so once every week or two i'll go to pitchfork and see what came out. most of their reviews i don't agree with, but if they praise something or say it is interesting, you can go to amazon (or the like) and listen to 30 second clips to see if it is agreeable or not. The last ten or so albums i bought have been because of reviews someone had written (not just pitchfork) and i listened to clips and fell in love.

Pitchfork reviews pretty much everything i am potentially interested in listening to, so if nothing else, you can treat it as a resource for raw info.

exactly

Johnny C · « **Reply #11 on:** 14 Sep 2006, 10:46 »

You can also check out alternative review resources like Stylus (although i'll warn you that they find kitschy or campy or just plain shitty pop artists as delicious as Pop Tarts) and Tiny Mix Tapes.

Mnementh · « **Reply #12 on:** 14 Sep 2006, 11:10 »

The lesson here is that obviously if you don't like something personally it can't possibly be good.

KharBevNor · « **Reply #13 on:** 14 Sep 2006, 11:26 »

You could just not read online music zines.

:O

Spinless · « **Reply #14 on:** 14 Sep 2006, 13:06 »

What's pitchfork?
Oh, that. Yeah, I'm indifferent about pitchfork.
But you know what I DO dislike?
People who bitch about pitchfork.
Pitchfork the anti pitchforkers.

Kai · « **Reply #15 on:** 14 Sep 2006, 15:35 »

Quote from: Praeserpium Machinarum

Quote
Don't even look at the ratings, the editors have said long ago they treat them as a joke and encourage their reviewers to do the same.

Then why do they have them? I write for a music mag that has no ratings and it works brilliantly. A number says little about the music and when that number is just a joke...

Dude

No

You expect me to actually read your reviews? Give me stars so I can skim over that entire section plzkthx

Gryff · « **Reply #16 on:** 14 Sep 2006, 16:07 »

Let's look at a few things that Pitchfork is:

- a bunch of folks writing about music that they like (or dislike)
- fairly popular
- influential in letting people know about new music
- a bit elitist and/or esoteric

Now let's look at what Pitchfork isn't:

- The be all and end all of music journalism on the net
- Something that everyone must agree with and read daily
- The second coming of Christ
- The devil incarnate

Overall I would give Pitchfork a 7.6 out of 10.

Spartan Pho3nix · « **Reply #17 on:** 14 Sep 2006, 16:29 »

Quote

I always enjoy reading a Pitchfork article only because they really are very well written. You can't take them too seriously though, I mean christ it's just a friggin record review.

Read the Kid A review then get back to me. Please.

Gryff · « **Reply #18 on:** 14 Sep 2006, 16:50 »

To be fair, man, Kid A is a very good record, so a 10.0 score is not out of the question. The review itself is fairly masturbatory in places, but whatever -- if you can't take one man's over the top rant about an album that he obviously loves, then go take a swim in Rolling Stone's sea of 3 star reviews.

Most importantly, Kid A was released six years ago. This is an old review on a site that has come some way since then.

So please explain to me how reading this Kid A review proves (a) that Pitchfork articles are not well written, (b) that they must be taken completely seriously, or (c) that it is not "just a friggin record review".

ruyi · « **Reply #19 on:** 14 Sep 2006, 16:59 »

Quote from: Gryff

Let's look at a few things that Pitchfork is:

- a bunch of folks writing about music that they like (or dislike)
- fairly popular
- influential in letting people know about new music
- a bit elitist and/or esoteric

Now let's look at what Pitchfork isn't:

- The be all and end all of music journalism on the net
- Something that everyone must agree with and read daily
- The second coming of Christ
- The devil incarnate

Overall I would give Pitchfork a 7.6 out of 10.

i disagree with what you say.

therefore i really hate you now.

Gryff · « **Reply #20 on:** 14 Sep 2006, 17:04 »

Potential new topic: "what the hell is wrong with ruyi"

Overall I'd give ruyi a 0.14781 out of 10.

Slick · « **Reply #21 on:** 14 Sep 2006, 17:19 »

Fuck. I had something funny to say, but I forgot it when I read what tommy just said.

Off-topic, one problem with pitchfork is that it's written by people. Silly people, who may or may not be trained/have a degree, who give me an amateurish vibe from the whole site. But this is old news.

Gryff · « **Reply #22 on:** 14 Sep 2006, 17:52 »

What the hell man. I am worth way more than sheep out of cheese. Where did you get that score from? Your own ass?

does anyone even care what tommydski has to say anymore?

Johnny C · « **Reply #23 on:** 14 Sep 2006, 19:26 »

I'm giving your ratings a six, Tommy.

Lines · « **Reply #24 on:** 14 Sep 2006, 20:02 »

i give it a knitted robot sock.

Lines · « **Reply #25 on:** 14 Sep 2006, 20:02 »

i give it a knitted robot sock.

ImRonBurgundy? · « **Reply #26 on:** 14 Sep 2006, 20:38 »

i give it a knitted robot sock.

Kai · « **Reply #27 on:** 14 Sep 2006, 20:46 »

El Opium · « **Reply #28 on:** 15 Sep 2006, 19:32 »

Out of cheese means you're a fictional computer whose interface doesn't work anymore.

happybirthdaygelatin · « **Reply #29 on:** 16 Sep 2006, 04:39 »

They probably feed in stats from one of the european premiere football leagues into one of those 1950s era cabinet sized computers that then prints out next weeks stock predictions which then are randomly assigned to albums based on a merit system devised by a drunk in an alley of Glasgow.

ComfortEagle · « **Reply #30 on:** 16 Sep 2006, 10:50 »

I think this Pixies review is my favorite ever.
http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/article/record_review/20894/Pixies_Pixies_at_the_BBC

Slick · « **Reply #31 on:** 17 Sep 2006, 01:15 »

Man. I like pitchfork now. They get an 'amusing' out of 'my mood right now'.

jeph · « **Reply #32 on:** 17 Sep 2006, 16:14 »

Pitchfork is a tool for finding out about music, just as any other music review site is. If you don't like their opinions/writing style/whatever, don't read it. I am pretty sure that bitching about it on internet forums simply provides PF's editors with chuckle-fodder.

I get most of my new music by browsing OiNK nowadays anyway.

PS: The "month in techno" column is excellent.

Garcin2 · « **Reply #33 on:** 17 Sep 2006, 16:51 »

<3 OiNK. The amount of awesome music on their Top 10 lists is awe-inspiring (lot's of crud there too, but still).

jeph · « **Reply #34 on:** 17 Sep 2006, 17:56 »

Yes. We read that the first time.

Will · « **Reply #35 on:** 17 Sep 2006, 18:31 »

Quote from: ComfortEagle

I think this Pixies review is my favorite ever.
http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/article/record_review/20894/Pixies_Pixies_at_the_BBC

I wholeheartedly second the awesomeness of this review...granted, the only Pixies album I've ever heard is Doolittle, which I bought because the song Debaser is referenced in the liner notes on a Pig Destroyer cd, but still...the review brings teh lol....

nuisance · « **Reply #36 on:** 17 Sep 2006, 18:44 »

Quote from: jeph

PS: The "month in techno" column is excellent.

The thing I like about those "month in..." columns is they're written by external writers who come in and know their shit, not just some indie fans who are dabbling or whatever.

People like Philip Sherburne, who does the techno one, and Dave Stelfox (who does the dancehall one) are reeeeally well regarded writers who write for all kinds of decent print magazines, including Britain's über-nerdy Wire mag.

If you have an interest in techno but want to dodge Pitchfork for whatever reason I'd totally recommend Sherburne's blog. Actually and Tim Finney's, mentioned above. He's got a much more pop-centred take on what's essentially some pretty inaccessible and fucked up music. Actually that's probably more offputting for most rock fans... Whatever.

jeph · « **Reply #37 on:** 17 Sep 2006, 19:03 »

I love Sherburne's taste and writing. He's actually in a book written by my two favorite music professors from back in college (Dan Warner and Christoph Cox). I will have to bookmark that blog of his, it may be the one music blog I can read without wanting to burn the internet down.

PS Tommy you cannot get the last word when I can lock threads and you cannot.

jeph · « **Reply #38 on:** 17 Sep 2006, 19:44 »

I rate your sarcasm a fish out of six possible kinds of sea life.

Mikendher · « **Reply #39 on:** 17 Sep 2006, 19:56 »

I rate this thread a bagel out of a bagel with cream cheese

jeph · « **Reply #40 on:** 17 Sep 2006, 20:20 »

This gives me an idea for a more-fun thread, actually.

nuisance · « **Reply #41 on:** 02 Oct 2006, 06:50 »

They've just put up their best review ever!

Valrus · « **Reply #42 on:** 02 Oct 2006, 15:44 »

Wow, I wonder what Metacritic's gonna do with that.

Johnny C · « **Reply #43 on:** 02 Oct 2006, 16:31 »

I think the plan will probably involve medals and fellatio.

Gryff · « **Reply #44 on:** 02 Oct 2006, 16:32 »

Haha, Jet suck.

The Eyeball Kid · « **Reply #45 on:** 03 Oct 2006, 03:58 »

Thats a perfect description of Jet.

They gave the new Hold Steady album a 9.4. I haven't heard it yet, but if its anything like the last two Hold Steady albums that score is probably inflated by like one or two points. If it results in more people hearing the greatest band on earth, i'm happy and so i'm happy with them.

I don't work for Pitchfork or the Hold Steady or anything. I just love THS to death.

Patrick · « **Reply #46 on:** 03 Oct 2006, 04:31 »

Coming late into this thread, but here goes.

Guys, the deal about any half-decent review group is that they don't compare the Justin Timberlake album to every other album in the world. They compare the Justin Timberlake album to other Justin Timberlake albums, as well as other albums in his genre. While I think that just about everybody is better than Justin Timberlake, he's one of the better pop acts out there (if there even is such a thing, but that's just my opinion).

Basically, what I'm saying is that it is absolutely impossible to compare Tupac to Pink Floyd, or Simon and Garfunkel to Insane Clown Posse. It just does *not* work.

nihilist · « **Reply #47 on:** 03 Oct 2006, 06:24 »

Hey, the new JT album is decent listening!

Spinless · « **Reply #48 on:** 03 Oct 2006, 08:54 »

Hey Mike, still listenning to Blink 182?

nihilist · « **Reply #49 on:** 03 Oct 2006, 09:25 »

THESE FORUMS NOW CLOSED (read only)

Author Topic: what the hell is wrong with pitchfork (Read 17487 times)

nuisance

Skittish

Praeserpium Machinarum

thermodynamics

Mnementh

Spinless

Spartan Pho3nix

El Opium

Garcin2

nuisance

Mikendher

nuisance

The Eyeball Kid

nihilist

Spinless

nihilist