I have no reason to read pitchfork, it wouldn't be fair to take the survey, as much as I want to just to choose 'suck suck suck' as all the answers. They don't have any news and when I have read reviews I felt that they were either horrifically biased in the wrong direction or made the person writing them to come across as being a complete and total bastard.
I feel they could improve by sacking half the staff and replacing them with people who love their local undiependent music scene, giving less coverage to overhyped bands, cutting out the unfair criticism of lesser known artist, acknowledging that their reviews can make or break an albums sales and then using that power to good effect, leave their personal vendettas outside the workplace, acknowledging the skeletons in their closet and admitting that 'at the time, we didn't know what the fuck we were talking about, but we DO like them now', not deleting things that could result in a backlash from their archive because as far as I'm concerned, it makes them no better than holocaust deniers.
At the moment, I can't think of a positive thing about pitchfork, other than that they "know a lot of people". Is that a good thing I can say about them?
I wish I could do what Johnny C did and give them something constructive, but I am of the common belief that the Pitchfork staff is comprised mostly of self serving pricks that...
Actually, I will do what Johnny C did, kinda I'll write them a letter explaining why people hate them and what they could do to fix that. I can afford to send letters now you guys, I found 50p.
Note: Just because Pitchfork are total whores and aren't worth a damn doesn't mean you shouldn't check out the bands they give coverage.
