Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Jackie Blue]

Whether you hate Pitchfork or REALLY FUCKING HATE Pitchfork, you have to admit, they try to be taste-makers.  They scored a major win by calling Broken Social Scene way ahead of the curve; insufferable douchebags they may be, but apparently even insufferable douchebags can recognize good albums every now and then.  They've managed to ride the wave of Hipsters Lovin' Hip-Hop pretty well, and have successfully pushed godawful crap like T.I. on middle-aged whiteboys with sweaters who haven't used the word "bitch" since the last dog show they attended.

But, alas, every now and then Pitchfork tries like Hell to sell something and it just doesn't fly.  Plenty of people dig Tapes 'n Tapes, but they've hardly become the massive sensation the Pitched Ones so stridently tried to get them to be.

In another thread I mentioned Annie, and it got me thinking - "Damn, I wish that ploy had worked."  Seems like no matter how much positive press they gave her, she just never became Kylie Minogue For Hipsters.  Which is a damn shame, because she actually is as good as they said.

Who else have they failed on?

[KharBevNor]

Everything.

[salada]

^ ^ ^

plus ten predictable response.

I don't really read Pitchfork, so that's about all I've got here.

[SeanBateman]

I was going to say everything, but this works instead

[Storm Rider]

I am not even remotely surprised two people said 'Everything' immediately in response to this topic.

But we haven't had a good old-fashioned 'bash Pitchfork' thread in a while, I guess.

[alexalexalex]

What the fuck is pitchfork, and why would anyone listen to its opinions?

[Jackie Blue]

I don't like Pitchfork - most people don't, it seems - but the fact is that it is very influential.  I think it's more fun to discuss it than to just dismiss it by saying "It sucks".  It's more complex than that.  It doesn't JUST suck, in the way that Rolling Stone's music coverage sucks.  I didn't want this to be a Pitchfork bashing thread, but rather, a discussion about the artists they get behind and try to advocate, whether it works or not.

[Slick]

They have some good stuff and some bad stuff. Most of their articles come off as being written by the amateur kid who thought that even though they got poor mark in high school/college writing, they're still good at writing and the system can't realize their genius.

They've given bad reviews to a bunch of stuff I like and good reviews to a bunch of stuff I don't, so I just don't really feel the need to read their reviews, but I don't bear them much begrudgement for it, I just don't read their stuff.

They are good at filling the niche they've found, and (to draw my grand generalisations) people like having a nice easy source of information. This is the only site you actually need to read if you want to find out about music.

[Jackie Blue]

This is the only site you actually need to read if you want to find out about music.

Not true.  Pitchfork misses a LOT of good stuff that's of the more experimental/obscure variety, which is why www.fakejazz.com is necessary.  Plus, they actually write useful reviews.

[Gridgm]

maybe it's true in the fact that it's reviews are inversly porportional to the quality of a given group

[Slick]

I was just trying to be silly. This isn't even a music review site, it's just a forum. Not that the music forum doesn't know stuff, but it's not a review site.

[Jackie Blue]

It's also pretty widely known that Pitchfork takes payola to bump their scores (*cough*Arcade Fire*cough*).

[KharBevNor]

I mean, really, my basic problem with Pitchfork is they do not have any articles about how The Sisters of Mercy are the best rock and roll band of all time.

If they would just fix that then maybe we could do a deal.

[Johnny C]

Anyone who has enough of a sense of humour about themselves to publish a brazen David Cross-penned mockery of their reviews can't be all bad, can they? Pitchfork really aren't the black-hearted monsters they're frequently made out to be. They make bad calls but honestly I've never read any publication, online or printed, that doesn't have at least one completely off-the-mark review in every new edition, All Music Guide included. If you're desperate for alternatives, read Stylus Magazine (which yours truly used to write for) and Tiny Mix Tapes, which just underwent a cosmetic overhaul. Music blogs like Said The Gramophone and Stereogum are also really useful. Pitchfork will still be in my bookmarks though.

[Gridgm]

i hate to point this out but i don't think they have anything on kerrang

[Johnny C]

Who don't have anything on Magnet, if you ask me.

[TynansAnger]

The main problem is their lack of perspective for what the rest of the music press thinks. For instance, they've had a falling out with the White Stripes, given bad reviews to both Elephant and Get Behind Me Satan, and on their review of the Raconteurs album said that "Jack and Meg had backed their sound up against a wall." Never mind that those albums had been at the top of just about every other critics list, that Elephant had made Rolling Stone's 500 greatest albums of all time, and that Seven Nation Army is one of the greatest songs of the decade. Isn't funny that they all of a sudden started hating on the White Stripes as soon as they switched to a major label?

[Storm Rider]

Seven Nation Army is a terrible song.

And what would be the point in them constantly agreeing with the rest of the music press? I've never read Pitchfork, but why bother visiting the site if you just want to hear what every other music site is going to say?

Also, Kerrang is a gigantic heap of shit. I'll use this cover as an example:



For review, the bands this publication deemed necessary to cover for one issue were HIM, Green Day, Fall Out Boy, Bullet for My Valentine, Metallica, Slipknot, Nirvana, and Blink 182. If you like Nirvana (which I don't), there's one decent band on that list and the others are all utter shit.

[elcapitan]

I mean, really, my basic problem with Pitchfork is they do not have any articles about how The Sisters of Mercy are the best rock and roll band of all time.

If they would just fix that then maybe we could do a deal.

You know, now that you mention it, this is a pretty big problem.

[Inlander]

I actually think allmusic.com gets it right.

I give allmusic (a.k.a. the Oracle) a massive amount of credit for not buying into the "Lester Young never recorded anything worthwhile after World War II" bullshit that gets spun by most so-called critics. But I'll resist the temptation to go off on a jazz rant . . .

To be honest, I don't have a problem with Pitchfork. Generally they review the albums I want to read about. Perhaps it's an Australian perspective, because generally down here we don't hear about the highly obscure American or British acts, and we don't expect anybody over there to have heard about, let alone write about, ours own tiny independent acts either: that's what makes them obscure local acts. So I don't get a sense of missing out on anything. Still, I don't read Pitchfork all that often. Mainly I stick to Cokemachineglow.

Complaining about Pitchfork irritates me, though. I don't often hear a complaint about it that I haven't heard a hundred times before. What's the point, guys?

[Hat]

I just read cokemachineglow's top albums of 2006 out of midnight boredom.

I cant fucking believe there is already a band called "The Horror The Horror"

Man, fuck that noise!

[ScrambledGregs]

I read Pitchfork everyday. Even if I don't agree with them--which is something you're going to run into on ANY music site or magazine--I hardly find them worth hating. The only real problem I have with them is that their scoring system is the height of idiocy.

[will: wanton sex god]

Here is a simple fix for those who don't agree with pitchfork completely.
DONT TAKE ONLY PITCHFORK'S OPINIONS.
READ OTHERS, FORM YOUR OWN, IT ISNT THE ONLY ONE YOU KNOW?

[IronOxide]

I never got music journalism, If I hear a band name that I haven't heard before, I will listen to them and form my own subjective opinion. I don't dislike Dashboard Confessional because it's not cool to listen to them, I dislike them (him?) because I don't like his sound and his songs.

Complaining about music journalism for being biased and subjective is like complaining about the sun for being bright.

[Chesire Cat]

You dont go to Pitchfork and take their views literally.  They are written highly opinionated in a stylised format.  Read the reviews they will give the pertinent data on the band and album, if you like what they say(agreement is unimportant), get the album, if you dont, dont get the album.  Its not an issue of agreeing or disagreeing with the review, its there fucking opinion, but pitchfork is usually kind enough to give enough information for you to form your own opinion without relying on the reviewers position.

Also, Tapes 'n Tapes deserve all the renown they can have heaped on them, they are truely great.  No I havent really seen pitchform tout them as the next big thing, but I dont consistently goto pitchfork and likely missed out on that 'spell'.

Pitchfork does give press to the major acts in hipsters acts, sure there might be stuff left out but get over it, they are still a major litmus test for everything indie and hip.  If it gets pitchfork press its either important to the scene or good enough to break into it.  And they bother with knowing who the fuck the last gen of hipsters listened to so when something like Sparklehorse releases another album, me, who doesnt give 2 shits about a band with a dumb name Ive never heard of, gets a little history lesson on why they deserve a review.

[Jackie Blue]

For the record, the only things I actively dislike about Pitchfork are that their reviews are nearly always horribly-written and not even informative (see: their review of Bardo Pond's "On the Ellipse" http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/article/record_review/15304/Bardo_Pond_On_the_Ellipse ) and that they seem to think the only mainstream music worth covering is mediocre rap (while they almost universally ignore all underground rap).

Oh, and they almost never review anything that is remotely industrial, and when they do (see: any Foetus review) they get so many facts wrong it's quite embarrassing.

[Inlander]

Complaining about Pitchfork irritates me, though. I don't often hear a complaint about it that I haven't heard a hundred times before. What's the point, guys?

Really? You heard someone mention that they are neglecting the scene in their hometown? Or that they are giving too much attention to bands on major record labels?
I have not heard anyone voice these views outside of a specific group of friends I have.

Tommy, you're confusing "don't often" with "never". I do try to carefully consider the wording of my posts.

However after a while a person becomes numb to complaints about Pitchfork: when everyone and their dog are indulging in the favourite indie-scene sport of Pitchfork baiting, worthwhile individual criticisms tend to get subsumed by the larger white noise.

[camelpimp]

I only really use Allmusicguide when I want to figure out about a band, and I don't follow any music publications. I'll be honest with myself; I'd prefer to listen to something made before 1990 then after, so current music mags aren't useful for me.

[Johnny C]

Man the points against Pitchfork being made here I don't agree with at all.

I think the "they don't seem to realize they live in Chicago" bit is a red herring. As an international reader I can honestly say that I would get sick and tired of reading about Chicago band after Chicago band, just as I would stop reading Exclaim! if it talked about nothing but Montreal bands, or like I would spit on copies of Spin if they started covering L.A. to the detriment of other scenes. I think if they do any more than tacitly acknowledge Chicago's place in the current alternative landscape then they place upon themselves either one of these two things:

a) the unfortunate burden of having to do a survey of every other pissant scene in the nation, OR
b) yet more cries of "they just don't get us anymore" from the average reader due to their exclusion of other musical hotspots

Christ knows there's enough going on in Regina that if they didn't cover my scene I'd be pissed. But they're not covering Chicago to the exclusion of other locales, so I'm not really concerned.

And I also disagree with your assertion that the last few years have had Pitchfork set ablaze by majors. If we take a sample of the last six years of their top ten albums, an entirely different picture is painted:

2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
And just for shits and giggles, the individual staff member lists.

If you're simply insisting they should cover lower profile artists, then what does Pitchfork have to offer that Stylus, Cokemachineglow and Tiny Mix Tapes, along with all the other independent review sites, don't? They already do cover artists who aren't as well known by a lot of people - feel free to waggle your culture-awareness dick at me if you know who this is, but I sure didn't. Frankly I wouldn't have bothered checking out Scott Walker's new album if it hadn't popped up in their top ten this year, simply because I didn't know about it.

I appreciate the balance Pitchfork attempts to have between smaller or lesser-known artists and the big ones like TVOTR (who, by the way, were already getting Pitchfork excited back when their Young Liars EP was released on Touch & Go). Just like I don't approve of people dropping their support for a band as soon as they hit a major, I don't approve of publications setting an arbitrary exposure limit at which they stop covering certain bands.

Pitchfork is the sort of publication that people seem to be constantly demanding more from. Give them a break and just know what it is you're reading rather than complaining endlessly about it.

[Jackie Blue]

Pitchfork is the sort of publication that people seem to be constantly demanding more from.

I hardly think it is unreasonable to demand that an influential music publication be factually accurate, informative and well-written.  Those are pretty much the three traits ANY publication should be EXPECTED to have, if it wants to be well-regarded.

I'm not buying the argument that Pitchfork knows its reviews are poorly-written.  The David Cross thing was just something they did so they could pretend to have a sense of humor.

Even if you like Pitchfork, it is undeniable that the number of factual errors they print is massive - they get things wrong that you could learn in a 60 second trip to freaking WIKIPEDIA.  (Jim Thirlwell is a "London musician", huh?  Let's see, he was born in Australia, lived in London between '78 and '83, and has been in Brooklyn ever since.  Yes, clearly he is an English musician.)

[ScrambledGregs]

The funny thing is, I think allmusic.com is fucking terrible, and I only go there when I cannot find any information on a band anywhere else.

Also, as per the Tapes 'N Tapes thing...I don't get why people think that Pitchfork forces bands down our throats. All they do is review and occaisionally interview bands they like. I didn't see them posting day after day about how great Tapes 'N Tapes for weeks on end. In fact I had forgotten all about Tapes 'N Tapes until some comedian guy released a video making fun of Pitchfork and Tapes 'N Tapes were in it, and I heard a clip of their music in it.

Tommy: I'm curious, what made old school indie zines, particularly their 'criticism', so great?? I very rarely read music journalism that I think is neither a boring personal opinion with no personality ("I like this album") nor a tiresome attempt at being critical and/or artsy (see basically any review Brent DiCrescenzo wrote for Pitchfork, and all of their music columns). In fact I think the only music journalist I've ever really loved is Lester Bangs, but it'd be hard to impossible to get away with the stuff he did in this day and age.

[Johnny C]

Man maybe I should start a Regina zine. I've read old-school rock criticism and honestly I love it a lot. It was overall great writing, not just reviewing. It would be cool to start something like that and have it fly.

There are valid complaints about Pitchfork to be made but I maintain that none of them are enough to have the severe hate-on that so many people have for them. Zerodrone, if you ask any honest editor whether or not their paper makes mistakes they will probably laugh in your face. Of course publications make factual errors. Open a paper and read the retractions. More important things get fucked up in the media daily than reporting that a guy lives in London when he doesn't live in London - watch out, here comes the key word - anymore.

[Inlander]

The only problem with allmusic.com is the response time: because of the sheer scope of the site, it can take a long time for reviews to pop up: for instance, to the best of my knowledge they still haven't posted a review on their section about Little Chills by Darren Hanlon, even though it came out in the U.S. about a year ago and was pretty much instantly reviewed by both Pitchfork and Cokemachineglow. If you're looking for a critique of older music, this isn't a problem; but if you want to know about an album that came out last week then you're better off with a smaller website with a narrower focus. I wouldn't go to Cokemachineglow to find out about an album that came out in the nineties, because it wouldn't be there: the site wasn't around back then and covering older stuff isn't part of its scope. But nor would allmusic be my first stop for reading up on a new release from a relatively obscure act.

[Storm Rider]

My only perspective on allmusic.com is that whoever does their metal reviews is an idiot. I can't be bothered to go through their site and pick out all of the semi-ludicrous reviews that have been given by that site to metal albums that I found once, but it was staggering. I'm pretty sure they gave like, one of Nile's best albums a star and a half or something.

It might be perfectly good for other genres of music, I wouldn't know.

OK, I looked. It was 2 and a half stars for Black Seeds of Vengeance. Maybe not quite as insane as I initially believed, but still ridiculous.

[Jackie Blue]

More important things get fucked up in the media daily than reporting that a guy lives in London when he doesn't live in London - watch out, here comes the key word - anymore.

The point is that Jim Thirlwell didn't even begin making music until several years after he moved to America.  That's why it's particularly stupid to say, in a review of a 2005 album of his, that he's a "London musician".

And yes, I know publications make mistakes.  But the kinds of mistakes made by Pitchfork are of sheer laziness and often make it clear that the writer is not actually familiar with the band/artist and, furthermore, couldn't even be bothered to do five minutes' research.  Those kind of mistakes are so bad, in a sense, BECAUSE of how "minor" they are - they're the kind of mistakes that any credible publication would almost never make, and PFork makes those kind of mistakes dozens of times a month.

As far as musical criticism, Tom Ewing is one of the only music critics I find actually entertaining to read.  www.freakytrigger.co.uk

[Johnny C]

Oh fuck, when Stylus dropped me I thought I'd never have to read the word "poptimism" again.

[Thrillho]

Complaining about music journalism for being biased and subjective is like complaining about the sun for being bright.

Well then good for me, because it's the writing that pisses me off. I was finding old Weezer reviews recently for some reason and I came to one for one of the recent albums. First of all, Make Believe was shit, but it was NOT a 0.4/10. Anyway, that's just doing what you hate there. My real point was the fact that, if the review was 500 words long (I can't remember how long it was) then 400 words of it was self-indulgent wankery about the author's own life and when they heard Weezer and all this bullshit. The reviews are almost entirely worthless outside of their scores, scores which I usually don't agree with anyway.

[Johnny C]

From the ranking albums thread:

How many albums has the band had out?
Do they have a good track record?
How does it compare to previous albums?
Is this new album something of an accomplishment for the band, or have you seen it all before?
Which band has the better music? Most talent? Nice production?
Choose little bits of each album that you don't like. Compare these to the little bits of the other albums you don't like.

With the exception of the last two, which are better for ranking than for reviewing, these apply directly to that Make Believe review (and honestly a lot of other Pitchfork reviews). Yet only one person deemed it prudent to pounce on Darryl while there are entire blogs to jump on Pitchfork for doing, essentially, the same thing. If you don't like the site, do what Tommy does and don't go there. If you could care less about advertising because you mentally filter it out and see fields of flowers and leaping bunnies and stuff like me where there are reportedly SuicideGirls ads at the top of the page or you let the occasional one in when it tells you that there is for example a new album by the Tyde that you didn't know about and you're now interested in because you liked their previous record, then feel free to go there. Or don't.

[Thrillho]

If you don't like the site, do what Tommy does and don't go there.

This just in: I don't. I was stating why this was the case.

[Chesire Cat]

So we're come to an agreement Indie snobs hate Pitchfork.  Everyone else is either indifferent or supportive.

[Hat]

I don't see what the problem with Pitchfork is. Sometimes I will launch into a monologue about the eating habits of Henry VIII while ordering dinner at a food joint and sometimes it is nice to realize that I am not the least concise person in the world.

[byebyepanda]

I've been coming to these forums for two years seeing lots of negativity towards Pitchfork and I still don't understand why. I mean I could understand disagreeing with a review but actually really hating the whole damn website and it's faculty? C'mon!

Don't get me wrong, a lot of their reviews are really harsh but that's their opinions. I don't know any other website that talks about the music I like and updates regularly.
They also have really good features like interviews and other junk like that. I guess Pitchfork doesn't bother me because I like knowing other people's opinions (whether they agree with me or not).

Anyway, what I'm asking, why is there so much negativity? Please in-dept :]

[Thrillho]

So we're come to an agreement Indie snobs hate Pitchfork.  Everyone else is either indifferent or supportive.

Indie snobs?

Khar? Someone who predominantly listens to crazy metal-related musc I've never even heard of?

Me? Someone who has a rampant obsession with Ashlee Simpson and also listens to hip-hop, folk, and God knows what else?

Indie snobs? Fuck you, man.

Your name is Cheshire Cat. If that makes you a blink-182 fan, that sticks me more in your group than in any 'indie snob' group.

[Jackie Blue]

So we're come to an agreement Indie snobs hate Pitchfork.  Everyone else is either indifferent or supportive.

Calling a person an "indie snob" is like calling a band "pretentious"; it says a lot more about the person applying the label than what the label is being applied to.

(I'm not an "indie snob", I'm a "music dork"; you know, the kind of guy who actually MEANS IT when he makes a list of "perfect songs" which includes entries from Bruce Springsteen, Front 242, Neutral Milk Hotel, and Run-DMC.)

[Chesire Cat]

Being a snob is discriminating towards something for a bunch of shitty reasons.

And Im not a Blink 182 fan.  Just to get that out there.

But if you dont like Pitchfork, pull a Tommy and just dont go there.  Makes sense to me.

*edit*

Musta hit quote not modify

[Johnny C]

I only take fault with your statements Tommy insofar as nobody ever seems to actually accept any of the counterpoints to the arguments against Pitchfork. It would be very hunky-dory if people would listen, but instead when I say "they have a sense of humour about themselves" it somehow gets warped into "they like to pretend they have a sense of humour about themselves."

Also Tommy I refuse to accept your argument. This is your exact post from earlier in the thread:

They like a lot of good music but the execution is dire. The reason I have a problem with this is there is only really room for one, as you say, 'influential' online music zine. It's a pity that the one we are all stuck with is run by a group of folk who, however well meaning they are, really cannot write about music. Also, their coverage now runs practically parallel with that of the mainstream press. One has to wonder what the point is.

As a news/interviews site I guess it is okay. The advertising annoys me a lot too if I'm completely honest.

It's not so much that you don't rate them as much as you actively dislike them and the way they operate their publication. As well you say that its non-review features are "okay" thus negating your conclusion.

Chesire Cat has a point, though I don't think he's articulating it properly. Arguing with people who don't like Pitchfork is completely and utterly ineffective because there's no point in trying to convince somebody who views their position as infallible that there might, in fact, be validity in the other side's position.

Me, I'm indifferent to Pitchfork. I read it, agree with some of it, disagree with some of it and wind up getting on with my life. My positions in this thread have merely come from a standpoint which does not view Pitchfork as the be-all and end-all of journalism but at the same time doesn't view it as The Great Indie Satan.

[Johnny C]

My argument is actually "no stance is infallible," and its associate is "it pays to take others' arguments into account." A big chunk of criticism against Pitchfork is that reading their reviews is akin to sitting in on one of the author's "private moments." Insofar as I can tell, this is an accurate and valid criticism. However those criticizing the publication are adamantly refusing to acknowledge or accept alternative viewpoints, which irritates me for two reasons. First, it's a poor way to hold any kind of debate; as well, the alternative viewpoints are equally valid.

Criticism of anything is vital. Without criticism there is really no drive to do better. However the difference between constructive criticism and verbally shitting on someone for no reason other than that's what you decided to do at the very beginning is something that was hammered at least into my brain rather vigorously throughout my school years. Perhaps it is different in other locales but I suspect not so much.

[Johnny C]

I would be more comfortable with that if I had seen, from you or anyone else, any concessions such as "Well, they are good at that," or "Ah, good point," or even, "I'd thought of that, but." Instead reading this thread there is a severe drought of active debate from point to point. When I addressed your complaint that they don't recognize the Chicago scene as much, I never saw an acknowledgement or a rebuttal. Similarly I made a counterpoint to DynamiteKid's complaint about their opinions on Make Believe and his response was to the part where I said "If you don't like Pitchfork, don't go there." I am upset that I am actually making an effort to further debate and it's essentially being ignored or shut down in favour of a pre-determined consensus against the website.

EDIT: Admittedly I am guilty of some of the same. Zerodrone made a point on the previous page that Pitchfork's mistakes are irritating because of how minor they are and how easily they could be rectified to be otherwise. It's a good point. It doesn't affect my overall judgement on their reviews (the reviewer that Kieffer pointed to on the previous page is allowed to view an artist's output as sounding "lazy," because God knows that I've heard half-assed records before) partially because it's the sort of error I'm inclined to make, yet I think I'm definitely better at evaluating music than I am at fact-checking.

Here is an example for you: When I first heard the debut record from The Dears, I had no idea that the lead singer was black. This had no effect on my value judgement of the music, either before or when I discovered this. (Admittedly this has an effect on a song on their new album, "Whites Only Party.") Similarly the revelation that he was married to the band's keyboardist did not tell me that "22: The Death Of All The Romance" was suddenly romantic. I had already reached that conclusion. A good evaluation of music should be able to tell you whether or not the music is any good beyond the facts of the artist's life.

[Thrillho]

Being a snob is discriminating towards something for a bunch of shitty reasons.

And what the hell does that have to do with 'indie,' or Pitchfork?

I don't see how 'I don't like the writing' is descriminating against Pitchfork. Or if I were, I don't see it as a shitty reason.

Johnny, I don't know what else you want from me. I can't think of anything that I like about Pitchfork. Maybe I'm biased because I write reviews myself, but there is not a single thing I like about Pitchfork. I don't think I've found a single review or point that I've agreed with. I don't think even the website layout is particularly interesting.

[Ben yayayayayayayay]

K I'll try and shift the attention back on the topic

I dislike Pitchfork for specifically 2 reasons (thus far):
http://pitchforkmedia.com/article/record_review/21809/Smashing_Pumpkins_Mellon_Collie_and_the_Infinite_Sadness

Because I like that album, and I hate them for not liking it

Also, they gave a 6.8 to "In the Aeroplane Over the Sea" when it first came out. Last year when the reissue was released, and Pitchfork had some time to see how big a fanbase Neutral Milk Hotel had gained, they changed the album's score to a 10. Mind you, nothing about the album had been changed (maybe they remastered it or something but that doesn't matter enough)


This page pretty much sums up why I can't understand most of the reviews they give also:
http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Pitchfork_Media