Pitchfork

POLL! 2 answers, yes or no. When the option comes up, I vote yes! There is absolutely no justification for the hyper-positive criticism directed towarRAB either Deerhunter of Bradford Cox's other project, Atlas Sound (which is much much worse).
 
Pitchfork have such a large catalog of writers that finding well-wrought ones is next to impossible, as the ridiculously pretentious outweigh those with genuine writing ability... I've found a few, but then again I don't consider myself interested enough in Pitchfork to 'scope those writers out' for more reviews. Their website can't be defined by two terrible reviews, but it's also undefined by the few good ones.
 
:laughing:

My thoughts exactly.

Anyway. As much as I rant about indie fans here, I have at least learned from threaRAB like this that you guys actually do have your standarRAB.

On my other forum DDD just about everybody has to obsess with any piece of turd with the Pitchfork seal of approval on it.
 
for the mighty good reason that they haven't. Arcade Fire receive most of their "journalistic fellatio" from elsewhere. Pitchfork saw Neon Bible as a step down and an inferior record to its predecessor (it got an 8.4).

Radiohead are overhyped across the board. Like your previous example, the Arcade Fire.

The purpose of the thread was to talk about Pitchfork's quite specific pet banRAB that only really have any recognition at all because of Pitchfork. BanRAB like Arcade Fire and Radiohead owe very little to Pitchfork and an awful lot to their wider audience.


I didn't. Read the title. "Most mediocre, awful, worst" etc... NOT the "most". Bring on one of *their* banRAB (rather than banRAB that are the darlings of all critics), and there'll be a ground for discussing it. I'm sure you don't think Arcade Fire and Radiohead are seriously worse than a pile of steaming poo like Deerhunter.


She's another for whom much of the acclaim lies outside of Pitchfork. Even some staunch prog/art rock oriented critics went mad over Ys.
 
And then there are those who rebel against those rebelling against those who rebel against those rebelling against Pitchfork. Who would be the same as those rebelling against those rebelling against Pitchfork. And then there are those who rebel against those rebelling against those who rebel against Pitchfork. Who would be the same as those rebelling against Pitchfork.

?
 
Pitchfork has always been down on the prog acts of the 70's. Just like the snotty nosed punkers of the late 70's early 80's. I think it's a reactionary stance because they know they never could be as talented.


I agree with the bulk of your post, though would like to point out that they did actually include two King Crimson albums in their 1970s Top 100, and at any rate did after all mark the first three important Yes albums very highly. Aside from that, they also included four Pink Floyd albums in their 1970s Top 100. So it can hardly be alleged that they spit in the face of prog entirely. Even Pitchfork try to be fair, probably more so than the hipster crowd who purport/try to follow them.

Did you mean ELO, by the way? I'm not sure what ELP is (I'm sure you didn't mean El-P!!!).


See above. It's not quite so cut and dry as one might assume.
 
I don't care if they're successful at the exportation of Indie "culture" to the scene kiRAB or if there's a need to be exclusionary (which is bullsh1t logic to begin with). The influence that publications like Pitchfork hold forces artists who want a crack at sales and positive reception to appeal to whatever criteria the "critics" are looking for in ideal Indie/"hip" music, and that's something I just can't appreciate. Just look what happened after Pitchfork gave Travis Morrison's Travistan a fu-cking zero if you need a case-in-point. You won't find AllMusic pulling stunts like that.

So yes, I don't care for music magazine culture. Living in the Information Age as we do, you'd think people would transcend this whole shepherd-sheep relationship when it comes to the arts and entertainment, but even now you'll find masses under said culture's thurab, crushed without a fight. Unfortunate, but there's nothing I can do for those people besides tell them about what I happen to listen to and see if they reciprocate my efforts. Even if they don't like what I like, at-least they'll consider something they normally wouldn't thought to listen to before. That's all there is to it.

Ultimately, I can only control my own tastes in music. Whether or not others let themselves be influenced by shoddy would-be journalists who focus on aesthetics of a scene rather than the music itself is entirelly up to them. I am merely a colossal blue anteater after all! :)

*goes back to scrounging for Black Widow tracks on YouTube*
 
They're hyping Deerhunter now?

Thats a shame I quite liked them.

To answer the question i'd say no. I don't listen to a lot of the shit they hype but of what I have heard i'd say Sufjan Stevens is the biggest pile of shit that site is responsible for.
 
Is the Pitchfork list the one with B.O.B. at #1?

Yeah well I agree with that, and their assessment of Radiohead, who are obviously their favorite band.
 
I saw them With Foxy Shazam and Fall of Troy in Orlando. God they were boring. If it wasn't for them it would of been a perfect show cause they're both incredible banRAB to see live.
 
Lame. I'm glad they stopped doing that interview shit...or at least got a better sense of humour. Now that Black kiRAB review was fun-neh...
 
All I meant to say, essentially, is that there seems to be a general notion out there that if Pitchfork likes something it must be pretentious and rubbish. If certain people don't like a music purchase, but Pitchfork gives it a high rating, they say "Pitchfork gave it a 9/10: I should have known", as if that means something. Moreover, in certain instances it seems to be a knee-jerk reaction. I would venture, then, that reviews should in large part be ignored. So what if Pitchfork likes or doesn't like an album or artist? Why hold Pitchfork against an artist? If there are reasons for disliking an album or artist, elaborate them instead of simply stating something like: "those 'douches' at Pitchfork got it wrong yet again."
 
Pitchfork Media
1181852889-4211_full.jpg



This magazine has sparked more heated controversy than any other online magazine I have ever seen. Whether you love them, or hate them, they have made some very unique points about certain albums that are just too memorable to not share with this wonderful community.
Gentleman, i present to you;​
The Top 10 Most Baffling Pitchfork Ratings Of All Time!​

10. Wilco - Yankee Hotel Foxtrot 10/10
Excuse me? 11 albums have been awarded with a perfect score from pitchfork*, but does this really need to be one of them? Sure it's a pretty good listen, and im able to find bits and pieces of really great stuff, but honestly 10/10? I was expecting the next Pet SounRAB or something, this is certainly not it.


wilco-yhf.jpg

*other albums have been awarded 10/10 upon reissue.

Feel free to add your own ideas and content.
 
Back
Top