Why is Pitchfork taken seriously?
It's not. It's a joke in the patrician scene
It isn't.
dumb tripfag! nobody takes them seriously
>>60388957
Two different writers there, buddy.
>>60388961
>in the patrician scene
>>60389703
That excuse sort of falls apart when the same site hosts opinions 80% different on the same bloody record.
>>60389703
>T-Two different writers t-there, bud
>Same publication
>8 point difference on a 10 point scale
>T-They're still c-cool
Go to bed, Ryan.
>>60389749
People aren't allowed to change their mind? Aren't allowed to admit that they were wrong? Fuck you. And fuck you for making me defend p4k because you're a bunch of irrational cunts.
>>60389806
They weren't wrong.
>>60388961
dude can prease be partt of yur sceen
>>60389806
it's not that they cant change their mind, it just solidifies the point that their opinions dont matter at all
>>60389749
>album reviews have to be agreed upon by committee
get bent
>obsessing about the point score
sad
look if you read something stupid on the site then fine, but criticising it because one of its writers liked an album and one didnt is ridiculous.
>>60390067
If you knew anything about p4k you'd know why this is such a great example of their nonsense and irrelevancy.
Their scores do go through a vetting process. And their scoring is political. Just look at what happened with Benji.
This is without even mentioning the review in question. Going from a review score of below a 1.0 to the updated score of an 8.6 is absolutely ridiculous. Unless in the written review he tore apart the initial reviewer (not gonna happen since it was the site's founder) they have no business changing their critique so drastically.
0.6 is basically saying it's one of the worst albums of all time while 8.6 is saying it's one of the best albums the new reviewer had reviewed that year.
Basically, Pitchfork is a joke and you should stop defending them.
>>60390398
This desu
Nobody takes them serious and if they do they try and do it ironically so nobody can notice
the only thing that annoys me about pitchfork is the fact that no Queen album is over a 9 but fucking tame impala and of montreal have +9s its pathetic
Is it possible they were giving the reissue process itself a high score not the music
>>60390688
But if you hold them accountable for their opinions polishing a 0.6 is akin to polishing a turd.
You couldn't give a full point lower of a score without breaking the scale.
Funny how people use Pitchfork's changing scores as "proof" of how bad a publication they are.
Not only is the history of music criticism riddled with examples of albums getting panned or ignored on their release only to be appreciated later, every single active music fan has numerous stories about albums which grew on them over months or even years.
>>60390398
>Just look at what happened with Benji.
????
>>60391062
>????
>>60390767
it's more of the process how how it's done, lad
>Not only is the history of music criticism riddled with examples of albums getting panned or ignored on their release only to be appreciated later
they normally have some sort of cult fanbase, like Pinkerton per example
>every single active music fan has numerous stories about albums which grew on them over months or even years.
they should have reviewed the album after they listened to it several times, so it can grow on them, you fucking dipshit
they've done this with so many albums
they did it to Belle & Sebastian because they were furious that they got 'too clever for their own good'
they did it to Sun Kil Moon, swapping their positive review of Universal Themes for a mediocre one after he insulted one of their journalists
Pitchfork has slowly transformed from a group of sneering, self-indulgent 'critics' to a corporate machine that manipulates its readership's consumption of media in the interest of the record companies.
>>60388957
This album is a 10 whatsoever
>>60391090
Do you mean Universal Themes?
>>60388957
those visual changes on the reissue are awful, who approved that?
>>60391107
>they normally have some sort of cult fanbase, like Pinkerton per example
Often, yeah.
>they should have reviewed the album after they listened to it several times, so it can grow on them, you fucking dipshit
But.. that's exactly what they did.
>>60390494
Queen is not good though.
Neither is Tame Impala, I'll give you that.
>>60391624
>Queen is not good though.
Prove it.
>>60390398
Not saying Pitchfork isn't mostly trash now, but some albums are just extremely polarising. I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing for two reviewers on the same site to have opposite views.
>>60391624
In your subjective opinion
>>60391762
Well, that was a given
>>60391624
>Queen is not good though.
why are people so offended by the hype Queen gets?
>>60388957
You never change your opinion?
You must be a sad guy...
>>60391624
>queen
>not good
have you even listened to a night at the opera and queen 2
I find it funny that you didn't comment on the of Montreal score though
>>60389857
no ones opinions matter
>>60390494
Filtered.
>>60388957
Filtered
>>60391624
>Queen is not good though
You need a tripcode.
>>60392334
>>60392320
Okay, I should have phrased that more as "not worthy of more than an 8" (in my subjective opinion, of course) more than "not good"
>why are people so offended by the hype Queen gets?
Well obviously on places like /mu/ and r/lwg it's going the opposite way, but the obnoxious and totally clueless Queen fans do exist, and can turn indifference into dislike.
>>60391107
Are you like 16?
>>60392425
fair enough
>>60388957
>taking ANY reviewer seriously
Listen and decide for yourself whether it's good or not. Why is that so hard to understand? Jesus fucking Christ.
