Pitchfork BTFO
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /mu/ - Music
You are currently reading a thread in /mu/ - Music
>>63504821
dang he's pretty butthurt
not a supporter of pitchfork but these criticisms are puerile
He's right of course, but he's stating the obvious as if he's preaching hitherto unheard truths.
Anybody can see that pitchfork is shit without this guy's input
he's probably awful
>>63504838
>>63504860
>Butt hurt fork holed pitchfags who
>>63504821
>i am a poor man
get a job u bum
>>63504821
p4k sucks, but his points are even worse
>>63504821
how did they tear him down?
hahaha the guy who makes tired soul music is talking about relevancy
who is this guy
>>63505006
>>63504931
>>63504915
>he doesn't get it
>>63505065
There is nothing to get. He is a stupid loser and so are you
>>63505128
Ok keep sucking pitchforks dick
DRONE
R
O
N
E
Who gives a flying fuck what Willis Earl Beal has to say on any subject. Talentless hack
Is it pitchfork at fault or pitchfork's readers?
Or perhaps nobody is to blame for doing the things they naturally do.
lmao I've only been to pitchfork like 3 times in my life but it sounds like this guy made some shit music and won't accept it
All this pitchfork luv making a nigga feel like he at a haystack convention for real lmao
lol fuckin savage
>comparing music review scores to slavery
What a prick
maybe his music is just that bad
>>63504821
Everyone already knows this about p4k
>>63504821
Why does he care so much?
dudes right
>>63507583
Why do you care about why he cares so much?
>>63507644
Because music reviews have always existed and always will and he should just focus on his music and not let such mundane shit get to him like this. Since he seems so mad, it's safe to assume he's butthurt over a review or comment from Pitchfork. That immediately invalidates his whole statement.
>>63504821
this faggot thinks hes cool because he found a dictionary
I'll admit, i've been pretty disappointed by this guy's recent output, but every word of that is true and deserves a standing ovation.
>>63507772
why do you care so much lel, he's right
>>63504821
>Calling himself non-conformist
>Calling anyone vampiric
Did this guy just turn 15?
Literally who??
Meh, idk. Yeah, agree with the capitalism er whatever.
But people critique music. That's good. Yes, it's subjective. So is Pitchfork's rating system. That is their subjective score for an album.
What is wrong with that? Think it's arbitrary? Then don't read Pitchfork, read another source. Or don't read any music criticism at all. It doesn't matter. But I fail to see what Pitchfork is doing wrong.
Sure, there's elitism, snobs, etc. But they DO create something. It IS art. Maybe Mr. Beal thinks it's bad art. So he shouldn't care about their opinion then.
Is Pitchfork really trying to manipulate popular music? Are they trying to decide what's cool and what isn't? Their scores definitely do affect that all, for sure. But aren't they being genuine too? Are they not scoring albums what they genuinely regard them as? Sure, there's money that gets in the way of things. There's politics that get in the way of things. Pitchfork isn't pure. But I think most of their reviews are probably pretty genuine. I don't understand what's so wrong about Pitchfork or other music blogs. Someone's gotta do it. And some blogs are going to excel. He just sounds mad at music criticism, mad at people having an opinion and a platform to spread their opinion and affect people's purchasing decisions.
It sucks for him, but Pitchfork didn't do anything wrong.
>>63505499
>gets told
>better call them drones
yep
>>63510096
>Is Pitchfork really trying to manipulate popular music? Are they trying to decide what's cool and what isn't? Their scores definitely do affect that all, for sure. But aren't they being genuine too? Are they not scoring albums what they genuinely regard them as?
yes, yes, no, no
How old is this? Pitchfork's last review of this guy is from September.
>>63504821
these self-absorbed cunts only criticize the structures that support pitchfork when they get a bad review
>>63510140
Idk, I've found a lot of great music from Pitchfork and other blogs that I never would've found otherwise. So I'm a fan on Pitchfork for that reason. Of course there's an issue with scores and people only checking out releases that are scored highly. But that's their fault, not Pitchfork's imo. I don't see anything wrong with a scoring system.
There's so much fucking music out there. You need someone to curate some of it for you, whether it's a blog or a label or a friend. And all of that 'manipulates' popular music. Who cares.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willis_Earl_Beal
never heard of this guy, but his wikipedia page is so long that it seems like it was written by him
also, as someone who played on an album that p4k reviewed, lemme tell you the word that's gone around:
one person from p4k writes the review, while the numerical score is averaged out from a handful of p4k writers' scores. mind you, this is what i've heard from a friend who has been rated highly (the record i played on was numerically panned but the write-up was kind)
>>63510269
>>63510096
>>63507772
top lel
p4k staff in full effect
