[Boards: 3 / a / aco / adv / an / asp / b / biz / c / cgl / ck / cm / co / d / diy / e / fa / fit / g / gd / gif / h / hc / his / hm / hr / i / ic / int / jp / k / lgbt / lit / m / mlp / mu / n / news / o / out / p / po / pol / qa / r / r9k / s / s4s / sci / soc / sp / t / tg / toy / trash / trv / tv / u / v / vg / vp / vr / w / wg / wsg / wsr / x / y ] [Home]
4chanarchives logo
Why does everyone hate pitchfork so much? I've never surfed it.
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.

You are currently reading a thread in /mu/ - Music

Thread replies: 53
Thread images: 5
File: images(2).png (9 KB, 225x225) Image search: [Google]
images(2).png
9 KB, 225x225
Why does everyone hate pitchfork so much? I've never surfed it.
>>
blacked
>>
the people who claim to hate it browse it the most.
>>
>>63545514
it's a popular music publication which itself isn't inherently wrong

but for some reason their opinions are weighted more than anyone else in the industry
>>
>>63545655
Thanks
>>
They rate everything on a scale from 1/radiohead
>>
>>63545514
Read one of their reviews and you'll understand. It's just a bunch of pseudo intellectual taste maker bullshit
>>
>>63545514

People will always find their excuses to hate Pitchfork, mainly because it's historically been seen as the gatekeeper for underground music breaking into the mainstream. This isn't as true as it was, but the impression remains, and people want to make it clear that their taste isn't dictated by what Pitchfork ostensibly "decides" is trending. This has shifted a bit in recent years due to the site's increasing emphasis on Hip Hop rather than indie rock, allowing this wariness to blend with the whole "sjw cuck" thing.
>>
>>63545514
Retards put it on a pedestal when it's just as bad as NME or Rolling Stone
>>
>>63545514
shit, cat
>>
>>63545514
I'm following their twitter for the 5% interesting shit they post.

Sad that 50% of it is basically Rihanna/thewekend/drake/some other shit
>>
File: vlcsnap-2016-03-20-02h29m03s446.png (495 KB, 1280x542) Image search: [Google]
vlcsnap-2016-03-20-02h29m03s446.png
495 KB, 1280x542
>>63545514
- superficial reviews that focus on the artist's popular image more than their music
- little to no knowledge of theory, so writers often rely on vague adjectives and awkward attempts at creative writing rather than musical discussion in their reviews. This makes their classical and jazz reviews embarrassing to read
- news coverage focuses on petty gossip, feuds, basically reads like a supermarket tabloid
- the general tone of ironic and jaded detachment is irritating
- blatantly promote artists because of their ethnicity and political views
- give an excessive amount of attention to commercial pop music and hip hop
- create an excessive number of listicles in order to generate ad revenue
- often reward loyal artists with a generous review in exchange for their continued support of the Pitchfork brand (appear in their media, play at their concerts, lengthy interviews)

I think some of their longer articles which focus on genre subcultures or record labels and their interviews with musicians are occasionally interesting. For a long time their Best New Music usually had some music that I was unfamiliar with and glad to be introduced to. They are good at identifying potentially popular pop musicians before they have any real clout in the industry. But I don't like their opinions about modern music, I don't like the way they express their opinions, I don't like the people who work there, and I don't like the website as a whole. I used to read it often in my freshman year of college but overtime I moved away from it. I don't think I've read it for several years now
>>
It's shit but at least it isn't allmusic
>>
What sites do you use?
>>
>>63545514
it's shit, even fantano is better
>>
it's objectively better than rolling stone or nme
>>
File: GIu4KlUt.png (18 KB, 400x400) Image search: [Google]
GIu4KlUt.png
18 KB, 400x400
just read TMT already, you dinguses
>>
>>63546994
>shit is objectively better than vomit
>>
>>63545514
Because they can make or break a career. They've panned some absolutely genius work but will praise pretentious bullshit that only people with autism like.
>>
>>63547267
This. I don't hate what Pitchfork say, I don't care, but I hate the relevancy they hold.
>>
>>63547215
vomit is better than shit tho
>>
>>63548069
they're both shit
>>
>>63545514
The Gawker of music

I hope they go bankrupt as well
>>
>>63545514
Sputnik music is much better
>>
P4K does not review albums based off of merit, but social trends and whatever will get them the most money at the end of the day.

That is why people hate them.
>>
This is why

http://pitchfork.com/thepitch/710-the-unbearable-whiteness-of-indie/
>>
>>63548195
hi
>>
i'm kinda curious if i'm the only one who does this. i don't really read pitchfork's reviews either because they're masturbatory drivel (and often way too generous, as has been said). i mostly go there just to see what's out. say what you will about their analysis, but they cast a pretty wide net that sometimes catches good music. am i alone on this?

also, does anyone have any rec's for sites like pitchfork?
>>
>>63548261
hello
>>
>>63548270
you seem to have made a bit of a mistake in your post
>>
>>63545514
Because they are pretentious as fuck and know nothing about music. So them having opinions about something they dont understand is laughable.
>>
>>63548237
wow, never saw this before. really awful.

"While Hanna has, historically, played with sarcasm and irony in her lyrics, her work has never been derided as a joke, her lyrical critiques have been taken as just that. M.I.A. and Heems, however, are often subject to bad press for this same approach--press that paints them as attention-seeking and caustic. The feel-good feminism of white women earns infinitely more respect in both the artistic and 'real' world as evidenced by their prominence and visibility; making art about your experience of racism is seemingly much less acceptable, cool or "punk"."

Kathleen Hanna also never had a viral song with lyrics exclusively about pizza hut and taco bell.
>>
File: 1443993658912.jpg (6 KB, 209x204) Image search: [Google]
1443993658912.jpg
6 KB, 209x204
pic related is the only critic who matters

>inb4 assblasted Beatlesfags
>>
I don't hate them, but going back and changing reviews is pretty suspect. They orginally gave ITAOTS like an 8 something and went back and gave it a 10. They've done that with multiple albums.

I also hate how they slurp shit rap music. Okay, kanye west or young thug, whatever, but their obsession with gucci mane in the past or waka flakka completely devalues their opinion on most other music. Most of their writers are probably white so most have no idea what the fuck they're talking about.
>>
I knew that if I lurked long enough i'd live to see /mu/ turn on The Fork.
>>
>>63549098
Pitchfork and Noisey have a weird fascination with trap and trap culture.
>>
File: three_minute_ditty.jpg (75 KB, 386x236) Image search: [Google]
three_minute_ditty.jpg
75 KB, 386x236
>>63548768
Maybe if we're looking for opinions on age-of-consent laws...
>>
>>63549098
I'd listen to Flocka before any young thug or kanye garbage
>>
Exactly why P4K sucks, by based as fuck Chris Ott:

https://youtu.be/W_n4MROE6Ok
>>
>>63549206
Yeah I agree. Noisey fucking loves trap music as well too. I don't get it. It's like their writers are these old timers that are like, "Hmm, what do the kids nowadays like? What about Riff Raff?!!!" The people that enjoy trap are not fucking going to pitchfork or noisey most likely. They are too busy doing molly and going to some shit club in their small hometown they never left.

>>63549292
Flockaveli was a great album. Anything past that has been shit. Young thug has a few good songs and Twisted Fantasy, Yeezus and Graduation are great. If you disagree then you're a pleb.
>>
Their reviews are very poorly written. Personally when it comes to a music blog, I don't give a fuck what their tastes are. If they dislike an album I like or like an album I dislike, I still get something out of it. With pitchfork however, whether I agree or not, I get nothing out of any of their reviews and I've never actually found new music from their site.
>>
>>63549435
they're all fucking garbage, flocka just gets me pumped
>>
its the internet ages equivalent to MTV

it is no longer cool and about the music at this point. but it probably never was
>>
read the new review of Boosie Badazz and you'll figure it out

they literally justified murder and drugs because of survival in black neighborhoods, but in the same breath condemned the word "retarded"
>>
>>63549502
This is why I don't like their site, their reviews are unreadable trash.
>>
>>63549502
whats a better alternative then
>>
>>63549789
I've found some good stuff from TinyMixTapes. Also just look at some amateur music blogs, no doubt some of them will still have better writing than pitchfork and will also probably be more appealing to the average listener and less biased in general.
>>
>>63548768
i'm a huge Beatles fan and scruffy is the best critic imo
>>
>>63549789
Tinymixtapes
COS?
The AV Club?
PopMatters?

fuck if i know
>>
P4k is SJW of music.
>>
>>63549435
White middle class Americans get a strange trip out of experiencing crime and the trap lifestyle second hand. It's funny to see Brad from Indiana talk about that new Young Thug was "fuckin lit senpai".

It also annoys me how Noisey always send that geeky scrawny cunt with the thick rimmed glasses into Atlanta and shit.
>>
ITS GARBAGE MUSIC PROMOTERS
KENDRICK LEMAR AND KANYE SUCK
>>
>>63549312
BASED OTT. Fuck Pitchfork.
Thread replies: 53
Thread images: 5

banner
banner
[Boards: 3 / a / aco / adv / an / asp / b / biz / c / cgl / ck / cm / co / d / diy / e / fa / fit / g / gd / gif / h / hc / his / hm / hr / i / ic / int / jp / k / lgbt / lit / m / mlp / mu / n / news / o / out / p / po / pol / qa / r / r9k / s / s4s / sci / soc / sp / t / tg / toy / trash / trv / tv / u / v / vg / vp / vr / w / wg / wsg / wsr / x / y] [Home]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content you can contact me at [email protected] with that post and thread number and it will be removed as soon as possible.
DMCA Content Takedown via dmca.com
All images are hosted on imgur.com, send takedown notices to them.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from them. If you need IP information for a Poster - you need to contact them. This website shows only archived content.