Why does Pitchfork think that they can review classical music and jazz?
bc they are a music review publication, and both classical and jazz are forms of music.
>>60352695
Just to be clear, how much classical or jazz do you listen to?
>>60352688
>cantaloupe
Guess what I'm Ĺistening to
>>60352697
>just to be clear
nice.
Why do people care about what reviewers, from any site, publication, youtube channel, have to say?
>>60352688
>does (followed by) they
Why _does_ OP think that he can start a thread?
>>60352708
>>60352713
Just to be clear, how much classical or jazz do you listen to?
>>60352716
Just to be clear, how much classical or jazz do you listen to?
Most of that review was just describing the album and circumstances leading up to it, so to call it a review is pushing it.
On the one hand, clearly this person didn't know how to write about the recording and just gave it a fairly good score to make it look like they knew what they were talking about.
On the other hand, I guess it could help people get into modern classical music even if it's only because the drummer from Wilco is on it (who is actually a great composer/percussionist I think his sensibilities are really what pushed YHF into best of the decade lists). So as much as /mu/ likes to keep things hidden from everyone I guess I appreciate their branching out, I just wish they had writers who knew what they were talking about.
>>60352705
*sploosh*
>pitchfork
>>60354808
>I just wish they had writers who knew what they were talking about.
This. Pitchfork reviews aren't music reviews, they're analyses of celebrity image mixed with an undergrad's attempt at creative writing. Most writers at Pitchfork know nothing about theory and do not play instruments, so they write "reviews" that are really just mediocre poetry rather than an analysis of the successes and failures of the music.
This is what allows them to hire so many minorities and women and push so many socially progressive articles -- knowledge of music is not a requirement for writing about pop music. If you can drop pop culture references and read Wikipedia, you're good for Pitchfork
>>60356420
>This is what allows them to hire so many minorities and women
What are you trying to imply here
if a random /mu/ or rym asshole can, why can't the fork?
>>60356447
I'm not trying to imply anything, I'm stating very clearly that women and minorities are not hired at Pitchfork for their knowledge of music.
They only review jazz and classical from meme labels like cantaloupe or artists like Arvo part
>>60356710
Neither are any of their writings, not sure why you're singling those groups out
>>60356780
Because I don't like them and I feel that they are associated with bad writing and a lack of knowledge about music theory
>>60356846
Um, alright. Lol
