how come Pitchfork didn't review this album?
Because it's vaporwave trash and they don't review mu memes
>>63221678
>vaporwave
Someone didn't even listen to the album.
>>63221678
/thread
>>63221684
Someone didn't finish reading the sentence they were replying to
>>63221665
Rolling Stone did, though: http://www.rollingstone.com/music/lists/10-new-artists-you-need-to-know-november-2015-20151125/2814-20151124
>>63221665
they didn't review this either.
>>63221678
they don't review them, they create them
>>63221718
Because it's trash too. They reviewed the follow up though. That entire album is like some shit for teens who have never listened to Swans and still love stupid long song titles circa Fall Out Boy/Panic at the Disco 2005
>>63221678
Rolling fucking Stone reviewed it, though.
>>63221790
Sounds to me like Pitchfork is a shadow of its former self.
>>63221765
shut up Dan
>>63221795
how so?
>>63221807
They aren't on the cutting edge anymore when it comes to exposing new artists. They are a mainstream hip hop site now.
>>63221665
/mu/ core when?
>>63221967
Consider this, most serious music sites don't take vaporware seriously
>>63222159
Consider this, Rappers are the new untouchable rockstars
post some rainy-city-in-the-night-core
>>63221700
Still doesn't change the fact that you didn't listen to the album, faggot.
