Why do we continue to direct so much ire at Pitchfork...

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

When there's plenty of idiotic garbage elsewhere?

"I don’t like having to go to the past for good music—I believe in living in the moment and looking to the future—but God help me: the best album I purchased this year was the Beach Boys’ 1968 album: Friends. I did like Madonna’s “Die Another Day” single, but it would be nice for the new guard to pull its creative weight a little bit. Our culture is in the midst of a cultural shit-storm—exploitation, globalization, destruction—you’d think it would inspire some good songs, maybe even a new form of music. Does it really end with disco and rap?"

Eurgh.

― Nate Patrin (Nate Patrin), Wednesday, 25 December 2002 23:35 (twenty-three years ago)

Yeah, I mean Pitchfork do a pretty good job of covering a wide range of styles (especially for an indie-centric site).

If anyone can recommend anywhere better with coverage as comprehensive, by all means point me in their direction.

― Mil, Thursday, 26 December 2002 01:56 (twenty-three years ago)

Yeah, I mean Pitchfork do a pretty good job of covering a wide range of styles

That's the problem. They try to cover a wide range of styles, but rarely do a good job of it. Pitchfork has tunnelvision, as a lot of music sites do, but their problem is that they pretend to be open to different kinds of music when you just know at least half of their writers would rather be shut in the bedroom listening to OK Computer than anything else in this world.

― The critc, Thursday, 26 December 2002 02:25 (twenty-three years ago)

I gave up after this -- which so happens to be part of the first sentence:

I know many music critics—Stylus critics included—think the Neptunes’ production-work is praise-worthy, but much of it is so derivative of what Michael and Janet Jackson were putting out in the early 1990s; has everyone forgotten what the Dangerous and Janet albums sounded like?

Dude, you soooo gotta brush up on your '90's R&B producer-auteurs (and your JAMES BROWN), it's not even funny!

― Michael Daddino (epicharmus), Thursday, 26 December 2002 03:50 (twenty-three years ago)

Nate, Michael, etc.,

Thanks for reading!

― Todd Burns, Thursday, 26 December 2002 03:55 (twenty-three years ago)

It's not what Pitchfork cover's -- I find no problem there.

I just find their reviews to be totally awful.

― David Allen, Thursday, 26 December 2002 03:56 (twenty-three years ago)

I just read that entire Stylus article... I find it to make a lot of good points. I actually agree with it.

― David Allen, Thursday, 26 December 2002 03:59 (twenty-three years ago)

--Except for the rock being dead part. He really has no idea what he's talking about there...

Sorry to make 3 posts in a row.

― David Allen, Thursday, 26 December 2002 04:06 (twenty-three years ago)

pitchfork can duck my nut but its nothing to start threads about. people who do that are just as lame. (not you NATE P)

― chaki (chaki), Thursday, 26 December 2002 05:17 (twenty-three years ago)

Hey Chaki... up for an LA FAP tomorrow? (26th? Been trying to get your attention in all other ways)

― donut bitch (donut), Thursday, 26 December 2002 07:02 (twenty-three years ago)

ok, pitchfork fails at what it pretends to be, a site of oh so holy hipness that falls into the generic traps of its time vis a vis especially the top 50 - where were the people looking ofr music far from the maddening crowd? what commitment do their reviewers give to searching and hunting down material not from major labels, indie or otherwise? why is is that the most talked about review was the review of a crappy eminem album?
It's also the fact that pitchfork is talked about here as if it's some type of voice, some leading opinion generator - it's not, at least not for me, so hwen I read their stuff it seems like an overwhleming quagmire of ego driven hype, little substance, less tyle.
Now it's not all about that, there are great things, the mp3s, the news, and the longer articles. But the reviewer as writer as something bigger than the reader, it's ain't me babe.

― Queen G (Queeng), Thursday, 26 December 2002 10:48 (twenty-three years ago)

Stylus isn't really ubiquitous enough to receive the constant searing that Pitchfork just seems to invite, although that article is awful.

― Tim Finney (Tim Finney), Thursday, 26 December 2002 11:46 (twenty-three years ago)

i think that article should go in the ILX FAQ or something

― bob zemko (bob), Thursday, 26 December 2002 15:02 (twenty-three years ago)

At least that article didn't have that sneering, insufferable, condescending-patronizing "we-know-EVERYthing" attitude that most writing at Pitchfork displays (aside from people like dominique, nitsuh, etc.) It didn't gratuitously use rambling digressions or appropriated vulgarity to proclaim a sense of can't-touch-this coolness. It didn't make me feel like I need to be this-and-this-much-more before I can become as hip as the author, the way I feel whenever I glance at a P-fork review; it didn't make it sound like the opinion it conveyed was Absolute Trith, or law.

Or maybe that's just me..

― Vic (Vic), Thursday, 26 December 2002 16:38 (twenty-three years ago)

I'd always figured that - besides the obvious "indie vs. the unwashed masses" attitude which pitchfork and many others share - the constant influx of new reviews had something to do with it. With so much writing each day, it's only expected that much will be so easy to poke fun at.

― original bgm, Thursday, 26 December 2002 17:46 (twenty-three years ago)

I actually have liked some Stylus stuff a lot. I think Nate overstated things: it's not the site that deserves any ire, it's that one article, which isn't the same thing. (nb I haven't read the article in question, I'm rephrasing Nate's point)

― M Matos (M Matos), Thursday, 26 December 2002 17:54 (twenty-three years ago)

That's funny, because I would say Dominique, Nitsuh, etc. are the writers MOST associated with "condescending-patronizing 'we-know-EVERYthing' attitude" on Pitchfork. Not that that's entirely a bad thing.

― Frank A., Thursday, 26 December 2002 20:02 (twenty-three years ago)

Are we talking about the same me?

― nabisco (nabisco), Thursday, 26 December 2002 20:18 (twenty-three years ago)

was that by orbital? < /dastoor >

― gareth (gareth), Thursday, 26 December 2002 20:23 (twenty-three years ago)

Jesus, Nitsuh! Cut it out!!!

― Yanc3y (ystrickler), Thursday, 26 December 2002 20:24 (twenty-three years ago)

I am so confused now.

― : ( nabisco (nabisco), Thursday, 26 December 2002 20:28 (twenty-three years ago)

(twas a joke!)

― Yanc3y (ystrickler), Thursday, 26 December 2002 20:34 (twenty-three years ago)

(Whew. I'm still shocked but I don't suppose it matters.)

― nabisco (nabisco), Thursday, 26 December 2002 20:39 (twenty-three years ago)

Can anyone point me towards better online music journalism than Pitchfork? Most of the review sites I've found are even more pretentious and rubbish.

― Dave K, Thursday, 26 December 2002 20:44 (twenty-three years ago)

Why, my day job, Rocknews.com, of course!

― Yanc3y (ystrickler), Thursday, 26 December 2002 20:51 (twenty-three years ago)

(also Starsplash.com and Hitpage.com -- very in-depth reporting!!!)

― Yanc3y (ystrickler), Thursday, 26 December 2002 20:52 (twenty-three years ago)

two weeks pass...

I'm a big fan of markprindle.com. Funny as hell, certainly more musically astute than anything on Pitchfork, and usually on the mark re: what he talks about, except where Bowie is concerned.

― justin s., Friday, 10 January 2003 10:26 (twenty-three years ago)

four years pass...

Intro: Pitchfork: Welcome to Forkcast

Here at Pitchfork, we love changing our site around and confusing people. But today, there's actually a point: We've gone and launched Forkcast, our first new section in more than three years. Really just an update of the track reviews section (which has been ruthlessly squashed, along with that bullshit "free downloads" thing), Forkcast exists purely to deliver our favorite new tracks, videos, and advance music.

So let's look back fondly on those bygone days when you'd have to fly to an undisclosed location in Berlin just to get your hands on a 12-inch of a blistering five-starred electro-house anthem. Or when we'd knock out a rave review of a b-side off an obscure limited edition 7-inch that'd already sold out its 500-run pressing. Or when we'd lose our minds over some Radiohead track that hadn't even leaked yet. Now you can finally download all that, straight off the Fork-- and yup, it's all legal and legit, like you worry about that.

Naturally, not every single post will be strictly downloadable. We'll also fill out the section with lots of videos, and, for those cases where we can't lock down an MP3 but still imagine you'll wanna hear the song-- even if it sounds like it's coming through between AM stations-- there'll be the occasional streaming audio track.

To sum up, if you see it in this section, you can assume it's either a track we love, or, in the case of advance music and premieres, something we're at least really psyched to check out. We're gonna go roll out the spare hard drives now-- we've got a lot of music to get through.

Posted by Ryan Schreiber on Mon: 01-15-07 after missing 3 straight days sleep and caffeinated as a bastard(?)

― fandango (fandango), Monday, 15 January 2007 13:55 (nineteen years ago)

http://tn3-1.deviantart.com/300W/fs5.deviantart.com/i/2005/004/0/2/_D_I__m_going_to_wet_my_pants_by_ilovecloudFFVII.jpg

― the table is the table (treesessplode), Monday, 15 January 2007 14:42 (nineteen years ago)

well, for what it's worth, I was just thinking the other day that I hadn't heard anything in a while about Ted Leo's new album... and this song is very good, so... thanks, Pitchfork!

― Good-Time Slim, Uncle Doobie, and the Great 'Frisco Freak-Out (sixteen sergeants, Monday, 15 January 2007 15:01 (nineteen years ago)

Pitchfork is a fine site. And it's popular as hell. And it's an indie-niche thing. Features a lot of good writing and a lot of bad writing. It successfully brings lesser-known artists to the world's attention and also prattles on year after year about the same old usual subjects.

Therefore, naturally, people bitch about it. It's mostly the "popular" part that causes this. Remember high school?

― Adam Beales (Pye Poudre), Monday, 15 January 2007 15:21 (nineteen years ago)

KILLFILE PLZ

― the original hauntology blogging crew (Enrique), Monday, 15 January 2007 15:23 (nineteen years ago)

Paul Edward Bealesman

― Dom Passantino (Dom Passantino), Monday, 15 January 2007 15:24 (nineteen years ago)

haha, I'm not exactly bitching, just befuddled at the nothing-like-a-podcast, pretty much exactly like what they already had, new snazzy name, new top right location, unmentioned RSS feed probably of more use than entire paragraphs of blather...

har-har WE R confusing U! ROFLZFORK!

― fandango (fandango), Monday, 15 January 2007 15:42 (nineteen years ago)

KILLFILE PLZ

it's working like a charm

― vita susicivus (blueski), Monday, 15 January 2007 15:44 (nineteen years ago)

i only have firefox at home ;_;

― the original hauntology blogging crew (Enrique), Monday, 15 January 2007 15:45 (nineteen years ago)

I hardly ever visit Pitchfork because they don't discuss things that interest me... same for Stylus, but at least Stylus has the great 'Stypod' feature which has some really great shows once in a while.

― The Brainwasher (Twilight), Monday, 15 January 2007 15:54 (nineteen years ago)

I mean STYCAST.

― The Brainwasher (Twilight), Monday, 15 January 2007 15:59 (nineteen years ago)

me neither, but skimming the music reviews in the year end issue of R0lling $tone recently, after not picking it up for awhile, made me glad p-fork and stylus exist if only because they piss people off. magazines like rs and blender are so slick and formulaic that it's hard to imagine anyone bothering to get passionate about em.

― m coleman (lovebug starski), Monday, 15 January 2007 16:00 (nineteen years ago)

It's mostly the "popular" part that causes this. Remember high school?

You mean that PF writers are on the cheerleader team?

― StanM (StanM), Monday, 15 January 2007 16:00 (nineteen years ago)

it's more like a world where the AV club matters

― acid waffle house (dubplatestyle), Monday, 15 January 2007 16:07 (nineteen years ago)

i like will wheaton's video game column.

i always think people are cheating on those ipod shuffle things though, that pisses me off.

"oh look, lo and behold, my ipod just spit out ESG, King Crimson, Otis Redding, and the new TV on the Radio - aren't I a dickens?"

― M@tt He1geson (Matt Helgeson), Monday, 15 January 2007 16:11 (nineteen years ago)

This new Pitchfork feature seems a little muddled in intent. Is it in actual podcast that I can subscribe to? Can't tell. Is it a clearinghouse for all the mp3s the site hosts? Not sure, because the News section looks like it's putting up mp3s, too. I'm also sad that they scrapped the Track Reviews section.

― jaymc (jaymc), Monday, 15 January 2007 16:13 (nineteen years ago)

The review of the 3rd kitsune comp got me all riled up last week. Argh

― Justin Baum (prosume), Monday, 15 January 2007 16:18 (nineteen years ago)

i probably clicked on the track reviews more often than the album reviews but i'm kinda glad they took that section out back and shot it. although I guess they'll find a way to cover the latest Clipse/Lil Wayne/Dipset freestyles over and over and over every week in the 'forkcast' or some other way.

― Alex in Baltimore (Alex in Baltimore), Monday, 15 January 2007 16:24 (nineteen years ago)

jaymc gets it.

― fandango (fandango), Monday, 15 January 2007 16:24 (nineteen years ago)

"You mean that PF writers are on the cheerleader team?"

No, I mean that PF is both very popular and self-consciously hip. Therefore, it annoys would-be hipsters.* What do such people do in order to pass the time? They slag on anything that seems too hipsterish. This makes PF a predictable punching bag for anyone who places special emphasis on musical taste (their own or that of others).

If this dynamic doesn't remind you of high school, then I envy you.

* I'm not sure why this is, but it is, and will be so for the rest of your life.

― Adam Beales (Pye Poudre), Monday, 15 January 2007 16:33 (nineteen years ago)

The review of the 3rd kitsune comp got me all riled up last week. Argh

that review is entirely otm though.

― PRKLTR (flezaffe), Monday, 15 January 2007 16:39 (nineteen years ago)

* I'm not sure why this is, but it is, and will be so for the rest of your life.

I should get these words engraved on a forehead. (Not mine, yours.)

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Monday, 15 January 2007 16:41 (nineteen years ago)

I don't know, I think the problem most people have with pitchfork is that the majority of it's readership take it's word as the bible and don't care to find out about music on their own.

― The Brainwasher (Twilight), Monday, 15 January 2007 16:43 (nineteen years ago)

xposts - aye this as yet unnamed colony (the Nu French Touch? Haircut House? Indieclash?) already has a thread, two if you count Nu-Rave(c) *cough*

The appeal of this stuff for rock kids dipping their toes into dance music is pretty clear, but it's less obvious that the fusion works in the other direction

deserves thread of it's own!

― fandango (fandango), Monday, 15 January 2007 16:43 (nineteen years ago)

I think the problem most people have with pitchfork is that the majority of it's readership take it's word as the bible and don't care to find out about music on their own.

how is it possible to know what all those people are thinking or how they learn about music?

― M@tt He1geson (Matt Helgeson), Monday, 15 January 2007 16:45 (nineteen years ago)

the problem most people have with pitchfork is that the majority of its readership take its word as the bible and don't care to find out about music on their own.

Is that true? It doesn't sound very likely to me. (xpost)

― Tim (Tim), Monday, 15 January 2007 16:45 (nineteen years ago)

"I should get these words engraved on a forehead. (Not mine, yours.)"

I gotta work on my death threats. Comedy gold.

"...the majority of its readership take its word as the bible..."

I think I'm supposed to paste a picture of an owl in here.

― Adam Beales (Pye Poudre), Monday, 15 January 2007 16:47 (nineteen years ago)

Well, I don't know... it's something that I've seen quite a few times. Like, you recommend something to someone and they don't care for it until a few weeks later and you wonder "Hey, why's that?" and you see that Pitchfork gave it a 9.9 or something. Or, you post about something in a music forum and get no replies, then two months later everyone is raving about it because Pitchfork reviewed it. I mean, it's not that farteched of an idea... numerous articles have been written (and posted/discussed here) about the influence Pitchfork has in the 'indie scene'/blogosphere/whatever. I'm thinking of one board in particular, where as soon as an album leaks they start threads such as "Guess what score Pitchfork is going to give [insert leaked album]"... and then you have that whole thing with the Clipse album, people who generally couldn't give two shits about rap calling that record the best album ever made and shit like that because it's Pitchfork-approved.

Of course, none of this has anything to do with the writers at Pitchfork .. it's just the whole herd-like mentality of a lot of people who read it (not everyone, obviously) that's really annoying/offputting.

― The Brainwasher (Twilight), Monday, 15 January 2007 17:02 (nineteen years ago)

it's just the whole herd-like mentality of a lot of people who read it

A situation unique to Pitchfork, not to mention the entirety of human history.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Monday, 15 January 2007 17:03 (nineteen years ago)

Yeah yeah yeah Ned, I'm just saying... it's the reason a lot of people dislike the site.

― The Brainwasher (Twilight), Monday, 15 January 2007 17:04 (nineteen years ago)

here's a reason!

― latebloomer aka freedom williams sr (latebloomer), Monday, 15 January 2007 17:43 (nineteen years ago)

pitchfork is the reason that the president's dead

― M@tt He1geson (Matt Helgeson), Monday, 15 January 2007 17:45 (nineteen years ago)

Actually, that Puritan Blister thing made my eyes die. I don't hate Pitchfork or anything, I just have eye-brain suicide going on and it's kinda distracting.

― Adam Beales (Pye Poudre), Monday, 15 January 2007 17:48 (nineteen years ago)

when i need to know shit like is blonde redhead touring, i know p-fork will have the news....i actually read track reviews a lot more than album reviews....anything longform i just glaze over and stop reading in general...

― M@tt He1geson (Matt Helgeson), Monday, 15 January 2007 17:53 (nineteen years ago)

oh my god, that puritan blister thing (really? I always thought it was called "puritan bluster", which is a slightly less terrible name, but still bad enough that I instinctively avoided it) was embarrassingly awful. anyone whose feelings about the Minutemen boil down to "I love their poverty, but I just can't stomach their cheesy sincerity!" deserves an ear-ectomy.

― Good-Time Slim, Uncle Doobie, and the Great 'Frisco Freak-Out (sixteen sergeants, Monday, 15 January 2007 18:53 (nineteen years ago)

the kitsuné review was great except 6 was too generous for that opportunistic shite...

― Ronan (Ronan), Monday, 15 January 2007 22:35 (nineteen years ago)

i read teh track reviews, and i like sherburne's column. i just hate the way it looks, and couldn't care less for a lot of what they're writing about. The Clipse thing is fine because it's not like pfork started the phenomenon of getting white kids who don't otherwise listen to rap into it. also, they try to be fairly wide-ranging in what they review, which is pretty rare in this day and age without lots of douchebaggery.

― the table is the table (treesessplode), Monday, 15 January 2007 23:28 (nineteen years ago)

three months pass...

http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/article/download/42758-fabulous-3-mcs-rub-a-dub-stream

this blurb strikes me as bizarre if only for the matter of fact-ness with this sentence - 'attempts to deduce the identities of the MCs only get as far as their point of origin (in this case, the Bronx) and a tentative name ("Nick Barnes").'

i can't tell if he's either a. talking over his audience's head or b. missing the mr. untouchable reference completely.

what's the call?

― BleepBot, Monday, 14 May 2007 16:33 (nineteen years ago)

this thread revival strikes me as bizarre if only because you're criticizing something written by the guy who started this thread in the first place.

i can't tell if you're either a. doing that on purpose or b. failing to connect the dots.

what's the call?

― Alex in Baltimore, Monday, 14 May 2007 16:43 (nineteen years ago)

i imagine nate must have heard of nicky barnes

― deej, Monday, 14 May 2007 16:44 (nineteen years ago)

pretty cool song - whats with it being up 5 days and only having 57 plays though??

― deej, Monday, 14 May 2007 16:46 (nineteen years ago)

It hasn't gotten an LCD Soundsystem stamp of approval yet?

― curmudgeon, Monday, 14 May 2007 16:53 (nineteen years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.