Explain: what's so damn awful about Pitchfork?

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

It's not the best-written thing on the web, of course, and I take issue with a lot of thier opinions, which goes without saying. But I don't think it's a stupid or wrong-headed magazine, as many seem to think.

So what's the beef?

― Kenan Hebert (kenan), Saturday, 12 April 2003 07:02 (twenty-two years ago)

OK, one more thing that bugs me... what are they reviewing? Am I supposed to know about these bands? Or am I not supposed to know about them until now? Either way, am I supposed to care about one sixteenth of what they review? Because I don't.

Still doesn't make them evil, though.

― Kenan Hebert (kenan), Saturday, 12 April 2003 07:04 (twenty-two years ago)

The individual contributors may or may not be, the rag as a whole strikes me as smug.

― paul cox (paul cox), Saturday, 12 April 2003 07:06 (twenty-two years ago)

It's the narcissism of minor differences.

― Momus (Momus), Saturday, 12 April 2003 07:51 (twenty-two years ago)

One thing I don't like about Pitchfork. It's piddling, but I don't know, it always cheeses me off. They purposefully review bands that have NOTHING to do with their overall aesthetic / music taste, for the express purpose of giving them horrible reviews and laughing at them. Yes, I agree that everything "3 Doors Down" ever put out is fucking atrocious. This is obvious. So why put up a review knocking them around? The reason Pitchfork is great is because, generally, they only review bands that are pretty good already. There's no point in muddying up the waters by reviewing bands that will obviously get low marks (unless it's to add a humorous dimension to the site, which their uproarious review of Har Mar Superstar already accomplishes while fitting into their overall idiom). Thank you, that is all.

― justin s. (John Paul Albin), Saturday, 12 April 2003 07:58 (twenty-two years ago)

That may be sort of part of it Momus. I think it's just the ass-end of American white boy dumb rock idiocy, really. Execrable.

― Mr. Diamond (diamond), Saturday, 12 April 2003 07:58 (twenty-two years ago)

I'm too tired to do it myself, but--and I hope this doesn't sound condescending, Kenan, because that's not how I intend it at all--this has been done a million billion times, and you can see how if you do a search on the term Pitchfork in the head.

― M Matos (M Matos), Saturday, 12 April 2003 07:59 (twenty-two years ago)

How about this: the writing is cloistered, uninspired and tiring.

I mean, really, why bother?

― Mr. Diamond (diamond), Saturday, 12 April 2003 08:02 (twenty-two years ago)

I once complained that they reviewed a DAT Politics album with an extended treatise on sea slugs and butt trumpets. But when I asked the band about it, they said they loved the review.

Now I'm waiting for them to review 'Oskar Tennis Champion'. I don't really care whether the review pans or praises, what matters to me is that it will probably be the best-written and most intelligent review the record gets, just as their review of the Super Madrigal Brothers was.

This, o my little droogies, is important. Intelligent reviews make intelligent listeners, and intelligent listeners make intelligent records.

― Momus (Momus), Saturday, 12 April 2003 08:17 (twenty-two years ago)

reverse the order and you're right

― James Blount (James Blount), Saturday, 12 April 2003 08:21 (twenty-two years ago)

It's subtler than you think.

― Momus (Momus), Saturday, 12 April 2003 08:24 (twenty-two years ago)

It takes them, on average, seven paragraphs before they start actually talking about the record they're reviewing.

― doug (doug), Saturday, 12 April 2003 08:29 (twenty-two years ago)

This is the sort of criticism -- it implies that the journalists are getting 'too creative' -- that people used to direct at the NME when it was good, back in the early 80s.

Of course reviewers can built up personality cults, and of course they can waffle and show off. But is the obverse -- the well-made, concise, judicious review -- really so great? Which style is going to make for a more interesting music scene, in the end? Aren't short, concise, to-the-point, well-made reviews part of a culture in which people don't really have time for music, for writing, for self-expression, speculation or passion?

― Momus (Momus), Saturday, 12 April 2003 08:38 (twenty-two years ago)

Isn't, in other words, the 'well-made review' the moral equivalent of the 'well-made' record, a sort of Coldplay of journalism?

― Momus (Momus), Saturday, 12 April 2003 08:41 (twenty-two years ago)

whatever problems I've had and have with Pitchfork (puh-lenty), I will say I'm glad it exists and it definitely provides a service. At its most cringeworthy moments it's still more, uh, vital than certain print mags with much higher adrates and much better paid writers.

As for Momus' last post - EXACTLY, give me Bangs over DeCurtis and trife over CMJ every time.

― James Blount (James Blount), Saturday, 12 April 2003 08:42 (twenty-two years ago)

It's the nu-journalism that bugs me, personally. I like the surliness of it - what I don't like is the condensed life stories that often masquerade as record reviews. Give me the Farm Report or give me Seymour Glass, but please, dear God, please, no aspiring Hunter S Thompsons!

― roger adultery (roger adultery), Saturday, 12 April 2003 11:28 (twenty-two years ago)

haha!

― James Blount (James Blount), Saturday, 12 April 2003 11:43 (twenty-two years ago)

most of them would rather make a shite joke for their simpsons comic shop mates than actually talk about the record

― Ronan (Ronan), Saturday, 12 April 2003 12:50 (twenty-two years ago)

the reviews don't bug me as much as the slander, gossip and outright lies that they run in their "News" section as "fact." If you don't know if something's verifiable, please don't publish it.

― hstencil, Saturday, 12 April 2003 13:21 (twenty-two years ago)

I can't even look at their site anymore cuz I use shitty old netscape browsers that I refuse to give up for some reason, and every time i click on something my computer poops out on me. But I used to enjoy their site. It was a good place to go to read about all the albums I would never buy. I know lots about death cab for cutie for instance without ever hearing a note. Now I just go to www.Pitchfork.com and look at what goats they have for sale this week.

― scott seward, Saturday, 12 April 2003 13:25 (twenty-two years ago)

yeah i understand the criticism but i'm still glad it exists,although recently i can't read it either because of netscape...

― robin (robin), Saturday, 12 April 2003 13:40 (twenty-two years ago)

so what is the best-written thing on the web? (you gotta ac-cen-tuate-the-positive)

― scott seward, Saturday, 12 April 2003 14:04 (twenty-two years ago)

heh, The New York Times.

― hstencil, Saturday, 12 April 2003 14:05 (twenty-two years ago)

so what is the best-written thing on the web?

this.

― Nate Patrin (Nate Patrin), Saturday, 12 April 2003 14:31 (twenty-two years ago)

(whether "this" means "an ILM thread yet to be written" or "the standard 404 message" is up to you)

― Nate Patrin (Nate Patrin), Saturday, 12 April 2003 14:31 (twenty-two years ago)

Pitchfork reviewed Elephant right when it was released but took like 6 months to review Wolf Eyes' Dead Hills.

― Jon Williams (ex machina), Saturday, 12 April 2003 14:59 (twenty-two years ago)

Pitchfork? What's that?

― Dadaismus, Saturday, 12 April 2003 15:03 (twenty-two years ago)

It's something Satan jabs people with

― Nate Patrin (Nate Patrin), Saturday, 12 April 2003 15:48 (twenty-two years ago)

pitchfork in reviewing something people might actually want to listen to shocker

― jess (dubplatestyle), Saturday, 12 April 2003 16:20 (twenty-two years ago)

I've never had an issue with Pitchfork as an institution. I do think that Brent D wrote one of the funniest reviews ever when he reviewed Kid A, though. "The butterscotch lamps along the walls of the tight city square bled upward into the cobalt sky, which seemed as strikingly artificial and perfect as a wizard's cap," has been my personal mantra ever since I first read it.

― Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Saturday, 12 April 2003 16:35 (twenty-two years ago)

I <3 Pitchfork (even tho I don't agree with them most of the time)

― Curt1s St3ph3ns, Saturday, 12 April 2003 16:53 (twenty-two years ago)

what's so damn awful about Pitchfork?

They gave an 8.5 to the worst album I've ever heard in my life (Sonic Youth's Goodbye 20th Century) and a 0.0 and 0.8 to two of the best I've ever heard in my life (The Flaming Lips' Zaireeka and Belle and Sebastian's The Boy With the Arab Strap respectively). Taste is taste, however, and I can't really knock them for that. What I CAN knock them for, though, is having the most smug cooler-than-thou nowhere-near-as-funny-as-it-thinks-it-is writing style in history.

Ahem.

- The review of Tool's Lateralus where the guy spends the entire review dissing and making fun of Tool fans. Because they're nowhere near as cool as he is.

It's like, okay I'm a Tool fan, so, you're insulting me personally!

- Zaireeka got a 0.0 simply because the reviewer didn't have four CD players. That's like me giving a zero to every DVD movie ever made simply because I don't have a DVD player!

- Jesus Christ, just tell me if Elephant is any good or not. NOBODY CARES ABOUT YOUR STUPID PRETENTIOUS BULLSHIT!! Ever notice how he never mentions the music at all? He probably made up his mind about the album before he even heard it.

- The review of The Streets' Original Pirate Material has me incensed. Has it EVER occured to them that people in the UK would approach music from a completely different angle than people in America? It's NOT hip-hop!! It's UK garage!!

Fuck that website up the ass.

so what is the best-written thing on the web?

Why, this of course! Funny music reviews done right! This guy has more talent in his left pinkie than Pitchfork will ever have in their entire shitty-ass careers.

― Evan (Evan), Saturday, 12 April 2003 17:19 (twenty-two years ago)

"This is the sort of criticism -- it implies that the journalists are getting 'too creative' -- that people used to direct at the NME when it was good, back in the early 80s."

Well, I would certainly cut them more slack if, more often than not, those paragraphs were interesting. I didn't read NME in the early 80s, so I have no basis for comparison, but too many P-Fork reviews read like endless throat clearing before they get to their point.

― doug (doug), Saturday, 12 April 2003 17:54 (twenty-two years ago)

haha the idea that anyone who writes for pitchfork is on the level of penman or morley is hilarious!

― jess (dubplatestyle), Saturday, 12 April 2003 17:57 (twenty-two years ago)

heh, jess, I'd rather listen to Dead Hills than the White Stripes any ol' day of the week. Gonna have to find a more convincing argument.

― hstencil, Saturday, 12 April 2003 17:57 (twenty-two years ago)

well jon's gonna have to find a more convincing argument than "pitchfork took two months to review a record that i like better than this other record which i don't. therefore, they're awful."

(btw, i think my feelings on pfork are a matter of public record.)

― jess (dubplatestyle), Saturday, 12 April 2003 18:01 (twenty-two years ago)

couldn't his argument also be "shouldn't Pitchfork be consistent in reviewing stuff when it's new?"

― hstencil, Saturday, 12 April 2003 18:05 (twenty-two years ago)

with only five reviews a day, i think it's pretty easy to let things slip by or prioritize based on the presupposed needs of its audience.

― jess (dubplatestyle), Saturday, 12 April 2003 18:07 (twenty-two years ago)

true, but with the number of records that come out in a year, it wouldn't be hard to publish reviews for just records that came out the month previous.

Anyway, that's only a minor annoyance, if that.

― hstencil, Saturday, 12 April 2003 18:08 (twenty-two years ago)

and why should they be "on time"? Part of the problem with most mags is their desparation to have reviews for brand new albums (cuz they're basically ads anyway) right when they come out. Why not sit with an album for a while? Why not tell people about album they might not know about but should hear about even though, god forbid, it came out four months ago? Or four years ago for that matter?

― Anthony Miccio (Anthony Miccio), Saturday, 12 April 2003 18:08 (twenty-two years ago)

because most normal people (read: non-ILMentalists) use record reviews as a consumer guide to what's going on at any given time.

(plus in the case of Pitchfork, a lot of their reviews of old records [i.e. classics] are fucking piss-poor, frankly.)

― hstencil, Saturday, 12 April 2003 18:12 (twenty-two years ago)

'Goodbye 20th Century' is one of my all-time faves, but who cares what Pitchfork thinks either way? (That's another way of saying start yr own site, I suppose)

― Andrew L (Andrew L), Saturday, 12 April 2003 18:19 (twenty-two years ago)

I think it's sad that an indie album from four months ago doesn't count as "what's going on."

― Anthony Miccio (Anthony Miccio), Saturday, 12 April 2003 18:50 (twenty-two years ago)

''They gave an 8.5 to the worst album I've ever heard in my life (Sonic Youth's Goodbye 20th Century) and a 0.0 and 0.8 to two of the best I've ever heard in my life (The Flaming Lips' Zaireeka and Belle and Sebastian's The Boy With the Arab Strap respectively).''

saying you disagree w/ratings that a reviewer gives is not on. and the fact that you like the boy with the arab strap (Belle and sebatian should be executed for putting this crap out) might say a lot.

― Julio Desouza (jdesouza), Saturday, 12 April 2003 18:56 (twenty-two years ago)

heh, jess, I'd rather listen to Dead Hills than the White Stripes any ol' day of the week. Gonna have to find a more convincing argument.
-- hstencil (hstenci...), April 12th, 2003.

I'd rather have all of my limbs removed, and then be raped with them then EVER have to listen to Dead Hills.

― David Allen, Saturday, 12 April 2003 19:04 (twenty-two years ago)

Belle and sebatian should be executed for putting this crap out

I'd rather have all of my limbs removed, and then be raped with them

Pitchfork is looking for writers just like you!!!

― Kenan Hebert (kenan), Saturday, 12 April 2003 19:11 (twenty-two years ago)

oh no! oh no!!! things like what i said fit an internet board but have no place in a review of course (well, soemtimes it might be appropriate as everyone has their limitations).

― Julio Desouza (jdesouza), Saturday, 12 April 2003 19:15 (twenty-two years ago)

Evan are you 12? oh no!!! a publication doesn't have the exact same taste as you! oh no!!! grow up, dude!

― Yanc3y (ystrickler), Saturday, 12 April 2003 20:13 (twenty-two years ago)

I'd rather have all of my limbs removed, and then be raped with them then EVER have to listen to Dead Hills.

Thanks for that lovely image, David. Always the voice of reason, you are.

― hstencil, Saturday, 12 April 2003 20:21 (twenty-two years ago)

That link Evan gave is hilarious!

Has anyone else noticed the ILMisms cropping up in Pitchfork's news? "Calvin Johnson in Finger-mangling Shocker!" huh?

― Adam A. (Keiko), Saturday, 12 April 2003 20:44 (twenty-two years ago)

Sorry, I saw Wolf Eyes live. Not a good experience.

― David Allen, Saturday, 12 April 2003 21:07 (twenty-two years ago)

well David I've never seen them live, but I think their records are phenomenal. It wouldn't be the first time ever that a good band might suck live, but have good records.

― hstencil, Saturday, 12 April 2003 21:31 (twenty-two years ago)

Ummm....Wolf Eyes is the best live band in America

― roger adultery (roger adultery), Saturday, 12 April 2003 21:44 (twenty-two years ago)

they might be! I'm pissed I missed them last summer when I had the chance.

― hstencil, Saturday, 12 April 2003 21:53 (twenty-two years ago)

i've seen them upwards of twenty times. seeing them on Thursday and staying an extra day in Chicago just to do it. We had the choice - one hotel room for three people for three nights, or two hotel rooms for three people for two nights and leave Wednesday. It was no contest.

― roger adultery (roger adultery), Saturday, 12 April 2003 22:04 (twenty-two years ago)

ANDREW WK LIEKS TEH WOLF EYES!

Pitchfork is one of the few sites that updates daily that I expect something worth reading from.

― Jon Williams (ex machina), Sunday, 13 April 2003 03:28 (twenty-two years ago)

hello, this thread is going to stop when i do this, right?

― Clarke B. (stolenbus), Sunday, 13 April 2003 03:42 (twenty-two years ago)

dfgh

― electric sound of jim (electricsound), Sunday, 13 April 2003 03:44 (twenty-two years ago)

sdfgsdfgsdfgsdfgsdfgsdfgsdfg

― electric sound of jim (electricsound), Sunday, 13 April 2003 03:45 (twenty-two years ago)

Of course, Jon Williams would like Pitchfork.

Exhibit B why they are ass.

― Mr. Diamond (diamond), Sunday, 13 April 2003 03:49 (twenty-two years ago)

eat my fuc JW

― electric sound of jim (electricsound), Sunday, 13 April 2003 03:52 (twenty-two years ago)

― Mr. Diamond (diamond), Sunday, 13 April 2003 04:00 (twenty-two years ago)

What esoj said, you fuckwad.

― Mr. Diamond (diamond), Sunday, 13 April 2003 04:01 (twenty-two years ago)

how did you fix it? i couldn't even view the source

― electric sound of jim (electricsound), Sunday, 13 April 2003 04:12 (twenty-two years ago)

Basically, whenever he does this shit

I think will work (without the space, obv).

I just guessed basically.

― Mr. Diamond (diamond), Sunday, 13 April 2003 04:19 (twenty-two years ago)

GAH! Should read:

Basically, whenever he does this shit

< /marquee> < /script> < /scroll> < /embed>

I think will work (without the space, obv).

― Mr. Diamond (diamond), Sunday, 13 April 2003 04:20 (twenty-two years ago)

I hate it when a thread I started comes to this.

― Kenan Hebert (kenan), Sunday, 13 April 2003 04:32 (twenty-two years ago)

Potchfuck is god U are all gay.

― Momus (Momus), Sunday, 13 April 2003 11:46 (twenty-two years ago)

Wait. Pitchfork is like the NME when it was good? Morley, Penman, Roberts? Writers of that quality?

I don't think it is but I think I see what Momus is saying (and I agree completely). Though strangely I still can't thole Pitchfork. They just can't write as good as Paul, Ian, Chris, y'see Nick.

Evan - jeez. Come off it.

I don't know what jess' feelings are about Pitchfork though I suspect its some sort of vitriolic bilious feeling tempered by consistent guilty reads. Some sort of car crash mentality.

― Cozen (Cozen), Sunday, 13 April 2003 11:53 (twenty-two years ago)

Momus "the narcissism of minor differences" is just perfect. Made my day.

― ArfArf, Monday, 14 April 2003 16:57 (twenty-two years ago)

Y'all like to complain about Pitchfork. Still, you're reading it. I'd say they're quite effective, then.

― Kate Silver (Kate Silver), Monday, 14 April 2003 18:57 (twenty-two years ago)

Y'all like to complain about Pitchfork. Still, you're reading it. I'd say they're quite effective, then.

Use other thoughts please. Just because I am aware of something doesn't mean I like it, or that it has any worth outside of its capacity to annoy me.

― Dave M. (rotten03), Monday, 14 April 2003 19:31 (twenty-two years ago)

(Dave, a more fun comeback would be "Y'all like to get upset by our complaining about Pitchfork. Still, you're reading it. I'd say our criticism is quite effect, then.")

― nabisco (nabisco), Monday, 14 April 2003 20:34 (twenty-two years ago)

I've read many, many fine reviews on Pitchfork - not a few of them by people who frequent this board, i.e. Dominique and Mark Richard-san. I quite enjoyed Dominique's Parliament re-issue reviews, to name a recent example.

― o. nate (onate), Monday, 14 April 2003 20:51 (twenty-two years ago)

ditto to that

― James Blount (James Blount), Monday, 14 April 2003 20:55 (twenty-two years ago)

Y'all like to complain about Pitchfork. Still, you're reading it. I'd say they're quite effective, then.

I can honestly say I've never read P'fork except for the times ilxors have linked reviews. It's outside of what I'm looking for in music crit.

― Nicole (Nicole), Monday, 14 April 2003 20:58 (twenty-two years ago)

one year passes...

haha the idea that anyone who writes for pitchfork is on the level of penman or morley is hilarious!
-- jess (dubplatestyl...), April 12th, 2003.

― N_RQ, Thursday, 24 March 2005 14:32 (twenty years ago)

haha, I own Dead Hills now.

― David Allen (David Allen), Thursday, 24 March 2005 14:37 (twenty years ago)

hahah Times change. ;-)

― nathalie barefoot in the head (stevie nixed), Thursday, 24 March 2005 14:37 (twenty years ago)

"Some of the more flute-heavy passages veer uncomfortably close to Jethro Tull territory, but Mice and Rats in the Loft generally manages to avoid the prog-rock pitfalls of bloated self-satisfaction and pomposity"

1. There's nothing wrong with Jethro Tull.
2. "Bloated self-satisfaction and pomposity" are the metier of hip hop.
3. Examples of similar thoughtless fashion fascism are rampant on that site.

(that said to be fair I probably wouldn't have known about the Jan Dukes CD release so quickly without pfork)

― Luke Worm, Thursday, 24 March 2005 14:55 (twenty years ago)

1. There's nothing "wrong" with any artist is there, really? But I think the reviewer was anticipating that most of his audience don't care for that particular one.

― sleep (sleep), Thursday, 24 March 2005 15:06 (twenty years ago)

Well that's part of what I mean. Seems paranoid and not-rock (pretentious, to be ungenerous) to "anticipate" what his audience might not "care for" when reviewing something as tweaked as the Jan Dukes. Chances are the Jan Dukes liked Tull too, as do many people who give them a chance, which some might not now because of mr. pitchfork's pretension.

― Luke Worm, Thursday, 24 March 2005 15:25 (twenty years ago)

"Bloated self-satisfaction and pomposity" are the metier of hip hop.

Hey, maybe you could get a job writing for Pitchfork (2003 version).

― Flyboy (Flyboy), Thursday, 24 March 2005 15:33 (twenty years ago)

I think sleep must refer to instances where they will review things like European avant-jazz records (MIMEO, Dafeldecker/Lang, etc.) once in a blue moon, although it remains unclear as to what sort of cred or audience they're aiming at. I can't really see a serious AMM fan seeking out Pitchfork's opinion on a new recording by John Tilbury.

― Jena (JenaP), Thursday, 24 March 2005 15:36 (twenty years ago)

...or at least that's what got me thinking about those reviews.

― Jena (JenaP), Thursday, 24 March 2005 15:42 (twenty years ago)

Does today's PFM feature on South by Southwest really end at "...there's a little pain, right?"? I was just getting into it. Where's the rest? I mean, isn't she going to review any of the 26 live performances listed in the second paragraph?

― Cherry Red, Thursday, 24 March 2005 15:48 (twenty years ago)

I never said there was anything wrong with "bloated self-satisfaction and pomposity," knee jerk. Just pointing out the double standard.

― Luke Worm, Thursday, 24 March 2005 16:04 (twenty years ago)

www.pitchfork.com

― Bent Over at the Arclight (Bent Over at the Arclight), Friday, 25 March 2005 00:00 (twenty years ago)

haha NRQ just a bit of fun!

pfork has been alright, in places, under plagehof (who is reviews or commissioning editor, I believe.)

nice work, scott! (if he's still around.)

― cozen (Cozen), Friday, 25 March 2005 00:02 (twenty years ago)

Yay scott! (chicago represent)

― deej., Friday, 25 March 2005 00:24 (twenty years ago)

Jess is improving Pitchfork.

― Spencer Chow (spencermfi), Friday, 25 March 2005 00:36 (twenty years ago)

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