Culture Bully Asks: Does Pitchfork Suck?
[The "Monkey pee" video used by writer Ray Suzuki in his infamous review of Jet's Shine On in 2006.]
While Chicago’s Pitchfork Media might be “the leading voice in independent music“—having grown exponentially in both readership and prestige each year since its creation—it has attracted an uncanny group of music fans who seem to have a deep rooted hatred for the site. A number of high profile sites have called Pitchfork out in the past, but perfect example of this criticism recently came from local Minneapolis blogger Richmond VA who called it “the worst music website on the face of the planet.”
Is this criticism fair? Is Pitchfork an overrated site that is becoming as stale as many of the present-day national music magazines? Are the site’s writers more concerned with sounding ahead of the curve than actually talking about music? Or is Pitchfork simply a strawman for people to take shots at to help convince themselves of their own personal authenticity as music fans?
We know you read the site, so here is your chance to speak up: does Pitchfork Media suck?
The argument is a bit stale in certain circles (most circles, I imagine), but ultimately it’s as subjective as the reviews themselves… just like asking if Culture Bully sucks (p-p-p-please don’t say it does). Since I first started reading Pitchfork when I was in college I’ve typically thought that it is pretty baller–and it certainly leads the pack in terms of online music journalism.
The criticism offered on Switchblade leans on their grading system: HOW ARE THE FUCKING NUMBERS JUSTIFIED… ARRRRHGGG!!!
Who cares–read the review if you want to know more about it… the numbers are ballpark for the most part, and even at that, they’re also subjective. If it were one person grading each album, such a point would be valid–be consistent dammit! But comparing numerical grades despite being from different years, different authors and under the guise of different contexts is kind of ridiculous. That’s kind of like blaming me because Josh Keller hates the shit out of Coldplay. (OK, I kind of do too.)
Big thing is, it’s a site I visit MULTIPLE times each day. The addition of Pitchfork TV was next to revolutionary in terms of online media and even if they’re not FIRST(!) with breaking stories, and plucking media gems from the infotubes, they still do a hell of a job at making sure their content is up to date.
That, and until I can write half as good as the majority of their contributors (Marc Hogan, Nate Patrin and [especially] Eric Harvey immediately come to mind) I know better than to run my mouth.
Pitchfork is a site that is often unfair in its criticisms, but is also almost always on point with the music they consider “good”. Pitchfork isn’t really made for any casual listener; that’s for sure.
The biggest problem with Pitchfork’s rating system is that it seems to be the only thing people pay attention to, which is partly Pitchfork’s own fault because the subsequent reviews tend to be so dense and pretentious as to be barely readable.
You may want to stick it to Pitchfork because they have become “The Man,” but don’t forget all the wonderful music they’ve introduced every one of us to. That contribution alone justifies its existence. And the fact that it has become singularly able to give the most talented musicians the wider audience they deserve.
Strawman is a good word. They can be bad, but maybe music journalism in general is kind of bad these days. Aside from CB, of course.
That being said, I only VERY occasionally read Pitchfork, so I might be missing some stuff.
I think that Pitchfork’s status as the “evil one” in Indie Rock is largely undeserved. Musicheads tend to be a prickly, egotistical bunch, and P4K’s place at the top of the “Indie Music Criticism Pantheon” generally makes it an easy target. Plus it’s easy to write off Spin, NME, Rolling Stone, etc. as “out of touch” when they don’t agree with you, but it smarts a bit more when the uber involved P4K slough’s off your favorite band (or your band).
In general P4k has some of the best quality music writing out there, written by people who not only understand music, but writing as well. Sure, a lot of the time I disagree with them respectfully (the recent Tanya Morgan review) or think that they outright fucked up hard (Low’s Destroyer) but in general I respect their right to have an opinion, as well as their writer’s obvious collective musical knowledge. After all, a music review is just one person’s opinion and no one person (or even a group of people) is right all the time (if there even is a “right” in music criticism).
I do think that in general the site’s writing sounds like a bunch of English majors who love music, but actually that is what I like about it, rather than some sterile, formulaic review structure that exhibits none of the writer’s personality.
Plus the annual music festival is the bee’s knees
Well said, mate. I totally agree.
Timely news.
It sucks.
I just can’t get my head around rating music on a point based system. I mean, what does an 8.1 even mean? It’s just sort of a ridiculous way to introduce people to new music. Take away the rating system though, and I’m all for it.
I tried using pitchfork as s reference for new music a few times. I don’t know, perhaps I’m too stupid or just too much of a mainstream douche to understand what makes Sufjan Stevens so awesome…or Deer Hunter…or Animal Collective and conversely, what makes Kings of Leon Only by the Night, so bad.
I probably just don’t get it. But then that’s the thing about artistic interpretation and appreciation, its all subjective to the listener. The bigger question here is, how valuable are artistic reviews? I think that in time, Pandora and its ilk will take care of music reviews altogether…which is fine by me.
Pitchfork has turned me on to a number of great bands. I tend not to take the other stuff too seriously. They are okay in my book.
We all still check for them everyday, and when they big up are local bands Gospel Gossip,Tape N Tapes, P.O.S. we freak out with joy and when the shit on our locals d4, Atmosphere, we freak the fuck out. P4k must have 100′s of writers, so folks should have various opinions, big deal. Are the petty and holier than thou? sure but so is Kanye West and we still check for him too. My love hate relationship with P4k is the same as it is at times with indie and/or hip-hop cultures. Mainly the need to conform and youth culture, ideally is to rant against or at least challenge the status quo. At the end of the day they can do whatever they want.
Hating Coldplay is real. My first thought of new Pearl Jam was that Eddy vs kurt Cobain, and that Vedder will always be Chris Martin to Thom Yorke.
You’re saying that Eddie Vedder is to Kurt Cobain as Chris Martin is to Thom Yorke? Ah Jon Jon–say it isn’t so.
Post correction: Rich from Switchblade Comb goes by RichmanVA not “Richmond VA.”
Actually Pitchfork blows more dick than a two dollar hooker. BUT, to be quite honest I actually like hearing what they think about albums. I just think it’s outrageously funny how pretentious they are.
“I just think it’s outrageously funny how pretentious they are.”
I would argue that to have a music site like that, you need to be pretentious if you want anyone to read it.
I guess today is as good a day to chime in to this conversation with my one big complaint about Pfork-it’s utter predictability. I know they hate on Pearl Jam in a big way (their criticisms of the band have been many, and their reviews have featured rather personal attacks on the band and their fans at times), so I wasn’t expecting a great review of their new record today-in fact, before I clicked on their review, I thought anything higher than a 5 would surprise me, but I was thinking more along the lines of 4.7 (not that the album deserves a score that low by any means). Well, surprise, surprise-they gave the record a 4.6 and bashed the band and their legacy pretty hard in the process. And that’s what bothers me so much about the site, you can easily predict what albums the site is going to praise and which ones they are going to bash. There are bands that the site has championed from the beginning and they are going to stand by them no matter what, and the reverse also holds true. I mean, there is really no way that the new Dodos record deserves a score as high as 7.1, but because the site loved Visiter so much (an 8.5) they weren’t going to slam a band they helped bring into the public eye. The site has just become so formulaic and predictable that it’s become annoying. When you know going in what the site is going to say about Band A vs. Band B, it hardly makes it worthwhile to read their often well written reviews supporting opinions you already suspected they had in the first place.
Those who can’t do critique. Yes Pitchfork sucks!
I don’t think they completely suck, but if they were a person I sure wouldn’t hang out with them. They’ll post songs and videos from a group, all-the-while seeming excited about it, then when the album comes out they give it a bad review. Seems a little two faced to me. The rating system with decimals? I never really got that. How can an album be a 9.5 and not just a ten? Does it turn into a ten if they like it for a few years? The stuff that does get high ratings is sometimes good, but those albums are rated high by everybody, so it’s not like they’re ahead of the curve on that one. My biggest issue is that they don’t seem like they are fans of bands. As soon as a band makes a bad album, they casually throw them away. There are certain bands I’m a fan of, and I know not to expect that they can’t always release a gold album.
Their review of the new brother ali is out today.
Let’s be honest here, PITCHFORK is a bunch of filthy Chicago hipsters vomiting out community college philosophy in a futile attempt at music criticism. Their narrow-minded view of music extends, apparently, from the Williamsburgh Bridge to whichever basement TV on the Radio owns their studio.
While I’m no fan of most major label drivel, “music criticism with horse blinders on” is as bad as SPIN giving some SONY hotshot group a good review because they bought tons of ad space. But I digress.
Also, the point in the attached SLATE article rings true. Example #1 (of a few) is the BLACK KIDS, who Pitchfork heralded as the next coming of The Cure (incorrectly, I might add) only to decimate their major label debut, sending the band into career deep-freeze and, word on the street, group therapy. I’m not kidding. This is serious shit. A similar fate occurred for And You Will Know Us By the Trail of Dead, Cold War Kids, and Bloc Party, as noted. The threat is as real as Communism. You’ve been warned.
Anyway: whenever I read pitchfork I can almost visualize the twats sitting around in their flannel shirts, tussled hair, ridiculously tight jeans, and checkered vans and RayBans talking about how “rad” the new Sufjan Stevens EP is. Kill me now. Please.
I give pitchfork a big fat 0.0. I’m going to do download the new P!NK album. Eat that you sanctimonious bastards.
Blackie.
Whoever says Pitchfork sucks is just hating. They are just a group of people with music knowledge that give their opinion on new music they hear. It’s OPINION so take it for what it is. They don’t claim to be objective, nor do they claim to be universal. They just review music they think their readers would find interesting, like any other website. If you don’t like it, go somewhere else.
Personally, I think Pitchfork’s greatest asset are their reviews. The number system is obviously flawed but it’s nice to have to get a quick impression. The content in the reviews is really what’s important, and they are some of the best out there.
If you want to discover new music, realize Pitchfork is not the answer. Elbo.ws and Last.fm are good examples of places that are.
the latest Dodos record isn’t amazing as Visiter (which Pfork kind of UNDERRATED imo), but a 7.1 sounds about right to me…
and the latest Pearl Jam is no better than a 6-something, so while they have been unfairly harsh to them at times, it’s not like they’re giving an actual 7.5-8+ album half the score it deserves at least.
but yeah, their predictable bashing of most anything mainstream rock is rather annoying.
Yes, the answer is simple; Pitchfork Media does indeed suck. And, yes, they are now the equivalent Rolling Stone Magazine. Now let’s stop going to that website and quit our bitching…
They do suck. A bunch of clueless hipsters who shouldnt review certain types of music. For example They gave Eminems third classic album Recovery like 1.5 stars.
Pitchfork really does ‘suck’ overall but it really does depend on the particular critic. Overall, as a whole they come off as pretentious snobs who aren’t particularly concerned about music as they are about trends and scenes. Just like any criticism you could or would come up with for any major music magazine or online experience, Pitchfork champions certain bands and artists that fit well with their indie-pop aesthetic. They have a tendency to come off like a board of marketing and advertising specialists, and I would highly doubt that most of them are musicians themselves.
Of particular annoyance is the fact that they do not allow comments on their articles and reviews, which to me is fairly pretentious, as if their word is the last word – gospel.
Lol, I would like to see another ‘scene’ come along that challenges pitchfork and makes it hard for them to adapt and leaves them looking less trendy than they want to appear. I doubt this will happen anytime soon however because Pitchfork are in the business of trends and protecting trends with slick music-marketing coverage.
It would be funny though..if it were ever to happen. Until then ‘suck’ on.
Pitchfork is more concerned with how “cool” a band is instead of the actual music the band is playing. This is a common pattern in music and they definitely shouldn’t fool themselves into thinking they are any better than the corporate music industry. This is exactly how major labels sell albums.
Just read any review on their site. When they review an album and give it a high rating, it always starts out about how band X live on a pirate ship, wear really awesome clothing, recorded the album with person X (some guy who calls himself a music producer), and are obviously cooler than you. Highly rated reviews on Pitchfork NEVER start off talking about the musical quality of an album.
Start writing about music and I’ll start reading again. Until then, it’s just a cool kids club.
Pitchfork blows! I’ll admit, they have some decent writing, and if they rate an album highly, its worth a listen, just to check out the band and see if they’re actually any good. However, their reviews are very predictable. The more mainstream a band is, the lower the review score is going to be. The only exception to this rule is classic old school artists, ie: Bob Dylan, who apparently transcend their “the more obscure the artist, the better their music must be” rule. Basically, if you’ve never heard of the band, the higher they’re going to be rated, and vice versa for the more “mainstream” bands out there. I don’t really listen to any mainstream music played on current commercial radio, but I find their reviews and opinions pretentious and obnoxious, as you have to spend all of your time researching the latest here today gone tomorrow band in order to stay on their cool radar.
Try this:
Abstain from Pitchfork for 6 months.
During that period, continue buying new music often (Be thorough and listen deeply to all this music you buy)
Now, based on what YOU think of what you’ve listened to, decide what you think is good and what isn’t.
Now, compare your “ratings” to pitchfork.. And yes, it’s okay that you gave that Japandroids album a 1.5.. No you’re not being close-minded, you’re being honest.
Pitchfork sucks wet asshole. Half the shit they champion is straight up garbage. It’s 95% mediocre, ironic hipster, throw away fodder. Yeah, we know they unconditionally love Deerhunter, LCD Sound System and Arcade Fire which is all dandy but the rest of that neo-electro, lap-top, neon trash they push so dearly should have no place in the royal ranks these wankers place them in. Come on already with some of that crap. They try to cover what they consider a broad spectrum of music but what they end up promoting is a very small group of disposable jokers and posers. It’s a real shame that they dictate what kids ingest. These are sad times for the music world.
Pitchfork : The place to go for people who don’t want to be told what to listen to when they want to be told what to listen to (aka – Hipsters)
Man, pitchfork are so far wedged up their own hole that there is no possibility of sound waves getting to their ear drums. Not that that would make much of a difference as their small minded pretensions mean that by the time that their brains have processed the waves they have been discarded and swapped for doppelgangers of what the poor, unfortunate music is in their warped “hipster cool” reality. To write their reviews they then take laxatives and shit on a page. They are so far out of touch with any sane music appreciating person that their popularity may be put down to the fact that people just cannot help but watch whenever they drive past a gruesome car crash.
Rule 1 of listening to music: Take all music on its own merits.
Man Pitchfork blows
Pitchfork lost all credibility when they started circle jerking to shitty mainstream rap music like Rick Ross, Lil Wayne, and Gucci Mayne.