Comments on: Culture Bully Asks: Does Pitchfork Suck?

By: Conn

Conn — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 02:36:08 +0000

Well said, mate. I totally agree.

By: JE

JE — Fri, 03 Feb 2012 08:32:17 +0000

Pitchfork lost all credibility when they started circle jerking to shitty mainstream rap music like Rick Ross, Lil Wayne, and Gucci Mayne.

By: Clav

Clav — Tue, 15 Mar 2011 08:00:11 +0000

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

By: chuck

chuck — Mon, 28 Feb 2011 15:17:18 +0000

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)

By: Level

Level — Mon, 20 Dec 2010 15:22:24 +0000

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.

By: Ryan

Ryan — Wed, 24 Nov 2010 07:41:04 +0000

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.

By: Brian

Brian — Sun, 14 Nov 2010 06:06:33 +0000

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.

By: Mikey D

Mikey D — Sat, 28 Aug 2010 16:47:36 +0000

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.

By: fesq

fesq — Mon, 02 Aug 2010 21:09:53 +0000

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.

By: matthew

matthew — Sat, 03 Jul 2010 08:07:37 +0000

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.