Comments on: Culture Bully Asks: Does Pitchfork Suck?

By: paul

paul — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 03:40:50 +0000

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…

By: solace

solace — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 16:00:06 +0000

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.

By: Mark

Mark — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 06:33:30 +0000

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.

By: Blackie Lawless

Blackie Lawless — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 02:06:32 +0000

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.

By: ben

ben — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 17:10:54 +0000

Their review of the new brother ali is out today.

By: ben

ben — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 15:45:33 +0000

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.

By: sasha nova

sasha nova — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 12:16:28 +0000

Those who can’t do critique. Yes Pitchfork sucks!

By: Erik T.

Erik T. — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 13:50:41 +0000

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.

By: adam b

adam b — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 14:18:10 +0000

“I just think itâ€™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.

By: Alteez

Alteez — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 05:18:43 +0000

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.