I can’t stand Pitchfork especially the reviews but still read them as some form of mental self flagellation or…well, I don’t really know why! I do find some weird satisfaction at times reading reviews of albums that are now regarded as landmarks or whatever.
Here is a good example of what I mean:
This one, probably.
What is poorly reviewed about this? They gave a 7.4 rating which is pretty good if you like numbers.
A long time ago Pitchfork reviewed The Flaming Lips - Zaireeka and not only took the piss out of Flaming lips fans but gave the album a 0. Yes that’s a zero.
Pitchfork is a joke.
This however tells you a lot about the fan base in terms of what is popular > (lifted directly from Pitchfork) Pitchfork’s Reviews Section By the Numbers | Pitchfork
TOP 10 MOST READ REVIEWS (since February 2016, which is as far back as our tracking platform measures)
The format of the review itself is pretentious; I thought the thread title referred to albums where the writing of the reviews was poor, rather than just the rating.
My god. I just skimmed it. While a pile o shite
Ahhhh Pitchfork.
There has been, by my count, 3 different Pitchforks over the years. The fledgling indie blog based in Chicago run by unaware white, spiteful dudes who were pitiful Lester Bangs wannabes, the more self-aware attempt at serious music criticism based in Brooklyn, and the now hyper inclusive Condé Nast outlet. All 3 have their pros and cons.
Fwiw, they reappraised Zaireeka and gave it a 10 (editor in chief wrote a decent 33 1/3 on it) and Aphex has been creeping steadily up their best music lists over the years (Drukqs was reviewed in that first iteration).
While I wish the Condé Nast Pfork spent as much time on independent music as the first Pfork, I find its current attempt to “reset the record” valuable.
To be fair that Fiona Apple album is pretty good… not my cup of tea these days but still.
Two mentioned in the Mars Volta thread: De-Loused and Frances the Mute by them. Also El Cielo by Dredg.
Assume Form by James Blake is also his most versatile and most accomplished album so far to me. Pitchfork gave it a really mediocre, 5ish review. If I remember correctly, the reviewer only spoke about the lyrics and did not tell you anything about the music, which was great to me.
I generally agree with their reviews though on stuff I appreciate. However, with some reviews they focus way too much on lyrics, concepts and context/person over the actual music.
And as @GS says below, I am thankful for making me know about stuff.
I try to browse their reviews every month by selecting these 4 categories : electronic, experimental, jazz and global. It gives me a glimpse of the hype of the moment among young hip music lovers.
I made quite a lot of nice dicoveries and I’m grateful for that. There use to be many, MANY review sites back int he late 90’s/early 00’s and they’re mostly gone. We still need some of them.
Most of the writers iseem to focus on their own personal narrative and how it applies to the album more than anything…
Can be true, but I don’t feel like that so often when I read their reviews to generalize to such a degree. And to be fair, when it comes down to it music is always highly subjective and the idea of writing a review about it kinda ridiculous. But to then slap a X.X number on it is even weirder.
It’s atrocious - I cannot agree with you more. I realize that was your gripe and was just taking the piss out of the scoring system. I fucking hate number ratings. Pre school review tactic.
Counter point on number system: who wants to read people tripping over themselves to describe something that is inherently ineffable?
thanks for that… I just found the re-appraisal and never knew that existed. Which is actually quite cool.
I think Pitchfork has it’s moment’s and is a very valid platform but there have been times when I’ve been very aware of how some of the ‘music journalists’ can contribute to making or breaking or damaging artists in some way. I’m not comfortable with that so I tend to resent certain review(er)s even though I know it’s predominantly subjective claptrap.
I agree with you completely. That first Pfork, anyway, was drunk on scene-making power.
It’s ironic they were the site to both make and break Arcade Fire.
Of the Aphex Twin review, this is the thing that has stoked new ire
YOU DONT USE THE EXCERPT QUOTE TO QUOTE THE FIRST LINE OF YOUR REVIEW! THAT IS DUMB!
Edit: maybe I’m just living in a more advanced age(20+ years in the future), but I feel this is a timeless writing method
Lolol that’s how all the old reviews appear though. Think it’s a formatting issue.
Not sure about this case, but the teasers for older reviews are always just the beginning of the review. Guess they didn’t have teasers in their old CMS and you cannot expect them to write new ones for thousands of reviews.
To be fair, drukqs, however wonderful it is, could have been a great single disc album. Could have done with some trimming. That said, pitchfork writers are insufferable.
Seriously, cut Avril 14th(no one likes that song) and put it all on one disc
