Pitchfork is an interesting case. I have been reading it off and on since they had the last interview with Jeff Mangum (2001?) before he went dark. It feels like the more inclusive, poptimist pov the site has adopted was a necessary correction. It’s origins sometimes felt like the movie High Fidelity come to life. Sad sack white dudes (like myself) bemoaning albums that didn’t fit their narrow vision of ‘good music’. Sometimes I ponder whether there has been an overcorrection where reviews feel like they are attempting to make a political statement first and foremost. I’m fine with my tastes not aligning with a vast majority of the site and I appreciate being exposed to music cultures and subcultures I wouldn’t otherwise be exposed to but I sometimes come away feeling like they are trying to align themselves with changing cultural values more than inform music lovers about new music. I don’t have a specific example at hand, so take this with a grain of salt, as it is more of an overall impression when I read the site.
Big Thief is their darling so that might be a good starting point for your theory…
My good friend held an editorial position at the mag for a few years. I don’t think he holds the publication in high regards and I do my best not to let on how much I loath it but he surly knows I hate the reviews and he seems to agree with some of my gripes. Actually, his ex-boss lives in my building, her and her husband are the type of people who you are introduced to multiple times, see you every couple of days but never manage to recognize you, or maybe it’s just me… they are by no means what I would describe as a cool couple… He wears a Crass shirt from time to time and I’m not sure what I think about that but I will try to reign in my cattiness. With that said I didn’t think about them when I started this thread I swear!
Lord knows I’ve tried with Big Thief. I recognize the talent and I’m sure some of my reluctance with them is the overwhelming hype they receive but that aside, I just can’t get on their wavelength.
Yeah, this is my sense too. There were a few years where their end-of-year #1 choice was “We can’t choose what everyone else is choosing” so that was #2 while something obscure got elevated. (Still better than The Wire, which, in the several years I subscribed to it late in the last century, felt like reading a newspaper from another galaxy. Their end-of-year lists routinely contained stuff impossible for mere mortals to acquire.) Pitchfork’s rap and R&B reviews were pretty cringeworthy when they started doing them. I still look at the site occasionally, but I checked out long before they were acquired by Condé Nast. And this is above and beyond my usual cautious approach to criticism. I think it is valuable, but one always has to take into account any individual or aggregation biases. There are critics that I mostly trust but I know their weaknesses are X and Y and I should not trust them on those topics.
One of my personal favorite albums. This review felt personal in a way. I know it’s all subjective, but really this bad?
I find myself quite glad to not know neither Pitchfork nor Kanye West.
You are not missing much in either case.
I’ve discovered lots of good music through pitchfork, especially in the mid 00s, but it also was built to thrive on threads like this!
I remember Built To Thrive, strong debut, disappointing sophomore album, whatever happened to them?
Their most egregious mistake. They backpedaled 5 years later and upped the score to 7.8 - still low IMO considering the impact this EP had. Wouldn’t put it past them to increase it again now that Sophie’s dead. Pathetic!
out of curiosity, why would you hate Tool?
I’ve felt this way for a long time now, but haven’t been able to put it into words like you did so well here. I appreciate your post!
I have a love hate relationship with pitchfork. It can be pretentious as fuck… But even if they are scoring an album relatively low, it’s easy for me to quickly understand from the review if I’m going to like it or not.
In that sense the reviews are good. Especially when it comes to the kind of rock I like (emo, garage rock, grunge, pop punk etc), there will be mentions of touchstones and influences, and cities of origin etc, that will just let me know it’s going to right up my street.
Most of my favourite bands, I first read about on Pitchfork.
I just couldn’t read more than 3 sentences. How pedantic and inefficient.
This is my favourite. Check out their later review of the Definitive Edition for some hilarious back pedalling.
I don’t think backpedaling is a bad thing at all. I appreciate them actually being humble enough to admit they were wrong and reset the record.
lol I teach a university course to Masters candidates in English translation and interpretation. This thread has given me the idea to teach criticism through reappraisals. Thanks yall!
This is well expressed. It often feels to me that they decide the statement they want to make with something then work backwards from that until they get to the actual music. I do find the site vastly more tolerable today than it was early on though, back when most of their writers tended towards making cringeworthy attempts at ‘New Journalism’… But the increasing reliance on irritating clickbaity tactics these days does drive me a bit mental.
That said, I always find it weird the way so many treat websites/publications as though they’re a single person, subject to contradictions and hypocrisy, and not a continuously evolving set of individuals. You see this a lot on forums too: ‘Last week you all said this, now you’re all saying that! Hypocrisy!’ Then you go back and look and it was different posters with different opinions all along, combined into some sort of hive mind by the reader.
Someone new reviewing something 18 years later and coming to a different conclusion isn’t backpedalling, it’s another viewpoint informed by living in an entirely different world. Personally I think their retrospective reviews tend to be the most worth reading these days.
I only backpedal. Frontpedaling is for squares.
This is a great point.
I listen to this podcast:
It’s hosted by two music journalists, Steven Hyden and Ian Cohen, who in addition to talking about music news and new records, give a lot of detail about how music journalism works. For one, I didn’t know that the editorial staff sets the Numerical Score at Pitchfork. Then I guess the actual review goes to the writer who’s viewpoint best matches up with the editors. So, too your point, it is definitely An evolving collective of writers that are working within the framework of the editorial staff’s overall vision.
I’d highly recommend the podcast. It’s a fantastic view into the world of music journalism but more importantly two people who love music talking over the big news and albums of the week.
Do you ever beerpedal?