Options
the problem with pitchfork reviews
i am a target
Posts: 803
one: there's no continuity. they have 56 various writers listed as contributors.
two: as far as the review goes (and this is my biggest problem with pitchfork). the writer admits to not liking anything pearl jam has released after 2000. if you don't like new pearl jam why would you review a new pearl jam album? that site does this all the time. i can't remember who said it, but after getting a bad review from pitchfork the lead singer of the band they reviewed said they must be doing something right if pitchfork hates them.
here's a summary of the pearl jam review:
i like their old stuff.
4.7
two: as far as the review goes (and this is my biggest problem with pitchfork). the writer admits to not liking anything pearl jam has released after 2000. if you don't like new pearl jam why would you review a new pearl jam album? that site does this all the time. i can't remember who said it, but after getting a bad review from pitchfork the lead singer of the band they reviewed said they must be doing something right if pitchfork hates them.
here's a summary of the pearl jam review:
i like their old stuff.
4.7
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
Then why does anybody care about their review? I never even heard of pitchfork until people started talking about this review.
Pearl Jam bootlegs:
http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
it just became part of the internet music culture. it's there to justify the enormous amounts of pretentious and shitty indie music out there right now. people care because it's a barometer of what is "cool". music fans want to know what's going on with the bands they like and want to find out about new bands and for some reason pitchfork struck a chord with the masses. rollingstone used to be credible. now look at it. i wouldn't wipe my ass with that magazine.
yeah I think Mojo is the only reputable rock music magazine left.
Pearl Jam bootlegs:
http://wegotshit.blogspot.com