Home› Other Music

Why is Pitchfork popular?

musicismylife78musicismylife78 Posts: 6,116
edited February 2008 in Other Music
You’d have a hard time convincing me that Pitchfork isn’t influential and important. It is what Rolling Stone used to be. It can make or break an album, and a high pitchfork score can mean a lot of people are going to buy the record, based on that fact alone. A lot of our favorite bands, a lot of the currently popular bands, a lot of the currently popular indie bands owe at least some credit to pitchfork for their success.

My question isn’t whether pitchfork is overrated, or if Pitchfork is biased.

My question is, why is it so influential and important? Why is it basically the bible of the indie rock universe? Why does a high score on pitchfork turn into a large uptick in sales of that record? Why is it so popular?
Post edited by Unknown User on

Comments

  • Jeremy1012Jeremy1012 Posts: 7,170
    because it's fucking hilarious and the only music publication with good taste AND a sense of humour in the 21st century. Their review of Kid A is a masterpiece of journalistic self-parody.

    I couldn't care less if it's a hipster piece of shit, it makes me laugh and it's right 9 times out of 10. Puts bollocks like the NME to shame.
    "I remember one night at Muzdalifa with nothing but the sky overhead, I lay awake amid sleeping Muslim brothers and I learned that pilgrims from every land — every colour, and class, and rank; high officials and the beggar alike — all snored in the same language"
  • Its Evolution BabyIts Evolution Baby Posts: 849
    When I read there reviews I feel the are way to proud of themselves like they want a medal every time they are clever. I'll still take Rolling Stone despite all of there faults.

    Besides they hate PJ so how can I really respect there opinion?
    10/31/2000 (****)
    6/7/2003 (***1/2)
    7/9/2006 (****1/2)
    7/13/2006 (**** )
    4/10/2008 EV Solo (****1/2)
    6/25/2008 MSG II (*****)
    10/1/2009 LA II (****)
    10/6/2009 LA III (***** Cornell!!!)
  • rigneyclanrigneyclan Posts: 289
    pitchfork sucks.
    7/16/06 7/18/06
  • Cherry GhostCherry Ghost Posts: 109
    Check out Metacritic, Popmatters, and the Onion A.V. club. I do check out Pitchfork, but these are some other options that are a little less pretentious imho.
    8/9/92 Jones Beach, 10/2/96 Hartford, 9/8/98 E. Rutherford, 9/1/00 Camden, 7/5/03 Camden, 7/9/03 MSG, 7/14/03 PNC, 10/1/04 Reading, 9/30/05 Borgata, 10/1/05 Borgata, 10/3/05 Philly, 5/27/06 Camden, 6/1/06 E. Rutherford, 6/3/06 E. Rutherford, 6/20/08 Camden, 6/24/08 MSG, 6/25/08 MSG, 8/7/08 EV@NJPAC, 10/30/09 Spectrum, 10/31/09 Spectrum, 5/18/10 Newark
  • IgottagoIgottago Posts: 483
    As annoying as it can be, Pitchfork has turned me on to some very good bands. You make a great point..they do what the big publications don't do...which is find good music and review it accordingly. Rolling Stone isn't really a music magazine any more.
  • pjoasisrulepjoasisrule Posts: 3,412
    Critics have become pointless for todays music
    Alpine Valley 2000
    Summerfest 2006

    "Why would they come to our concert just to boo us?" -Lisa Simpson
  • redsdiseaseredsdisease Posts: 147
    Because Pitchfork does a great job of making the music that they rate highly seem better than other music. People like feeling like their music is superior to other's.

    Fuck music reviews, find your own music. It's so much more rewarding.

    http://www.theonion.com/content/news/pitchfork_gives_music_6_8
    Jimmy Carter has disco fever.
  • OdinOdin Posts: 599
    Because trendy hipster artfags lap that shit up and have their mouths ready to fellate any dull indie band that the writers praise.
  • OdinOdin Posts: 599
    redsdisease wrote:
    Because Pitchfork does a great job of making the music that they rate highly seem better than other music. People like feeling like their music is superior to other's.

    Fuck music reviews, find your own music. It's so much more rewarding.

    http://www.theonion.com/content/news/pitchfork_gives_music_6_8

    Amen, brother!
  • FinsburyParkCarrotsFinsburyParkCarrots Seattle, WA Posts: 12,223
    Odin wrote:
    Because trendy hipster artfags lap that shit up and have their mouths ready to fellate any dull indie band that the writers praise.

    I must say, this is a beautiful post.
  • elmerelmer Posts: 1,683
    Never heard of Pitchfork. Gave up on the music press back in the late 90's, was Qmagazine that pushed me over the brink. They did a feature on musical sub-genres, much of my favorite music was described as:"cock-rock". Fucking cheek, never again!
  • glasshouseglasshouse Posts: 1,762
    Jeremy1012 wrote:
    because it's fucking hilarious and the only music publication with good taste AND a sense of humour in the 21st century. Their review of Kid A is a masterpiece of journalistic self-parody.

    i don't agree with you. you are referring to the "To compare Kid A to anything else out there is like comparing an aquarium to blue wallpaper" article (something like that)

    that article was not suppose to be funny or a "masterpiece of journalistic self-parody", it is some of the worse journalism i've ever come across. talking about being objective? that review actually turned me off of Radiohead.

    i ignore them flat out. my opinion fucks them in the asshole square on like a motherfucking train crash in any case. how's that for "a masterpiece of self parody"
    Athens, Greece: 2006/09/30

    "Call me Ishmael. Some years ago- never mind how long precisely- having little or no money in my purse, and nothing particular to interest me on shore, I thought I would sail about a little and see the watery part of the world." Herman Melville : Moby Dick
Sign In or Register to comment.