Pitchfork media, why all the hate?

musicismylife78

people on this board seem to loathe the website, but no one ever says why. It never delves deeper than the juvenile cop out of "they are indie snobs".

What do they specifically do that is so horrid?

Can anyone post actual reviews that really made them angry?

I really dont see anything bad about it. They arent always correct on their reviews, but who the hell is? Even Ebert gives thumbs up to a bad movie and sometimes even gives thumbs down to a good one.

I think its cool. Pitchfork is what Rolling Stone was 30 years ago. It has the power to launch a bands career. They should be given credit for exposing many of us to some good bands like Arcade Fire, Wolf Parade, Broken Social scene, and Sufjan Stevens.

Their hatred of Tool gets me upset but overall pitchfork is a cool site.

WES

People here slam pitchfork simply because pitchfork has consistently given pearl jam bad reviews (excluding yield). And lets face it everything post-yield has been mediocre at best. (Obviously some great tunes within albums, but overall they were lacking)

People who label pitchfork as a place for indie snobs are missing out on some great music. More often than not their opinions are spot on.

Brain of J.Lo

I think the main reason people around here dislike pitchfork is that they are vocal about their distaste for pearl jam. Also, they're major pricks most of the time. People tend to be put off by their snobbery.

Aside from the pricky-ness, though, they're a great source for finding new bands.

People need to learn to take what they say with a grain of salt.

JSBE

i will wager one shiny nickel that someone brings up their pearl jam reviews. (EDIT - i started typing this before the other two people replied, but without fail, pitchfork = bad because they don't like pearl jam).

regardless, pitchfork is one of the sites i check every single monday, tuesday, wednesday, thursday and friday (ie - the days they update) and have been for many years now.

i wouldn't compare pitchfork now to rolling stone then, but definitely when pitchfork gives a good grade to something, people notice and sales will go up. i know when they give something a good grade or an album makes it on to the best new music (or even recommended) list, i will make an effort to try to find a song or two to listen to.

sure, their reviewing style is very formulaic to the point where i can guess the general area of the score of an album for more "well known" indie artists and it is usually a slam dunk that they will give a 6 or lower for anything released for a major label, top name act.

and i'll agree, pitchfork is no different than ebert or peter travers reviewing movies or (insert name here) that reviews a book or a play or a video game. it is all subject to that one person's opinion.

musicismylife78

thanks for bringing that up. That has always bugged me too. Reviews are written by one person. And I assume they arent cleared by Pitchfork. Same with spin, rolling stone or Blender.

So essentially when Rolling Stone awards an album 5 stars it isnt the magazine that is awarding it, its the one reviewer who is.

Same with pitchfork. If PJ is given a 6.5 that doesnt mean Pitchfork as a site thinks that, its just one reviewer who does.

That has always bugged me big time. people always say "Spin gave so and so 3 stars" or "Pitchfork gave so and so a 8.9". Well thats true sort of, but in reality....

boroff89

I find them to be elitist snobs (this coming from someone who is often called the same). It has less to do with their negative Pearl Jam reviews and more to do with them heaping praise on acts like Deerhoof. They do a nice job of giving attention to indie acts, but they then act like the only worthwhile music comes from the indie scene. Anyone who reads my posts knows that I think quite a bit of the good music out there right now comes from that scene, but I think despising something simply because it is mainstream is ridiculous.

WES

i think the original intent of the site was to bring exposure to independant acts and not neccessarily be another "rollingstone" or "blender". Calling them indie snobs is unfair simply because the mainstream is not their intent. Point being that if you are not into independant music don't look to pitchfork for the always glowing reviews of mainstream bands that can easily be found in mainstream magazines or websites.

transplant

I guess I haven't experienced the hate. I never found their PJ reviews that bad really. I hit it up Mon - Friday also. I particularly enjoy their Show No Mercy column. They put out some pretty awesome metal suggestions.

the only problem I have with them is that they only seem to review a Major Label artists release when they want to slam the hell out of it. Annoying.

I want to personally thank them from the bottom of my heart for introducing me to Hot Snakes a few years back.

sadprofessor

Everyone on every board everywhere loathes that site, and thats the way Pitchfork wants it. Snobby, snarky reviews, elitist bullshit, they love it, and believe it or not the fact that people have that attitude about it probably drives traffic there.

That said, once in awhile they get it right, often they get it wrong, just like any other media outlet.

As far as Pearl Jam is concerned, the fact of the matter is, PJ is in a shitty position when it comes to outlets like Pitchfork. PJ is a very independent minded band, on a major label, who have sold shitloads of records and were at the forefront of a scene that some people are still tired of. That results in people like the Pitchfork writers not really knowing what to do with them. And if you read the reviews and not just look at the scores, they rarely pan the records, they just don't love them the way we do, they clearly have some modicum of respect for PJ, which I think is all that really matters.

And in closing whatever godawful garbage they are pimping this week probably sucks, and in the end, and this is my favorite part, it is just as disposable as the "popular" stuff that they shit on every day. Because no one will care in a few years, especially pitchfork, just like no one cares about the bands they were felating 2-3 years ago.

JSBE

boroff89 wrote:

I find them to be elitist snobs (this coming from someone who is often called the same). It has less to do with their negative Pearl Jam reviews and more to do with them heaping praise on acts like Deerhoof. They do a nice job of giving attention to indie acts, but they then act like the only worthwhile music comes from the indie scene. Anyone who reads my posts knows that I think quite a bit of the good music out there right now comes from that scene, but I think despising something simply because it is mainstream is ridiculous.

i totally agree. pitchfork as a whole (or at least a couple writers) will fall in love with a genre (rap a year or two ago) or a band (deerhoof amongst others) and go completely overboard in saying it is the greatest thing since sliced bread.

i tried deerhoof but it wasn't my thing, same with a lot of other bands they as a site or writers like.

and the thinking - in my opinion - that something, anything 'mainstream' is bad is just stupid. like what you like, don't like what you don't.

transplant

sadprofessor wrote:

And in closing whatever godawful garbage they are pimping this week probably sucks

you mean like...Animal Collective? though damnit, I will give Strawberry Jam a listen, anybody who likes Here Comes the Indian needs their head examined.

South of Seattle

I hate pitchfork because they think the Arcade Fire is a good band

hopethatuchoke

You didn't get the memo when you signed up for the message pit? Anyone who expresses an opinion other than "OMG the new PJ album is like amazing!!" is branded a fucking asshole by a core group of posters here. So if anyone reading this owns a publishing company or does anything that has to do with music, make sure to give Pearl Jam a 10/10 on everything or else the "Jamily" will show up on your front lawn with burning crosses and pitchforks.

pjoasisrule

Here is a list of bands that are amazing but have been bashed by this steaming turd known as Pitchfork

Jet
The Redwalls
Oasis
Black Rebel Motorcycle Club
Pearl Jam

They give ridiculously low scores to almost everything and they only give really good ratings to the most predictable or hip bands around. You wont find a really good review on anything that hasnt gotten a really good review from somewhere else as well. I am getting pissed off right now just thinking about how full of shit their critics are, I would love to punch each and every one of them in the face.

WES

hopethatuchoke wrote:

You didn't get the memo when you signed up for the message pit? Anyone who expresses an opinion other than "OMG the new PJ album is like amazing!!" is branded a fucking asshole by a core group of posters here. So if anyone reading this owns a publishing company or does anything that has to do with music, make sure to give Pearl Jam a 10/10 on everything or else the "Jamily" will show up on your front lawn with burning crosses and pitchforks.

well said.

OmahaJammer

WES wrote:

People here slam pitchfork simply because pitchfork has consistently given pearl jam bad reviews (excluding yield). And lets face it everything post-yield has been mediocre at best. (Obviously some great tunes within albums, but overall they were lacking)

People who label pitchfork as a place for indie snobs are missing out on some great music. More often than not their opinions are spot on.

There are 65 words in your post. I agree 100% with all 65 of those words. In fact, pitchfork reviewed my band (Coyote Bones) and gave it a 6/10. That's not a great score....but they probably got it right.

http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/article/record_review/43729-gentleman-on-the-rocks

dharma69

pjoasisrule wrote:

Here is a list of bands that are amazing but have been bashed by this steaming turd known as Pitchfork

Jet

Their review for "Shine On"...one of the best, most creative reviews I've ever read:

It equated the album to a monkey drinking it's own piss and had a video of the act as a visual aide. Loved it.

Afterwards I went to two Jet shows in one week and rocked my little ass off.

I've got no issues with Pitchfork; it's just a source of information. I'm not a musical-follower so I don't let their or anyone else's opinions guide my music habits.

musicismylife78

2 to 3 years ago pitchfork raved about arctic monkeys, arcade fire, clap your hands say yeah, broken social scene, interpol. And those bands arent popular are they?

They know their stuff. Anyone who says differently is crazy.

sadprofessor wrote:

Everyone on every board everywhere loathes that site, and thats the way Pitchfork wants it. Snobby, snarky reviews, elitist bullshit, they love it, and believe it or not the fact that people have that attitude about it probably drives traffic there.

That said, once in awhile they get it right, often they get it wrong, just like any other media outlet.

As far as Pearl Jam is concerned, the fact of the matter is, PJ is in a shitty position when it comes to outlets like Pitchfork. PJ is a very independent minded band, on a major label, who have sold shitloads of records and were at the forefront of a scene that some people are still tired of. That results in people like the Pitchfork writers not really knowing what to do with them. And if you read the reviews and not just look at the scores, they rarely pan the records, they just don't love them the way we do, they clearly have some modicum of respect for PJ, which I think is all that really matters.

And in closing whatever godawful garbage they are pimping this week probably sucks, and in the end, and this is my favorite part, it is just as disposable as the "popular" stuff that they shit on every day. Because no one will care in a few years, especially pitchfork, just like no one cares about the bands they were felating 2-3 years ago.

musicismylife78

hopethatuchoke wrote:

You didn't get the memo when you signed up for the message pit? Anyone who expresses an opinion other than "OMG the new PJ album is like amazing!!" is branded a fucking asshole by a core group of posters here. So if anyone reading this owns a publishing company or does anything that has to do with music, make sure to give Pearl Jam a 10/10 on everything or else the "Jamily" will show up on your front lawn with burning crosses and pitchforks.

great post. I agree. It has happened to me. If one criticizes ONE thing about PJ they are called out as haters and crap like that. Its infantile and sophomoric, at best.

I love this band. I have been a fan since 1991. I am a ten club member. But I dont subscribe to the notion that I have to bow down to the band on every action.

PJ is like every other band. They have some great songs, and great albums, and so not so great songs and albums. They make wise choices and not so wise choices. They play mindblowing live, and then play mediocre live.

I think its silly to act like everything this band does is gold.

Kevin Davis

I love Pitchfork Media. They're a great barometer. If they praise something, I generally know to avoid it like the plague.

Arctic Monkeys, Clap Your Hands Say Yeah, Arcade Fire - please.

sadprofessor

Cheguevara6 wrote:

2 to 3 years ago pitchfork raved about arctic monkeys, arcade fire, clap your hands say yeah, broken social scene, interpol. And those bands arent popular are they?

They know their stuff. Anyone who says differently is crazy.

This is true but the mainstream press covered those bands too... and I just checked, they never gave Artic Monkeys anything higher than a 7.4

The kinds of bands I was referring to are bands like Deerhunter, who no one anywhere really cares about that much, yet they have like a weekly news item. The bands that ONLY Pitchfork covers. My favorite example is the Unicorns from a few years back. Who the fuck are the Unicorns? Search them and you will get 3 pages of responses on the site.

They do get it right sometimes, no doubt about that, but I often get the impression they are trying so hard to be first to cover the "next big thing" that they will devote absolutely retarted amounts of attention to utterly unimportant (and really not good) shit.

To me wasting valuable space on really obscure shit does nothing but make people see the site as even more elitist and oftentimes downright stupid. They could invest that energy doing more reviews, more editorial type things etc. Stuff that more than 50 people on the planet might actually give a damn about. But personally, what annoys me (and I read the site every day, I have the RSS feed on my homepage) is the constant drive to cover the most obscure shit imaginable, not because its good, but just for the sake of covering it.

TVVNCYBRAPJ

http://www.theonion.com/content/news/pitchfork_gives_music_6_8?utm_source=slate_rss_1


this gave me a good laugh

fotd

transplant wrote:

you mean like...Animal Collective? though damnit, I will give Strawberry Jam a listen, anybody who likes Here Comes the Indian needs their head examined.

Strawberry Jam needs to be listened to once then dismissed as noise then listened to again on an ipod walking around a major metropolitan city and then you will finally get it's awesomeness.

glasshouse

read the review of RADIOHEAD's KID A by pitchfork.

it is the most biased and unprofessional and cringe worthy attempt at a review i've ever stubled across.

Pitchfork (in general) are for the fucking hipster association - the one i feel a flying fuck for.

and yes, their reviews of pearl jam's albums are just terrible. i guess PJ are to dated to be hip/relevant.

Jeremy1012

pjoasisrule wrote:

Here is a list of bands that are amazing but have been bashed by this steaming turd known as Pitchfork

Jet

Jet are possibly the biggest pile of shit ever to reach my ears. Pitchfork are elitist twats for sure but at least the music they champion is good.

ThreeSadSemesters

glasshouse wrote:

i guess PJ are to dated to be hip/relevant.

hehe. I have to be in the right mood for "dope inadvertandly says something completely accurate with the intention of being sarcastic", and luckily I was when I read this.

Someone beat me to posting the Onion article, so I dont have much to say...but Im listening to that Animal Collective record for the first time today and Im willing to bet its not as spanktastic as they think.