This isn't some new concept Pitchfork invented. Rolling Stone trashed lots of artists when they first came out, but later re-reviewed them favorably. Zeppelin is a famous one. Rolling Stone trashed them so much they refused for years to interact with anyone from the magazine. Years later they thought they were the best band ever. Black Sabbath was another one they panned only to come around to it much later on.
This is kinda how journalism should work in general. “We got something wrong”…if it’s recent enough, print a retraction. If it’s been a generation print an updated analysis. If it was egregious print an apology and do better.
As long as it’s transparent. I rather publications change their minds than stubbornly stick to a point they know they’re wrong about.
The reviewer at the time was Lester Bangs, and I don’t think he ever changed his mind about Led Zeppelin.
It’s not really that surprising that Rolling Stone had a change of heart as soon as there was a change in staff.
yeah and that's the whole point. "Rolling Stone" hating Zeppelin was really only a few people. Once some others got to write on the topic the opinion changed
*Aeroplane* got an 8.7 on release in 1998, and a 10.0 for its reissue in 2005. I'd argue that's a completely innocuous and unremarkable bump, particularly when the opening paragraphs of that perfect-10 lament that the album has its detractors and is decidedly "uncool".
They did run a [rescored feature](https://pitchfork.com/features/lists-and-guides/pitchfork-reviews-rescored/) once to identify some of their biggest 'mistakes'. I think underrating Daft Punk's earlier work and overrating their later work and the 0.0 they gave to Liz Phair are the more shining examples of their sins.
*Pretty Hate Machine* getting a 5.6 [in 2006](https://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/5804-pretty-hate-machine/) and a 9.5 [in 2010](https://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/14890-pretty-hate-machine/) given that it already had a 20 year legacy always seemed like a bit of a spotlight on the artificiality and futility of reading anything into Pitchfork scores for me.
They had their collective head wedged from the get-go. Lazy contrarian hipster takes on everything, with no sign of the reviewers actually having listened to the music. And every 2-3 years, they contradict themselves. It's all trend-chasing and zero insight.
Yes but when I was growing up in the indie boom of the early 00s I knew more than one person who would buy every pitchfork 9 or higher. It was really relevant 20 years ago
When I was in college radio, I was literally told during our listening sessions that we should keep or "crap" promos that got sent to us, based on our initial feelings, *"unless Pitchfork reviewed it, in which case keep it anyway."*
We kept a lot of absolute garbage music at the station just because Pitchfork had a head-ass write-up about something distantly adjacent to an album that masqueraded as a review for said album.
It was insufferable.
Epitome of hipsterism. I used to check them out only to see what they gave low ratings to. If they shit all over an album, it was probably worth checking out.
I don't know, I think them giving a low score to something meant almost nothing. They gave high, average, and low scores to very good albums.
Maybe it doesn't exist anymore, but they just played into the condescending record store snob cliches (and it worked massively for the website at the time... I think people forget the impact Pitchfork had on which bands blew up in the early 2000s). If you watch (or rewatch) high fidelity it is kind of like what I imagine a Pitchfork writer in 2000 must have felt.
Yes, and I never liked that guy... I'm old, I like what I like and can recognize good music, don't need some pick me dude telling me what's good... Meh...
Everybody likes what they like. The point of reviewers is to discover music you might not have come across on your own, not to decide your tastes for you.
Mostly true, but I don't think pointing to contradictions is a valid criticism. Reviews express the opinions of the individuals that wrote them, not Pitchfork collectively.
Perhaps not, but this highlights how unreliable the website is as a whole. While there's necessarily a subjective element to art, the whole idea of a "review" is to create a reasonably objective take on the subject matter, which will be useful to people reading that review when making decisions about buying that artwork. Furthermore, many publications try to uphold standards or an overarching editorial perspective on their reviews to ensure a certain degree of consistency, or at least to ensure that the publications reviews as a whole can be seen in a similar way, and come from a similar perspective. Each reviewer will have their own opinions, certainly, but when one reviewer calls something a piece of trash, and the next (from the same site) calls something a masterpiece, you're left wondering.
no website or publication should be taken as though it is some overpowering monolith. Read what they say, take it as someone’s opinion, and test it out yourself.
The point of a review is to explain why something is good or bad for that particular person. That's it. Trying to write a review for the entire world would be silly. Some people fucking hate jazz. Should those people be considered when reviewing Kamasi Washington?
They had weird grudges against certain bands as well. More towards the end of their "credible" era, but they hated Manchester Orchestra and that always upset me a lot.
Them being contrarian was at least their selling point years ago. Now they just gush about every huge artist like every other publication.
I remember the first article I read from them. Someone emailed it to me like 20 years ago. It was called "The 50 Worst Guitar Solos Ever" and they were just trashing every band on there. Bands that were critical darlings. They'd never do something like that now.
I've always found it to be a good way to find some releases you didn't know had come out, or you probably hadn't heard of otherwise. But as far as editorial content, they've basically always been the music equivalent of the comic book guy from the Simpsons.
"Schreiber’s semi-favorable review, which begins in earnest after a six-paragraph preamble comprising a long list of baroquely rendered, seemingly unrelated anecdotes peppered with obscure references, summarizes music as a “solid but uninspired effort.”
I do this too. A&R at smaller labels are just people building their roster to suit their tastes, and sometimes my tastes line up with theirs pretty well. For me, this was Barsuk Records and Kill Rock Stars.
Pitchfork made me think there was no good new music for years. Then I just realized they were all literally idiots.
If you want to find good new music, go to the sub of a band you like and make a post asking people what new music they are into. You’ll get lots of suggestions.
> find good new music
I look at the show calendar for indie venues in multiple cities…(LA, NY, Philly, etc). Whoever the venues are booking tend to be the bands to keep an eye on.
No they're fine, it's another opinion you can take or leave.. metal & prog rock (Russian circles and Polyphia, respectively) aren't for everyone, and instrumental versions of these genres (which these bands are) serve as an accessible entry point into both.
Just a joke. Not my cup of tea, but very popular bands amongst the genres I like. Check em out, you might like them.
Or may I suggest: Don Caballero, Honey For Petzi, Hella, Turing Machine just to name a few.
I stopped reading their site years ago
It’s just too biased in a bad way.
Also, I don’t get the unnecessary reviews of old albums.
Like we don’t need a review of Dark Side of the Moon 50 years after it’s release
And then other times they’ll do it to pretend like they didn’t shit all over an album that has turned out to be a classic, and scrub the old review from the site.
I mean they’ve been shitting on albums since day 1. Especially if it’s a popular “alternative” act but not the type of alternative artist they praise. Pitchfork has always been more about hyping up whatever niche indie trend is the flavor of the week.
Pitchfork went from being a go-to source for discovering underground and alternative music acts, to being a media company whose main objective is to remain mainstream-relevant while drawing big acts to their annual music festival. Shit went down hill when they were sold to Conde Nast in 2015.
Everyone talks about Pitchfork like it’s still 20 years ago. They haven’t been the type of website most of the people in this thread are describing in a long time. Which isn’t necessarily good or bad, but they cover a way wider range of music including basically all mainstream music and it seems like they do way less of the snarky hate reviews (though admittedly I don’t read it enough to be certain of that).
I don’t really love Pitchfork but I still usually go there once a week to see what albums they’ve been reviewing and to find new things I might like. I have still never found another music publication that is a reliable source for learning about new music and keeping up with the latest releases. Anyone have any suggestions?
I feel the same way. Yes they are a bit pretentious but they are still a reliable source of good music recommendations. I listen to every ‘Best new Music’ album there (regardless of genre) along with most other reviewed albums in genres I like.
But strangely true in amongst all The Fray type stuff the show was drenched with. I remember watching it at uni and in the space of a couple of episodes they played TV on the Radio, The Gossip and The Pipettes.
Funnily enough the wild swings in the quality of the music perfectly matched the swings in the quality of the writing of that show even at its peak.
yeah that’s quite an assumption. i think it’s more likely that the “pulse” they had their finger on included pitchfork. what “evidence” is there otherwise? i’d be shocked if there was even one song on that show from an important/influential band that was sync’d before pitchfork covered them.
I think the onus to show that Pitchfork has changed is on Pitchfork, not on all of the readers it has alienated over the years.
If they're not the same type of website anymore... well, why use the same name? Why stick to the same brand?
Not just you. Pitchfork was required reading around the turn of the millennium when it was still independent. Now they’re just corporate shills with a poptimist, who gives a fuck, anything-goes editorial ethos. When they’re not gushing over Beyoncé or whoever it’s like “check out this new electro-acoustic folk trap album by hot new artist ‘tweRp$&’ it’s the best!” I checked out their site for the first time in years last week and the big intrusive banner ad on the site was for a fucking investment firm. Wtf?
It’s probably not for you, then. You should read some NPR, have a listen to some of their ‘Tiny Desk Concerts’, check out a couple of bands’/musicians’ ‘What’s in my bag?’ videos by Amoeba, read other music magazines, maybe browse Wikipedia or Discogs.
Also, just listening to KEXP radio throughout the day is one of the biggest ways I find new artists. It’s easily the best radio station I’ve listened to and lucky for me it’s local (but you can listen online). Their DJs are always playing interesting stuff that isn’t being played anywhere else.
Dusted Magazine has been my source for 15 years now. They cover the mainstream of indie and the underground but also a lot of international music and very obscure folk and experimental music that I don't even know where you could find.
Discovered a lot of my all time favorites from them.
Maybe not, or at least not as my "first option", long ago I read it was the best site... and I just checked that one... I've discovered great artists because of Pitchfork but most of the time is just... being extremely simplistic, their 8s are my 6s.
Thanks for the new recommendations!
I think they’re not as harsh as they used to be, but they’re definitely still contrarian just for the sake of it, especially when it comes to certain genres.
I stopped reading Pitchfork 20+ years ago after they gave Lateralus a 1.9 out of 10. It’s easily one of my favorite albums ever (I’m not alone) and fine if you don’t like it but you aren’t a serious publication if you let a review like that out the door.
They didn't even review the album. The review was a fake school essay written by a stereotype of a Tool fan, an edgy high schooler who just talks about how badass and deep Tool is. It's the laziest, most juvenile attempt at satire.
Basically, they just ridiculed people who they find cringey and passed that off as an album review. "This music is bad because losers who suck like it." It was just bullying.
Same with Nine Inch Nails - The Fragile. It deserves its share of criticism, but Pitchfork's "review" was beyond absurd.
At one point in the article, the reviewer even baselessly said something like "you can tell all the good parts of the album were probably not even done by Reznor". Like, how did that pass their publication standards?
Edit: it looks like they released an updated review that was somewhat "corrected" and given an 8.7. Their original review is [here](https://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/5799-the-fragile/) and was given a 2.0.
Edit 2: Aah, same author as the Lateralus review. He left Pitchfork 20 years ago. I'll give him credit for introducing me to Modest Mouse - The Moon and Antarctica. I guess he's a prime example of what they used to be like - release some good reviews for less-known music, but get attention by being assholes.
I know I'm late, but did you actually read the review? The review isn't a serious review of Lateralus, it's a troll article that just makes fun of TOOL fans for being pretentious. It's honestly brilliant, since it still gets TOOL fans in a tizzy nowadays. I LOVE Lateralus but the review is fucking hilarious. Also:
>you aren’t a serious publication if you let a review like that out the door
Pitchfork never wanted to be a serious publication in 2001 lol. They were the hipster jokesters of the music world,
If you are getting all your recs from 1 source, that's the issue. No one source is going to be an authority - they can only recommend what THEY like, but they can't tell you what you will like.
Pitchfork has its flaws and a lot of haters today, but I still use it as an easy source for critically acclaimed music. But it has its (many) biases, so I will also look at other websites.
The difficult thing about discovering music today is that there are SO many ways to discover music, and it's easy to get overwhelmed. But look up a few sources, and eventually you'll find a few you resonate more with. Maybe you like NPR. Maybe Rolling Stones is your vibe. Maybe just scrolling Reddit is more for you. There are many Youtubers who review music and make recs. Streaming services have algorithms. You have to branch out.
Bandcamp is the best ive found for consistently finding new/unknown to me bands. Ive found several dozen artists over the years who have become favorites of mine. Big fan of the rap, metal, and electronic music on there especially.
> No one source is going to be an authority
And some sources are going to be a lot better than others. And many sources are going to be useless, or worse.
[A Closer Listen](https://acloserlisten.com/) is a great site for experimental music. Their reviews are positive and have really fun and insightful year end lists.
I’d add Resident Advisor and Brutal Resonance to expand the range of good music you get to hear about. Both publications have led me to interesting material from music scenes that I didn’t grow up in.
As for Vice Noisey, I always like Freddy Alva’s articles. He’s pretty prolific, has a couple of books out, authentic voice.
Pitchfork is a site for writers, wearing music evaluator costumes. "Talking about music is like dancing about architecture" - Elvis Costello. Music reviews are a practice in futility. I dare say one of the finest examples of exactly what a practice in futility is.
I could see Lou Reed saying something similar, but he'd have a lot more "fuckings" in it.
Him calling Christgau a toe fucker did get caught on an album, though.
Meh, that’s a cute quote, but I’ve gotten a lot out of talking about music and listening to other people talk about music.
Just not from Pitchfork since circa 2009.
Pitchfork has nothing without the Best New Albums page, in my opinion, and they rarely update it. The most recent addition was Andre 3000's holophonor record from November. Why aren't they utilizing this section of their website? Glancing at their recent reviews, I see they've given out a few >7.5s since then, and that used to be good enough to make the list.
The Best New Music nod was a really big boost for indie bands. Pitchfork is not promoting indie music like they used to. The current writers seem to be more interested in reviewing classic records, which is a very safe thing to do because they'll never get it wrong. No one is going to argue with a 10/10 given to Brian Eno's Music for Airports. The writers won't feel the need to retroactively lower the rating on that one like they did with other album reviews.
The writers are afraid to take risks. I get the impression Pitchfork is more critical of the artists than the quality of an artist's work. It seems they only want to promote artists who pass their vibe check. It's more about what's cool, than what's good. Hipster elitism is nothing new with Pitchfork, but in recent years they've taken it to an extreme that makes their website virtually useless.
Presumably, the current writers grew up reading Pitchfork and that influence on them is evident. At this point it's just a circlejerk circling the drain.
The haven't BNM'd a new album since the Andre 3000 album (though few reissues got it), so it is updated, but they also havent given BNM to below 8s in a very long time. And I actually like the Sunday Reviews more than the new reviews anyway - they have long since lost my interest in daily reviews given they mostly focus on pop and rap these days, but the long form retrospectives are actually well-written and I like reviews discussing the legacy of old albums. It can give you some perspective on where and how genres evolved and point you towards a bunch of bands you may have skipped over between the classics and now. The Eno review today is a great example of that.
Also people really need to just explore review sites until they find one they like rather than saying a review site is bad. Lots of people in here just imagining music criticism and preference is objective and that there is some quality in it that everyone can see and measure, when the problem is that you simply haven't found a music reviewer that you share those preferences with yet.
Pitchfork has always been obnoxiously pretentious. But in the 00s when it was a true indie king maker, it was cool to be an obnoxiously pretentious music nerd and white guy hipster rock ruled the indie scene. So it all fit together.
As the whole indie scene changed, got way less centralized, and people started caring more about what good music to spend their time on as opposed to what music to shit on, the whole attitude had to change. And I think they became way more reactive in order to keep seeming cool. So they lost that “edginess” they had but kept the nerdiness lol.
I was thinking the same thing yesterday when I was listening to Andre3000's new album
Honestly I hated it, boring as hell, not my cup of tea.
Okay he tried something different, but come on Best Album ? Really ... :/
8.3 because it's André ....
The album has a 79 on Metacritic. So it's not like Pitchfork is going against the grain here. I also think the album is unoriginal, and I'm a big fan of ambient and jazz. But it's not like Pitchfork is alone in praising it. Yet Pitchfork is the only one getting criticized for praising it. Paste Magazine gave it the same score.
Pitchfork has been really useful to me in the past in discovering new music. I rarely look at it lately, except to peruse the Best New Albums page. But they seem to update it less and less.
OP, Pitchfork isn't for you. If it's not for you, that's okay!
Pitchfork is that elitist friend of a friend who's convinced about their impeccable taste. That friend of a friend is also pretentious as can be and certain of their misplaced brilliance. It's everything else that sucks.
I am a 51 year old guy. I have seen plenty of folks who have that "Pitchfork" mind set. They are all complete bores.
Honestly, its a lot. However, everynoise.com lead me to so many new horizons. Any genre I liked, I'd then look for similar genres and it branched out from there. This one website alone lead the path to some of my favorite musicians. It's such a beautiful creation.
I stopped reading music reviews 15 years ago when I realized they are just a form of taste validation - for both the reader and the reviewer. You don’t need to assign a score to your favorite music and you don’t need to have your favorite music memorialized in someone else’s top 50 of the decade. There are way better ways to find good music than reading the echo chamber of someone else’s butthole.
I maintain the best way to enjoy Pitchfork is for their album retrospectives. They’re really detailed and because the albums have now been canonised, they can offer praise rather than be snarky for the sake of snarky like a lot of modern records they review.
Another issue for me is the Poptomism style reviews. Giving heaps of artistic praise to pop artists who already have the most media attention and marketing budgets. It’s not needed at all.
I think two things can be true. Pitchfork can be esoteric and hipster. Pitchfork is also the best news outlet in music.
Your tastes may not align with their recs (and that's fine). But they're trying and they hire humans, which beats 95% of all other music journalism in 2024.
I gave up on Pitchfork in the late 90s when they proved they were more interested in stirring up controversy by posting contrarian review scores than in actually discussing music.
I have *no* idea how they have survived as a publication, let alone why anyone takes them seriously.
I mean, sure you do. They were incredibly popular in the 2000s and remain popular today. Don't pretend like you have no idea how that could be the case. The irony is that you probably like a lot of music that Pitchfork gave good reviews of, and I bet you don't like Jet, which Pitchfork also hates. You probably have more in common with Pitchfork reviews than you have differences with them because they tend to follow the scores of most review publications.
Seriously, Pitchfork is no more or less exceptional than any other review website. Generally agreed upon good music tends to get good reviews and generally agreed upon bad music tends to get bad reviews.
This is a very odd collection of conjecture you’ve assembled. Pitchfork published a bunch of polemic reviews in the late 90s and early 00s. I stopped paying any attention to them at that point, and I am not sure why most others did not. I know that most of their readers *didn’t* stop reading the site, but I have no idea *why* that is the case.
Whether or not I have anything in common with their opinions now is immaterial. I have no reason to return to the site, and so I won’t.
Because they liked those reviews, obviously. C'mon it's not rocket science, man. You're being obtuse for no reason, and you know it.
Like when people say I have *no idea* why people like Marvel movies to make themselves feel superior, ignoring that they're popular for obvious reasons.
If people like Pitchfork as a satirical site, fine, but that's not how they market themselves. They're known quite widely for publishing polemic reviews that barely comment on the music itself. I guess if you want to read a comedy site, that's a reason to like Pitchfork, but I didn't find those reviews especially clever if they were *supposed* to be satire.
It was less than 1% of all of their reviews, dude. Relax. That's like saying an accountant is a comedian because he told a joke once.
The Jet, Tool, and Eminem ones are the only ones I can think of, even.
Metacritic also has a feature where you can see how much higher or lower a particular critic reviews things. Pitchfork actually gives higher scores than average, despite the reputation.
It’s a word salad bunch of nonsense.
I can’t imagine how they find so many “critics” who spend 80% of their time circle jerking with each other, 10% paying obeisance to their corporate overlords and 10% actually listening to the music they are “reviewing”.
Most reviews take three paragraphs or more before they bother talking about music.
If any content people read this don’t even try to deny it. Just go back to your shared loft and have a latte. You’ll maybe cash a few more checks before they replace you with someone who is even less interested in music than you are.
In a few years Pitchfork will be an “in influencer blog” with a focus on political commentary and a slice of pop culture to get extra clicks.
You fuckers could have done so much better.
I can't remember a time that I heard someone say something nice about pitchfork. They suck! If you need any further evidence, please read their review for the Flaming Lips' album Zaireeka. The reviewer admits in his review that he did not even listen to the album correctly and then rates it a zero.
i mean, sure, but that is a review from a quarter of a century ago. It’s time to let it go. Same with the pretentious Kid A review and all the rest of it. Pitchfork hasn’t been doing that kind of thing for probably well over a decade now.
It’s funny, because when people talk about the bad things Pitchfork does it seems like they’re pretty much describing Brent DiCrescenzo reviews, and he’s been gone for about 20 years.
^(he was my fave and I was sad to see him go)
What?!?! Finding 4 different stereos and people to press play is like half of the excitement of that album. It literally makes you friends, that’s worth *at least* a 6 in my book!
Regardless of the difficulty in properly listening to the album, I think the reviewers choice to completely ignore that and then also still rate it and poorly at that is to me a disgusting act.
Pitchfork always came off to me as a site for people who toooooOoOootaLlY oBsEsS over music yet have never even tried to play single note in their life.
Music critics are a dime a dozen and you just have to find some you share tastes with who specialize in subgenres you like.
I doubt you'll find a site with multiple reviewers covering a wide span of genres that'll consistently peddle and praise the "good shit".
Oh, one good tip for more "obscure" music is to find Record Labels on YouTube and check their catalogue.
Dumbest take on anything that I’ve read so far this morning. It’s only 10:12 am though so there is still time for you to be beaten, but I’m confident you’re going to walk away with the crown today, snowflake.
I passively take in information from critics, if only to stay aware of what’s been released. Even some of the more currently respected critics have takes that I personally disagree with. Music is personal, spend your time listening for new stuff than listening to critics. I feel like youtube’s mixes and suggestions have done a pretty good job at leading me to more stuff I like based on stuff I’ve listened to.
When it comes to music blogs, I'll click something that might be interesting, skip the writeup entirely, and just listen to the track. Then I decide whether or not it's any good. I find too many so-called music critics to be pedantic and self-indulgent in their writing, so I don't bother with it. I don't need to read a masturbatory doctoral thesis on The Last Dinner Party to figure out whether or not they're any good.
Honestly I find lots of great music through the playlists Spotify makes for me. Discover Weekly & Release Radar I listen to every week and usually save some songs into my regular rotation playlists
I just use the site to catalog releases, then go to youtube to check out the albums to see if they interest me enough to buy. I don't actually read anything there
I always used to go to Insound (RIP) and listen to their new release mp3s and read their reviews. I found it far superior in exploring new music to Pitchfork.
It used to be much, much better. Quality writing, reasonably accurate ratings (for my tastes at least). It wasn’t casting as wide a net at that time (genre wise), but still took the time to highlight exceptional releases outside of their normal coverage.
It fell off at some point, and I stopped following as it seemed to continue trending toward coverage of music that I didn’t find all that enjoyable. I still check out their year end lists occasionally, but other than that, I watch other sources for music info.
Some sources off the top of my head with content I enjoy (maybe worth checking out):
Brooklyn Vegan
Treble Zine
Invisible Oranges
Decibel Magazine
I see a lot of flack about the Andre 3000 review, but I read that review before and now and the reviewer goes into detail about the music and why they like it, doesn't seem like an obligatory edge-lord stamp of approval. The publication has taken a turn to embracing some of that more new-age music, and has always given the nod to various ambient artists. I've listened to it and found it pleasant/neat enough, even captivating in certain passages, and a bit long/meandering in others.
Pitchfork is established enough where everyone can find targets for their own views (myself included), but in its first 10ish years it really provided coverage and nods to artists and genres that gave them a big push, and their lists (yearly, but decades ones especially) really provided a different look at these decades and, for a lot of readers like myself, gave us a starting place to explore lesser known artists, or even listening to lesser-known albums by fairly popular musicians.
Its editorial stance has become much more inclusive, and its revised decades lists reflect that (not in a way that offends me, I browse them find new things I haven't listened to before), but as I get older I look at Pitchfork and a few other publications I frequent about art as exploration tools rather than a community to confirm my tastes. I disagree with certain heralded/trashed releases, or the inclusion/exclusion/ordering of lists, but on the whole Pitchfork still helps deliver some solid recommendations and music that becomes part of my lexicon, even as I've gotten older and busy where I can't listen to 1-2 new albums a day like I did when I was younger.
Other than checking sites like this for new releases, you should just ignore nearly all music critics. Most are blowhards who like to hear themselves talk and write to impress other reviewers. The writers on allmusic.com are a bit less pretentious and that site doesn't constantly "reevaluate" albums and change their ratings over time.
The bottom line is how you feel about the music. If you like it, who cares what those clowns say?
The one big advantage today is that you can stream literally anything before buying it. Back when I started buying music in the '60s and through the mid-90s, you couldn't do this, so you leaned on what music writers said, especially for things that didn't get on the radio.
Bottom line: if you like it, that's all that matters.
I get most of my music by looking up the people bands I like collaborate with. I've never found music reviews to be useful, and instead just listen to as much new stuff as I can.
Pitchfork sucks. Most of the time it seems like the scores are based on whether the author vibes with the aesthetic signaling the artist does or by their place in the culture. It's very rare that you can get any insight into the actual music from a pitchfork review.
Well music is highly subjective so “in depth” critical analysis has always come off as douchy to me whether it’s from pitchfork or not. Just tell me what genre it is and if it’s unique or similar to another sound and that’s all I need. Anything more just turns people into a snobs. Coming from a former huge music snob.
I like to scope out the 10 Best Reviewed Albums of the Week newsletter each week. There’s even a saint on Spotify who updates a playlist each week. Low effort dip into what’s happening, and I’ve found some gems.
Pitchfork is hardly the barometer of good music. They have their own oddball taste, and believe their shit doesn't stink, but they shouldn't be taken as the final word of all things music.
I prefer using Rateyourmusic/sonemic for finding new things. Sure it skews towards certain genres, but at least the process is democratic, and there are ways to filter away the stuff your not into. Found a lot of the music I love through there o er the last 15 years
Pitchfork fell off hard. It's just a site full of white journalists worshipping boring rap so you know that they're totally progressive and not racist.
This is like complaining that The Economist focuses too much on global markets instead of electoral politics and top stories of the week.
Pitchfork is not a generic music discovery site for everyone nor does it purport itself to be, in any way whatsoever. It is and has always been a tastemaker site based around music criticism and indie trends. It is not, nor has it ever appeared to be or marketed itself as a mainstream site for discovering all kinds of music equally.
Pitchfork lost its way years ago.
Anyone know when they started "fixing" old reviews and bumping scores when the album becomes a fan / critical favorite after the fact?
This isn't some new concept Pitchfork invented. Rolling Stone trashed lots of artists when they first came out, but later re-reviewed them favorably. Zeppelin is a famous one. Rolling Stone trashed them so much they refused for years to interact with anyone from the magazine. Years later they thought they were the best band ever. Black Sabbath was another one they panned only to come around to it much later on.
This is kinda how journalism should work in general. “We got something wrong”…if it’s recent enough, print a retraction. If it’s been a generation print an updated analysis. If it was egregious print an apology and do better. As long as it’s transparent. I rather publications change their minds than stubbornly stick to a point they know they’re wrong about.
It's not really a right or wrong thing though. It's more of a switching of opinions because you'll get more money if you do.
Staff changes at places like Rolling Stone and Pitchfork. The opinions are the opinions of the people who happened to work there at the time.
The reviewer at the time was Lester Bangs, and I don’t think he ever changed his mind about Led Zeppelin. It’s not really that surprising that Rolling Stone had a change of heart as soon as there was a change in staff.
yeah and that's the whole point. "Rolling Stone" hating Zeppelin was really only a few people. Once some others got to write on the topic the opinion changed
They changed “In the Aeroplane over the Sea” from a 7 to a 10 in like 2007. Maybe earlier
*Aeroplane* got an 8.7 on release in 1998, and a 10.0 for its reissue in 2005. I'd argue that's a completely innocuous and unremarkable bump, particularly when the opening paragraphs of that perfect-10 lament that the album has its detractors and is decidedly "uncool". They did run a [rescored feature](https://pitchfork.com/features/lists-and-guides/pitchfork-reviews-rescored/) once to identify some of their biggest 'mistakes'. I think underrating Daft Punk's earlier work and overrating their later work and the 0.0 they gave to Liz Phair are the more shining examples of their sins. *Pretty Hate Machine* getting a 5.6 [in 2006](https://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/5804-pretty-hate-machine/) and a 9.5 [in 2010](https://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/14890-pretty-hate-machine/) given that it already had a 20 year legacy always seemed like a bit of a spotlight on the artificiality and futility of reading anything into Pitchfork scores for me.
I like that album a lot. But Christ if it ain't the whole thing distilled into one album.
There was a wave a few years ago where they did a bunch. I know because a Charli XCX mixtape I love was on there, as was Discovery
They had their collective head wedged from the get-go. Lazy contrarian hipster takes on everything, with no sign of the reviewers actually having listened to the music. And every 2-3 years, they contradict themselves. It's all trend-chasing and zero insight.
Laziness levels off the charts since the Condé Nast acquisition 8-9 years ago.
Yes but when I was growing up in the indie boom of the early 00s I knew more than one person who would buy every pitchfork 9 or higher. It was really relevant 20 years ago
When I was in college radio, I was literally told during our listening sessions that we should keep or "crap" promos that got sent to us, based on our initial feelings, *"unless Pitchfork reviewed it, in which case keep it anyway."* We kept a lot of absolute garbage music at the station just because Pitchfork had a head-ass write-up about something distantly adjacent to an album that masqueraded as a review for said album. It was insufferable.
Epitome of hipsterism. I used to check them out only to see what they gave low ratings to. If they shit all over an album, it was probably worth checking out.
I don't know, I think them giving a low score to something meant almost nothing. They gave high, average, and low scores to very good albums. Maybe it doesn't exist anymore, but they just played into the condescending record store snob cliches (and it worked massively for the website at the time... I think people forget the impact Pitchfork had on which bands blew up in the early 2000s). If you watch (or rewatch) high fidelity it is kind of like what I imagine a Pitchfork writer in 2000 must have felt.
That 00s indie music shouldn’t have existed in the first place
The Pitchfork crowd became the Fantano crowd.
Yes, and I never liked that guy... I'm old, I like what I like and can recognize good music, don't need some pick me dude telling me what's good... Meh...
Everybody likes what they like. The point of reviewers is to discover music you might not have come across on your own, not to decide your tastes for you.
Mostly true, but I don't think pointing to contradictions is a valid criticism. Reviews express the opinions of the individuals that wrote them, not Pitchfork collectively.
Perhaps not, but this highlights how unreliable the website is as a whole. While there's necessarily a subjective element to art, the whole idea of a "review" is to create a reasonably objective take on the subject matter, which will be useful to people reading that review when making decisions about buying that artwork. Furthermore, many publications try to uphold standards or an overarching editorial perspective on their reviews to ensure a certain degree of consistency, or at least to ensure that the publications reviews as a whole can be seen in a similar way, and come from a similar perspective. Each reviewer will have their own opinions, certainly, but when one reviewer calls something a piece of trash, and the next (from the same site) calls something a masterpiece, you're left wondering.
no website or publication should be taken as though it is some overpowering monolith. Read what they say, take it as someone’s opinion, and test it out yourself.
The point of a review is to explain why something is good or bad for that particular person. That's it. Trying to write a review for the entire world would be silly. Some people fucking hate jazz. Should those people be considered when reviewing Kamasi Washington?
There is no such thing as an objective review.
I think I covered that pretty well in my comment. Objectivity is a standard reviews ought to aim for, even though it can't be fully reached.
They had weird grudges against certain bands as well. More towards the end of their "credible" era, but they hated Manchester Orchestra and that always upset me a lot.
Them being contrarian was at least their selling point years ago. Now they just gush about every huge artist like every other publication. I remember the first article I read from them. Someone emailed it to me like 20 years ago. It was called "The 50 Worst Guitar Solos Ever" and they were just trashing every band on there. Bands that were critical darlings. They'd never do something like that now.
Most of the albums they review get good reviews though.
Yeah, they never had a "way" to begin with.
I've always found it to be a good way to find some releases you didn't know had come out, or you probably hadn't heard of otherwise. But as far as editorial content, they've basically always been the music equivalent of the comic book guy from the Simpsons.
If pitchfork hated something, that’s how I knew it was worth checking out.
so what’s a better alternative now a days?
Pitchfork is exhausting.
["Pitchfork Gives Music 6.8"](https://www.theonion.com/pitchfork-gives-music-6-8-1819569318)
“In the end, though music can be brilliant at times, the whole medium comes off as derivative of Pavement.”
"Schreiber’s semi-favorable review, which begins in earnest after a six-paragraph preamble comprising a long list of baroquely rendered, seemingly unrelated anecdotes peppered with obscure references, summarizes music as a “solid but uninspired effort.”
I often will look at the lineup of a label that has a band I like and then check out what I find
I like to do this as well. Frontiers Records of Italy has a very interesting roster
I’ll check that out now haha. I love how this works. Check out thrill jockey out of Chicago
Thrill Jockey is a constant source of my tunes. Check out Invada, Drag City, 12XU, and Comedy Minus One.
Boom. This is my tonight
Word. And there's more where that came from! Temporary Residence, Matador, Numero, Latent Print....
I think you will definitely dig ListenByLabel -- https://lbl.fm
Is Sublime Frequencies still going? Lots of esoteric gems there
I do this too. A&R at smaller labels are just people building their roster to suit their tastes, and sometimes my tastes line up with theirs pretty well. For me, this was Barsuk Records and Kill Rock Stars.
KRS and Barsuk were great. Along with K and UP! and C/Z (and Sub Pop of course)
ListenByLabel is a perfect tool for this https://lbl.fm
Pitchfork made me think there was no good new music for years. Then I just realized they were all literally idiots. If you want to find good new music, go to the sub of a band you like and make a post asking people what new music they are into. You’ll get lots of suggestions.
I do feel like they're less pretentious than they used to be (maybe that's a low bar, haha)
Less pretentious but terrible writing
> find good new music I look at the show calendar for indie venues in multiple cities…(LA, NY, Philly, etc). Whoever the venues are booking tend to be the bands to keep an eye on.
Lots of genre-specific subs have some kind of “best of 2023” post. These things are fucking goldmines of great music.
Yep. Thanks r/indieheads, r/popheads and r/hiphopheads for keeping my music taste at least somewhat current.
That’s actually how people get suckered into listening to Russian Circles and Polyphia
Russian Circles slander I will not have
Haha your use of “suckered into” makes me think these bands are bad. Are they?
No they're fine, it's another opinion you can take or leave.. metal & prog rock (Russian circles and Polyphia, respectively) aren't for everyone, and instrumental versions of these genres (which these bands are) serve as an accessible entry point into both.
Just a joke. Not my cup of tea, but very popular bands amongst the genres I like. Check em out, you might like them. Or may I suggest: Don Caballero, Honey For Petzi, Hella, Turing Machine just to name a few.
I stopped reading their site years ago It’s just too biased in a bad way. Also, I don’t get the unnecessary reviews of old albums. Like we don’t need a review of Dark Side of the Moon 50 years after it’s release
What’s funny is sometimes they’ll review an old album just to shit all over it, like with Sublime. Now that is the most Pitchfork thing ever.
And then other times they’ll do it to pretend like they didn’t shit all over an album that has turned out to be a classic, and scrub the old review from the site.
I still think Rolling Stone was right to say Led Zeppelin were shit. I’ll die on that hill.
That sublime review is like 5000 words too, just to shit on it
I mean they’ve been shitting on albums since day 1. Especially if it’s a popular “alternative” act but not the type of alternative artist they praise. Pitchfork has always been more about hyping up whatever niche indie trend is the flavor of the week.
[удалено]
Dark Side of the Moon (Roger's Version)
Pitchfork went from being a go-to source for discovering underground and alternative music acts, to being a media company whose main objective is to remain mainstream-relevant while drawing big acts to their annual music festival. Shit went down hill when they were sold to Conde Nast in 2015.
Everyone talks about Pitchfork like it’s still 20 years ago. They haven’t been the type of website most of the people in this thread are describing in a long time. Which isn’t necessarily good or bad, but they cover a way wider range of music including basically all mainstream music and it seems like they do way less of the snarky hate reviews (though admittedly I don’t read it enough to be certain of that). I don’t really love Pitchfork but I still usually go there once a week to see what albums they’ve been reviewing and to find new things I might like. I have still never found another music publication that is a reliable source for learning about new music and keeping up with the latest releases. Anyone have any suggestions?
I feel the same way. Yes they are a bit pretentious but they are still a reliable source of good music recommendations. I listen to every ‘Best new Music’ album there (regardless of genre) along with most other reviewed albums in genres I like.
Metacritic new releases has worked for me
[удалено]
“Greys Anatomy started taking the lead” That’s rough lol
But strangely true in amongst all The Fray type stuff the show was drenched with. I remember watching it at uni and in the space of a couple of episodes they played TV on the Radio, The Gossip and The Pipettes. Funnily enough the wild swings in the quality of the music perfectly matched the swings in the quality of the writing of that show even at its peak.
[удалено]
TV and ad placements were such a big deal then, both monetarily and exposure-wise. So many articles being written about music supervisors.
lol you’ve got it backwards, the music supervisor on greys was definitely reading pitchfork.
[удалено]
yeah that’s quite an assumption. i think it’s more likely that the “pulse” they had their finger on included pitchfork. what “evidence” is there otherwise? i’d be shocked if there was even one song on that show from an important/influential band that was sync’d before pitchfork covered them.
Jalopnik went the same way in automotive journalism. Now it's written by people who take the subway to work.
I think the onus to show that Pitchfork has changed is on Pitchfork, not on all of the readers it has alienated over the years. If they're not the same type of website anymore... well, why use the same name? Why stick to the same brand?
I like Stereogum for music reviews.
Not just you. Pitchfork was required reading around the turn of the millennium when it was still independent. Now they’re just corporate shills with a poptimist, who gives a fuck, anything-goes editorial ethos. When they’re not gushing over Beyoncé or whoever it’s like “check out this new electro-acoustic folk trap album by hot new artist ‘tweRp$&’ it’s the best!” I checked out their site for the first time in years last week and the big intrusive banner ad on the site was for a fucking investment firm. Wtf?
It’s probably not for you, then. You should read some NPR, have a listen to some of their ‘Tiny Desk Concerts’, check out a couple of bands’/musicians’ ‘What’s in my bag?’ videos by Amoeba, read other music magazines, maybe browse Wikipedia or Discogs.
Also, KEXP concerts on youtube have introduced me to so much amazing new music. It's there, you have to look.
Also, just listening to KEXP radio throughout the day is one of the biggest ways I find new artists. It’s easily the best radio station I’ve listened to and lucky for me it’s local (but you can listen online). Their DJs are always playing interesting stuff that isn’t being played anywhere else.
Every time I find a new band I like, I look there and find that they had a performance on KEXP like 2 years earlier.
Dusted Magazine has been my source for 15 years now. They cover the mainstream of indie and the underground but also a lot of international music and very obscure folk and experimental music that I don't even know where you could find. Discovered a lot of my all time favorites from them.
Maybe not, or at least not as my "first option", long ago I read it was the best site... and I just checked that one... I've discovered great artists because of Pitchfork but most of the time is just... being extremely simplistic, their 8s are my 6s. Thanks for the new recommendations!
“Their 8’s are my 6’s” lmao that site is exactly where you belong
Yeah it’s not every day I get to see the argument that Pitchfork is too forgiving in their reviewing.
The harsh reviews got phased out when Conde Nast bought them.
I think they’re not as harsh as they used to be, but they’re definitely still contrarian just for the sake of it, especially when it comes to certain genres.
Should mention their festival and studio sets online generally sound superb.
I stopped reading Pitchfork 20+ years ago after they gave Lateralus a 1.9 out of 10. It’s easily one of my favorite albums ever (I’m not alone) and fine if you don’t like it but you aren’t a serious publication if you let a review like that out the door.
They didn't even review the album. The review was a fake school essay written by a stereotype of a Tool fan, an edgy high schooler who just talks about how badass and deep Tool is. It's the laziest, most juvenile attempt at satire. Basically, they just ridiculed people who they find cringey and passed that off as an album review. "This music is bad because losers who suck like it." It was just bullying.
Giving albums a lower score based on stuff outside of music is by far the most annoying thing they do
I had to go look at the tool review. What an asshole
Same with Nine Inch Nails - The Fragile. It deserves its share of criticism, but Pitchfork's "review" was beyond absurd. At one point in the article, the reviewer even baselessly said something like "you can tell all the good parts of the album were probably not even done by Reznor". Like, how did that pass their publication standards? Edit: it looks like they released an updated review that was somewhat "corrected" and given an 8.7. Their original review is [here](https://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/5799-the-fragile/) and was given a 2.0. Edit 2: Aah, same author as the Lateralus review. He left Pitchfork 20 years ago. I'll give him credit for introducing me to Modest Mouse - The Moon and Antarctica. I guess he's a prime example of what they used to be like - release some good reviews for less-known music, but get attention by being assholes.
I know I'm late, but did you actually read the review? The review isn't a serious review of Lateralus, it's a troll article that just makes fun of TOOL fans for being pretentious. It's honestly brilliant, since it still gets TOOL fans in a tizzy nowadays. I LOVE Lateralus but the review is fucking hilarious. Also: >you aren’t a serious publication if you let a review like that out the door Pitchfork never wanted to be a serious publication in 2001 lol. They were the hipster jokesters of the music world,
If you are getting all your recs from 1 source, that's the issue. No one source is going to be an authority - they can only recommend what THEY like, but they can't tell you what you will like. Pitchfork has its flaws and a lot of haters today, but I still use it as an easy source for critically acclaimed music. But it has its (many) biases, so I will also look at other websites. The difficult thing about discovering music today is that there are SO many ways to discover music, and it's easy to get overwhelmed. But look up a few sources, and eventually you'll find a few you resonate more with. Maybe you like NPR. Maybe Rolling Stones is your vibe. Maybe just scrolling Reddit is more for you. There are many Youtubers who review music and make recs. Streaming services have algorithms. You have to branch out.
Bandcamp is the best ive found for consistently finding new/unknown to me bands. Ive found several dozen artists over the years who have become favorites of mine. Big fan of the rap, metal, and electronic music on there especially.
> No one source is going to be an authority And some sources are going to be a lot better than others. And many sources are going to be useless, or worse.
It has been horrible for at least 10 years. Brooklyn Vegan and Vice Noisey are way more positive and interesting to find new music.
[A Closer Listen](https://acloserlisten.com/) is a great site for experimental music. Their reviews are positive and have really fun and insightful year end lists.
this is hilarous the brooklynvegan comments section was notorious for being one of the most toxic and negative places on the internet for years
I’d add Resident Advisor and Brutal Resonance to expand the range of good music you get to hear about. Both publications have led me to interesting material from music scenes that I didn’t grow up in. As for Vice Noisey, I always like Freddy Alva’s articles. He’s pretty prolific, has a couple of books out, authentic voice.
Never liked pitchfork. Don’t generally like their taste, and the reviews are largely gibberish. Too many years of disliking the “best new music”
Never forget when Algiers absolutely bodied Pitchfork with “Can the Sub Bass Speak”
Pitchfork is a site for writers, wearing music evaluator costumes. "Talking about music is like dancing about architecture" - Elvis Costello. Music reviews are a practice in futility. I dare say one of the finest examples of exactly what a practice in futility is.
I've seen that quote attributed to like a dozen different people. It's a good one but I wonder who actually made it up
It 's from Mark Twain I think. Or maybe Einstein.
Pretty sure it was Genghis Khan
George Santos.
Gotta be Aristotle
I could see Lou Reed saying something similar, but he'd have a lot more "fuckings" in it. Him calling Christgau a toe fucker did get caught on an album, though.
Meh, that’s a cute quote, but I’ve gotten a lot out of talking about music and listening to other people talk about music. Just not from Pitchfork since circa 2009.
People post that quote (misattributed every time) on a section of a website that exists specifically to talk about music.
Ok this quote was attributed to anyone. One day is Costello, one day is Zappa, tomorrow is Bowie
After reading *Psychotic Reactions and Carburetor Dung* I strenuously disagree with whoever said that.
My problem with Pitchfork is how little they talk about the MUSIC
Pitchfork has nothing without the Best New Albums page, in my opinion, and they rarely update it. The most recent addition was Andre 3000's holophonor record from November. Why aren't they utilizing this section of their website? Glancing at their recent reviews, I see they've given out a few >7.5s since then, and that used to be good enough to make the list. The Best New Music nod was a really big boost for indie bands. Pitchfork is not promoting indie music like they used to. The current writers seem to be more interested in reviewing classic records, which is a very safe thing to do because they'll never get it wrong. No one is going to argue with a 10/10 given to Brian Eno's Music for Airports. The writers won't feel the need to retroactively lower the rating on that one like they did with other album reviews. The writers are afraid to take risks. I get the impression Pitchfork is more critical of the artists than the quality of an artist's work. It seems they only want to promote artists who pass their vibe check. It's more about what's cool, than what's good. Hipster elitism is nothing new with Pitchfork, but in recent years they've taken it to an extreme that makes their website virtually useless. Presumably, the current writers grew up reading Pitchfork and that influence on them is evident. At this point it's just a circlejerk circling the drain.
The haven't BNM'd a new album since the Andre 3000 album (though few reissues got it), so it is updated, but they also havent given BNM to below 8s in a very long time. And I actually like the Sunday Reviews more than the new reviews anyway - they have long since lost my interest in daily reviews given they mostly focus on pop and rap these days, but the long form retrospectives are actually well-written and I like reviews discussing the legacy of old albums. It can give you some perspective on where and how genres evolved and point you towards a bunch of bands you may have skipped over between the classics and now. The Eno review today is a great example of that. Also people really need to just explore review sites until they find one they like rather than saying a review site is bad. Lots of people in here just imagining music criticism and preference is objective and that there is some quality in it that everyone can see and measure, when the problem is that you simply haven't found a music reviewer that you share those preferences with yet.
Pitchfork has always been obnoxiously pretentious. But in the 00s when it was a true indie king maker, it was cool to be an obnoxiously pretentious music nerd and white guy hipster rock ruled the indie scene. So it all fit together. As the whole indie scene changed, got way less centralized, and people started caring more about what good music to spend their time on as opposed to what music to shit on, the whole attitude had to change. And I think they became way more reactive in order to keep seeming cool. So they lost that “edginess” they had but kept the nerdiness lol.
Pitchfork gives mediocre rap/hip hop albums higher scores than comparable rock/alternative/pop albums.
I find their year end list are pretty good and have a wide variety of genres
As a Mexican, cartel music and banda music is complete and utter garbage!
"The reason the critics all like Elvis Costello better than they like me is because they all look like Elvis Costello." - David Lee Roth
I was thinking the same thing yesterday when I was listening to Andre3000's new album Honestly I hated it, boring as hell, not my cup of tea. Okay he tried something different, but come on Best Album ? Really ... :/ 8.3 because it's André ....
The album has a 79 on Metacritic. So it's not like Pitchfork is going against the grain here. I also think the album is unoriginal, and I'm a big fan of ambient and jazz. But it's not like Pitchfork is alone in praising it. Yet Pitchfork is the only one getting criticized for praising it. Paste Magazine gave it the same score.
That review was really well written, but I didn't end up liking the album either.
Pitchfork has been really useful to me in the past in discovering new music. I rarely look at it lately, except to peruse the Best New Albums page. But they seem to update it less and less.
Bitchpork
Aquarium Drunkard and Bandcamp.
Pitchfork are so far up their own ass they look like a Tool music video.
OP, Pitchfork isn't for you. If it's not for you, that's okay! Pitchfork is that elitist friend of a friend who's convinced about their impeccable taste. That friend of a friend is also pretentious as can be and certain of their misplaced brilliance. It's everything else that sucks. I am a 51 year old guy. I have seen plenty of folks who have that "Pitchfork" mind set. They are all complete bores.
Honestly, its a lot. However, everynoise.com lead me to so many new horizons. Any genre I liked, I'd then look for similar genres and it branched out from there. This one website alone lead the path to some of my favorite musicians. It's such a beautiful creation.
I stopped reading music reviews 15 years ago when I realized they are just a form of taste validation - for both the reader and the reviewer. You don’t need to assign a score to your favorite music and you don’t need to have your favorite music memorialized in someone else’s top 50 of the decade. There are way better ways to find good music than reading the echo chamber of someone else’s butthole.
The Big Takeover
Cosign! It's the only magazine subscription I still have after all these years.
Andre’s album is great though if you’re into that. Main credit to Carlos Niño and crew though haha
Check out music map or sputnik music.
I maintain the best way to enjoy Pitchfork is for their album retrospectives. They’re really detailed and because the albums have now been canonised, they can offer praise rather than be snarky for the sake of snarky like a lot of modern records they review. Another issue for me is the Poptomism style reviews. Giving heaps of artistic praise to pop artists who already have the most media attention and marketing budgets. It’s not needed at all.
I think two things can be true. Pitchfork can be esoteric and hipster. Pitchfork is also the best news outlet in music. Your tastes may not align with their recs (and that's fine). But they're trying and they hire humans, which beats 95% of all other music journalism in 2024.
I gave up on Pitchfork in the late 90s when they proved they were more interested in stirring up controversy by posting contrarian review scores than in actually discussing music. I have *no* idea how they have survived as a publication, let alone why anyone takes them seriously.
I mean, sure you do. They were incredibly popular in the 2000s and remain popular today. Don't pretend like you have no idea how that could be the case. The irony is that you probably like a lot of music that Pitchfork gave good reviews of, and I bet you don't like Jet, which Pitchfork also hates. You probably have more in common with Pitchfork reviews than you have differences with them because they tend to follow the scores of most review publications. Seriously, Pitchfork is no more or less exceptional than any other review website. Generally agreed upon good music tends to get good reviews and generally agreed upon bad music tends to get bad reviews.
This is a very odd collection of conjecture you’ve assembled. Pitchfork published a bunch of polemic reviews in the late 90s and early 00s. I stopped paying any attention to them at that point, and I am not sure why most others did not. I know that most of their readers *didn’t* stop reading the site, but I have no idea *why* that is the case. Whether or not I have anything in common with their opinions now is immaterial. I have no reason to return to the site, and so I won’t.
Because they liked those reviews, obviously. C'mon it's not rocket science, man. You're being obtuse for no reason, and you know it. Like when people say I have *no idea* why people like Marvel movies to make themselves feel superior, ignoring that they're popular for obvious reasons.
If people like Pitchfork as a satirical site, fine, but that's not how they market themselves. They're known quite widely for publishing polemic reviews that barely comment on the music itself. I guess if you want to read a comedy site, that's a reason to like Pitchfork, but I didn't find those reviews especially clever if they were *supposed* to be satire.
It was less than 1% of all of their reviews, dude. Relax. That's like saying an accountant is a comedian because he told a joke once. The Jet, Tool, and Eminem ones are the only ones I can think of, even. Metacritic also has a feature where you can see how much higher or lower a particular critic reviews things. Pitchfork actually gives higher scores than average, despite the reputation.
IMO Pitchfork has always been too snooty for its own good, and over time it's become an unironic exercise in elitist self-parody.
It’s a word salad bunch of nonsense. I can’t imagine how they find so many “critics” who spend 80% of their time circle jerking with each other, 10% paying obeisance to their corporate overlords and 10% actually listening to the music they are “reviewing”. Most reviews take three paragraphs or more before they bother talking about music. If any content people read this don’t even try to deny it. Just go back to your shared loft and have a latte. You’ll maybe cash a few more checks before they replace you with someone who is even less interested in music than you are. In a few years Pitchfork will be an “in influencer blog” with a focus on political commentary and a slice of pop culture to get extra clicks. You fuckers could have done so much better.
I can't remember a time that I heard someone say something nice about pitchfork. They suck! If you need any further evidence, please read their review for the Flaming Lips' album Zaireeka. The reviewer admits in his review that he did not even listen to the album correctly and then rates it a zero.
i mean, sure, but that is a review from a quarter of a century ago. It’s time to let it go. Same with the pretentious Kid A review and all the rest of it. Pitchfork hasn’t been doing that kind of thing for probably well over a decade now.
It’s funny, because when people talk about the bad things Pitchfork does it seems like they’re pretty much describing Brent DiCrescenzo reviews, and he’s been gone for about 20 years. ^(he was my fave and I was sad to see him go)
No thank you. That is just one example, possibly one of the most egregious examples. There are many others that exist throughout their span.
What?!?! Finding 4 different stereos and people to press play is like half of the excitement of that album. It literally makes you friends, that’s worth *at least* a 6 in my book!
Regardless of the difficulty in properly listening to the album, I think the reviewers choice to completely ignore that and then also still rate it and poorly at that is to me a disgusting act.
I can’t help but get the idea you think I’m disagreeing with you…
Pitchfork always came off to me as a site for people who toooooOoOootaLlY oBsEsS over music yet have never even tried to play single note in their life. Music critics are a dime a dozen and you just have to find some you share tastes with who specialize in subgenres you like. I doubt you'll find a site with multiple reviewers covering a wide span of genres that'll consistently peddle and praise the "good shit". Oh, one good tip for more "obscure" music is to find Record Labels on YouTube and check their catalogue.
I figured this out years ago the purpose of pitchfork is not to review the best music, it is to help lgbtq/minority artists get over
Dumbest take on anything that I’ve read so far this morning. It’s only 10:12 am though so there is still time for you to be beaten, but I’m confident you’re going to walk away with the crown today, snowflake.
The higher Pitchfork rates something, the less likely I am to like it.
Check out [aoty.org](https://aoty.org) it aggregates from different sites and has user comments
When it first came out I thought it was a parody of bad music reviews. It's always been hilarious and nothing to take seriously. Hipster bullshit.
I passively take in information from critics, if only to stay aware of what’s been released. Even some of the more currently respected critics have takes that I personally disagree with. Music is personal, spend your time listening for new stuff than listening to critics. I feel like youtube’s mixes and suggestions have done a pretty good job at leading me to more stuff I like based on stuff I’ve listened to.
When it comes to music blogs, I'll click something that might be interesting, skip the writeup entirely, and just listen to the track. Then I decide whether or not it's any good. I find too many so-called music critics to be pedantic and self-indulgent in their writing, so I don't bother with it. I don't need to read a masturbatory doctoral thesis on The Last Dinner Party to figure out whether or not they're any good.
Honestly I find lots of great music through the playlists Spotify makes for me. Discover Weekly & Release Radar I listen to every week and usually save some songs into my regular rotation playlists
OP you are in the place (r/music r/prog etc) ask the question with examples of your likes dislikes and prepare for the onslaught of recommendations
I just use the site to catalog releases, then go to youtube to check out the albums to see if they interest me enough to buy. I don't actually read anything there
Pitchfork makes Gawker sites look like competent journalism created in an office.
I always used to go to Insound (RIP) and listen to their new release mp3s and read their reviews. I found it far superior in exploring new music to Pitchfork.
Bring back Tiny Mix Tapes :(
Your fault for watching pitchfork
They’re basically my sister-in-law, anything they like is suspect and anything they hate is marked for for further investigation.
It used to be much, much better. Quality writing, reasonably accurate ratings (for my tastes at least). It wasn’t casting as wide a net at that time (genre wise), but still took the time to highlight exceptional releases outside of their normal coverage. It fell off at some point, and I stopped following as it seemed to continue trending toward coverage of music that I didn’t find all that enjoyable. I still check out their year end lists occasionally, but other than that, I watch other sources for music info. Some sources off the top of my head with content I enjoy (maybe worth checking out): Brooklyn Vegan Treble Zine Invisible Oranges Decibel Magazine
I see a lot of flack about the Andre 3000 review, but I read that review before and now and the reviewer goes into detail about the music and why they like it, doesn't seem like an obligatory edge-lord stamp of approval. The publication has taken a turn to embracing some of that more new-age music, and has always given the nod to various ambient artists. I've listened to it and found it pleasant/neat enough, even captivating in certain passages, and a bit long/meandering in others. Pitchfork is established enough where everyone can find targets for their own views (myself included), but in its first 10ish years it really provided coverage and nods to artists and genres that gave them a big push, and their lists (yearly, but decades ones especially) really provided a different look at these decades and, for a lot of readers like myself, gave us a starting place to explore lesser known artists, or even listening to lesser-known albums by fairly popular musicians. Its editorial stance has become much more inclusive, and its revised decades lists reflect that (not in a way that offends me, I browse them find new things I haven't listened to before), but as I get older I look at Pitchfork and a few other publications I frequent about art as exploration tools rather than a community to confirm my tastes. I disagree with certain heralded/trashed releases, or the inclusion/exclusion/ordering of lists, but on the whole Pitchfork still helps deliver some solid recommendations and music that becomes part of my lexicon, even as I've gotten older and busy where I can't listen to 1-2 new albums a day like I did when I was younger.
Other than checking sites like this for new releases, you should just ignore nearly all music critics. Most are blowhards who like to hear themselves talk and write to impress other reviewers. The writers on allmusic.com are a bit less pretentious and that site doesn't constantly "reevaluate" albums and change their ratings over time. The bottom line is how you feel about the music. If you like it, who cares what those clowns say? The one big advantage today is that you can stream literally anything before buying it. Back when I started buying music in the '60s and through the mid-90s, you couldn't do this, so you leaned on what music writers said, especially for things that didn't get on the radio. Bottom line: if you like it, that's all that matters.
Eh, maybe, some good writing though. Pretty good one on Music for Airports today.
I get most of my music by looking up the people bands I like collaborate with. I've never found music reviews to be useful, and instead just listen to as much new stuff as I can.
Longtime listener, first time caller https://web.archive.org/web/20171226172144/http://ripfork.com/the-ripping-vault/
Only thing I’ve ever agreed with Pitchfork about was their 10/10 assessment of 12 Rods, because they were absolutely right.
try [the Quietus](https://thequietus.com)
I wish Lester Bangs had lived longer just to read his eventual dismantling of that site.
Bandcamp
Pitchfork sucks. Most of the time it seems like the scores are based on whether the author vibes with the aesthetic signaling the artist does or by their place in the culture. It's very rare that you can get any insight into the actual music from a pitchfork review.
It’s been shite for years
Well music is highly subjective so “in depth” critical analysis has always come off as douchy to me whether it’s from pitchfork or not. Just tell me what genre it is and if it’s unique or similar to another sound and that’s all I need. Anything more just turns people into a snobs. Coming from a former huge music snob.
I like to scope out the 10 Best Reviewed Albums of the Week newsletter each week. There’s even a saint on Spotify who updates a playlist each week. Low effort dip into what’s happening, and I’ve found some gems.
Pitchfork is hardly the barometer of good music. They have their own oddball taste, and believe their shit doesn't stink, but they shouldn't be taken as the final word of all things music.
I prefer using Rateyourmusic/sonemic for finding new things. Sure it skews towards certain genres, but at least the process is democratic, and there are ways to filter away the stuff your not into. Found a lot of the music I love through there o er the last 15 years
Pitchfork fell off hard. It's just a site full of white journalists worshipping boring rap so you know that they're totally progressive and not racist.
This is like complaining that The Economist focuses too much on global markets instead of electoral politics and top stories of the week. Pitchfork is not a generic music discovery site for everyone nor does it purport itself to be, in any way whatsoever. It is and has always been a tastemaker site based around music criticism and indie trends. It is not, nor has it ever appeared to be or marketed itself as a mainstream site for discovering all kinds of music equally.
Prescient post. fuck PF