Pitchfork Media Can Suck My Cock
Pitchfork Media can lick my ass crack; how is it that the only rock music that qualifies as decent has to be on some spock ass Canadian indie label, yet any fucking major-label hip hop drivel has some immense cultural significance? I know it's super ironic in that Urban Outfitters kind of way to listen to the Arcade Fire then turn around and listen to Snoop Dog, but is it really making you "a respected and reliable part of the independent music community," as you purport to be? I know Kanye West is the new Chuck D or whatever but fuck if I wanted to hear about how "crunk" fucking T.I. is I'd turn on fucking MTV. FUCK YOU PITCHFORK AND YOUR FUCKING 3,000 WORD REVIEWS. What's even cooler are how all the dudes who write the reviews for pitchfork assume this air of superior awareness of musical nuance. IF YOU KNOW SO MUCH ABOUT THAT SHIT WHY ARE YOU WRITING FOR FREE FOR SOME WACK ASS SPOCK SITE WHOSE TOP 10 SINGLES OF THE YEAR INCLUDE BRITNEY SPEARS AND JAY-Z? I guess trust funders and lawyers and whoever else has the time to write massive tomes on the new Fiery Furnaces record are in fact the ones most aware of the pulse of independent rock music. Maybe that's why indie rock sucks fat ass cocks right now.
53 Comments:
Fuck you you ungrateful piece of shit! I'm sorry you cannot handle record review in excess of 20 words, faggot.
Maybe Pitchfork is willing to admit when they like a album or single totally disreguarding if it's an "indie" artist or not. Perhaps they call things as they like without caring if some idiot in the "heartland" thinks he's any better. Who gives a shit if there reviews have 3000 words, it's better then a 1 or 5 star rating system with a little paragraph that explains nothing.
Right on, man. Those pretentious shitheads are showcasing their liberal arts BA's more than anything else. The reviews of a lot of the stuff they dump on makes no sense taken in tandem with half the crap on there. One of these replies called you 'ungrateful'!? What the hell are we supposed to be grateful for? And have you ever seen an independent music site with more fucking ad's than these cunts?
Yeah, a 1-5 star rating with a little paragraph that explains nothing is bad. But 3,000 words that explains even less is worse. It's supposed to be a critical review, not a poem or thesaurus. Or rattling off 70 album names in cross-reference. They've got their ENTIRE STAFF reviewing Jay-Z's Black Album?? For God's sake.
To the two cheerleaders above- shut the fuck up and go back to your dorm room or loft in Williamsburg.
Pitchfork Media, like nearly anybody who critiques art, are misguided. Personally, I can't see why anybody would want to judge the worth of music. Record reviews are great when they're discussing how great music is - and how much they love these records - but when you start criticizing music then the purpose has become negative. I can't see why anybody would to make music a negative thing. Music is good. Not SOME music is good, and SOME is bad, that's bullshit. All music is good, yet the people at Pitchfork and many other music critics insist to approach music aristocratically. I hate when Pitchfork is mean to artists, it's so unnecessary. I don't love every single bit of music I hear, but I just cannot bring myself to say what I am hearing is bad. It's not bad, I just don't like it.
I believe that approach many things that way, like people for example. It's inevitable I, or you, will not like everybody we meet. I certainly like certain people more than others. Yet that doesn't mean I hate the people I don't like; they're good people, I just don't like them. Really, I love everybody, they all have a purpose for doing what they do, and I understand them if they are confused about what exactly is the best way handling things. Everybody's got a good soul, just as all music is good at heart. Everybody from a doodling high school band trying to play they're favorite songs to that Robert Plant CD I bought when I was 12. It is all good music, because if it makes people happy it's good regardless of whether it is a remarkable artistic statement or not. I think if you really appreciate music you'd come to the point where you realize something simple it's stupid. "good is good is good". That's all there is to it.
I think the people at pitchfork media are good people, and I think they do love music, but I feel they are misguided when they're expressing that appreciation. I also think that they are classic aristocratic art critics, criticizing music to make them feel superior or better than other people. I mean really, who do you think these crits are? It really is quite amusing how hypocritical music critics are, seeing as how they are probably quite incapable of making music that as many people love as the music they're critiquing. By saying that that music is bad and all the people who like that music are tone deaf, or something, makes them feel better about limited skills in making people happy. Pitchfork does make people happy too, and I think that's great. It's just unfortunate that they do so in a sometime negative fashion. I think Pitchfork is also uncanny in it's talent finding. I seriously doubt I would have been persuaded by the relatively less than enthusiastic articles of The Fiery Furnaces to buy their excellent Blueberry Boat album if I didn't read Pitchfork News every now and then. Of coarse, they do neglect many important young artists, I am still greatful for their many helpful recomendations.
As for their strange attempt of incorperating contemporary mainstream pop and hip-hop acts into their normally indie routine, I'd say that that is nice, but is foolish journalism, as they should realize who they're audience is. Natually, you can interpret this in many different ways, but I'd say that this is either these people have realized the goodness in a dicidedly opposite style of music, or, perhaps more cynically, these people trying even harder to make them feel better than other people by saying what music is good (specifically music that their audience has considerble disdain for). Really, I'd say this is a case of misguided journalism, as I'm sure much of their audience has little in common with even the very best Britiny Spears tunes. It's nice that are approaching music in a more open manner, but it really is silly. As was said above, I can simpily turn on MTV to learn all about the new Jay Z or Snoop Dog single. But it's still pretty funny to imagine those silly little music nerds trying to "groove out" out to the latest Game album.
PITCHFORK IZ FAGGITZ!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Right on the head! Pow! Shit had me laughing all night.... Kudos!!!
Finally some people that agree with me. If you have read any reviews on that website you will realize that it's all just a bunch of pretentious bullshit. Any American band from the 90's on a major label (tool, smashing pumpkins, stone temple pilots, nine inch nails) will atomatically get a low score, (pitchfork's attemt to shock mainstream society) while some bullshit "experimental" album like the animal collective or some whiny douchbag who sounds like he's twelve like bright eyes get good reviews. If I were to record myself taking a shit for an hour, I would easily win record of the year at pitchfork.
Amen to the above.
RIGHT ON! Pitchfork needs to burn in hell... they're a bunch of college sophmore douches who think they're so indie and unique because they listen to Bright Eyes like every other misguided tool bag out there. The music they consider "great" has less appeal than a fart squeaking through my ass. I never knew playing 2 boring chords over and over again, and singing off pitch would be considered genius.
Pitchfork's reviewers above the age of 19 have no excuse for writing such pretentious socio-cultural essays slash music reviews.
yaaah.
"If I were to record myself taking a shit for an hour,"
man, you take a shit for an hour?
when i fart, pitchfork worships me. sincerely, ariel pink.
yeah i hate when people review things too, i mean, jeez your not supposed to call music bad! and also. how dare they get college degrees. w00t to vagrant records!!!11 ps. t00l rocks harder than 'lonely day' by SOAD, not mention the awesome ness that is panic at the disco1 (more swearing about suttf here)
pitchfork may be self-absorbed and grating at times but if you can find a more comprehensive collection of relevant daily music news, let me know. reviews are shit anywhere you look, just don't read them.
Pitch 'reviews' are not incomprehensible to me; they're actually transparent. I would hardly commit the act of calling it the ArtForum or something of music (though both are completely conservative, nay, reactionary, the latter sometimes has a trace of intellectual substance).
Who ARE these people? I've never heard of any of them.
Radiohead (et al)? I think Pitchfork Media is not nearly elitist or snobbish enough. They just sound like some self-fancied bureaucratic appointees of amnesiac Kool that too happily fulfill the indie stereotype - because the mainstream needs something to walk on, right? (Yikes, that was close to being Pitchfork-esque.)
Besides it being utterly institutional and clone-producing, I can never decide what powers such a contraption - corporate greed or complicit fame (it's always that toss-up, isn't it?). Or maybe just general dead boredom. Simply, I feel sad for music.
Pitchfork is over.
pitchfork CAN be useful if you pretend they are my friend shane. you see, if shane says music is really good.. most of the time I agree. However, if he says something is really bad, it MIGHT be.
In other words, if you read a pitchfork review that praises an album very strongly, there is a good chance that it is a pretty good record. if you read a pitchfork review that is extremely harsh, there is a good chance that the album might still be pretty good.
Pitchfork is for aspiring music elitists who have no taste of their own. The only people who take pitchfork seriously are those who take reviews seriously in general. Think for yourselves, people. Reviewers never know what they're talking about. That's a general rule. Pitchfork is no exception. Although, i will agree. Pitchfork is worse than most review sites. They really don't have any taste in music.
oh and,
I only agree that a music review shouldn't be 3000 words because i don't think there should be ANY music reviews. Just to make that clear.
Bitchfork misleads the unwary.
Pitchfork ought to rethink their rating system. Currently they have an ultra-precise score system with incredibly arbitrary criteria. Similar to the video game website "Gamespot" which also uses a 1.0-10.0 rating style. The difference is that Gamespot actually has a mostly consistent and meticulously arranged method of detirmining their score.
Instead I think Bitchfork ought to rate their albums with little starbucks coffee cups. Something like 1-5 with no decimal points because god knows they are capricious as hell and the extra significant digit is'nt fooling anyone into thinking your reviews are scientific. What a joke.
It is hard to take them seriously when Lateralus by Tool earns 1.9 while 50 Cent earns 7.0 with his newest offering. On that point I read the review for that Tool album and noticed very little was said about the album at all but mostly was directed at the fans themselves. The entire "review" was an imaginary essay written by an imaginary Tool fan. Maybe I am crazy but I think a music review should judge the music itself and not the fans.
If they don't like rock bands signed to major labels(and they clearly don't considering bands on major get horrible reviews on their site) why do they keep reviewing them? It's because they're trying to convince us that the indie music is interesting. I doubt they even listen to albums before reviewing them, they just look at the label. If the artist isn't on an indie label, or black, or from Europe, they give it a low score. The worst part is that all the cocksmoking fourteen year old fags with box frame glasses and expressos in their hands take every word they print seriously. I'm sorry if I enjoyed the new chili peppers album than an album that some douchbag who knows nothing about music recorded in his dorm on an out of tune guitar. Indie music used to be cool, but now it sucks. Get it through your heads, it's over. Now the indie scene is just a bunch of elliott smith/radiohead clones trying to recreate the old indie scene, which they never were apart of when it was underground in the first place.
Pitchfork writers are basically failed writers. They clearly couldn't hack it in print media. Plus the whole socratic form of music reviews has been done too many times.....i like the cut of your jib.
I enjoy reading their opinions on music. I also enjoyed this satire. Sounds like some people in these comments are the ones taking things a little too seriously.
Some people don't like Red Hot Chili Peppers, and it's not because they hate the 'popluar' crowd, it's because Dani California is a shitty song... TO THEM... and they can write about it on a website if they want, dudes. And make money off of ads if they want.
everyone here is getting it wrong. how do you judge music you've never heard? you have a credible source, whose musical taste you know and can trust. if a friend of mine recommends a record to me, i automatically take into account how many times he's been wrong (...or right) in the past. pitchfork and its writers don't have any sense of style, of context, other than they like a bunch of bands that i will never listen to because they've already burned me on what they like, and what they don't (i defy you to listen to the last hot snakes album and agree with that review...) they're hipsters pandering to hipsters, and they didn't have one single black sabbath album on their "100 best of the 70's" list, but they had numerous bowie and fela kuti records on there. i like both those guys, but for fucks sake. they like their metal so much, they should get down on their knees and thank god for sabbath. i'm on a rant, and it's completely pointless. read it, don't read it, just don't put to much stock in it, ok.
Seriously though.. I just looked at like 4 reviews and disagreed about 100% with all of them... Then I checked a few other reviws just to see if I was pushing a lone opinion and low and behold nobody agrees with Pitchfork. Their reviews are so fucking stupid and it seems they have mastered the art of writing a long essay of bullshit and explain nothing at the same time! Awsome, just what I always wanted a music review site that blows so bad it puts out the flames in hell.
If Pitchfork was a band, what would it be? Probably something hip, catchy and trendy, but ultimately as deep as republican talk radio. Franz Ferdinand perhaps. They are truly evil.
Everytime I read anything on Pitchfork I crack up, those writers have got to be the worlds greatest punk pussy posers ever. Never have a group of critics pissed me off so much, even if I agree with them, their ultimate indie/hipster bullshit lingo is to annoying. Plus they try so hard to be cool it makes me ask who they are trying to impress if they dont care about what one thinks? Pitchfork recently gave a list of the 200 greatest songs of the '60 and went out of their way to claim they dont like "light my fire." I'm not saying one has to buy into the Jim Morrison macho thing, but not on the 200 greatest songs of the 60's? Damn those guys are so cool!
Pitchfork is cool... and so is Sufjan, Big Boi and Britney.
I should know, because I read Pitchfork daily.
Thanks to Pitchfork, I'm cool again!
Mars Volta's new album got 4 points less than Timberlake's new album?! Yeah, sure that album is catchy in a club, but PEOPLE! Mars Volta are changing the musical plane. And they get a guy who likes K.T. Tunstall and soft new-adult-alternative-easy listening for the over 30's to review it? That's about as fair as me reviewing the new Justin Timberlakeh CD for the people. Just not giving an even playing field. ...This doesn't make sense. Fuck it.
I think what's been said here collectively gets the point. Pitchfork Media reviews and reviewing aren't right or wrong ... the whole endeavor is simply misguided. Discussion of music and art is obviously a great thing - but rating music like this, and using such absolute judgments - comes off a as a joke in the end. Even if these guys and gals have listened to more music than all of us combined, it's absolutely irrelevant - their subjective opinion in rating music is just as prominent as anyone elses. I'm not sure how an album and a number are supposed to correspond to one another - most likely as means for satisfying the crtic's prideful ambitions.
Also, their writing style(s) confound the whole project further. Even if they are showcasing their liberal arts stlystic writing background...how many smart alic essays do you have to write before you realize the value in straight up, no nonsense writing? The methapors and illusions just get laughable half way through the review. There are even 10.0 album ratings like Kid A that I agree with - but the review itself was still unintelligble. Speak directly to the listener - not to your own whimsical mindset.
Critics are really the last people to listen to when discussing music. Listen to your friends, people with your taste of music, people with different taste than yours- listen to the musicians you like and respect, and their thoughts - but to someone who's inention all along is to assign a number and a lengthy descriptive metaphor? Not the place to go in my opinion. But any sensible person will realize quickly to put little stock in what Pitchfork has to say. The reviews shouldn't be ignored - just taken for what their worth.
Exacly, Seems like you have to sound like the Decemberists, and have the most annoying voice to get above a 5. What is this, if they think their music is so much better why does it all sound the same? Their way is, if it is not obscure or awkward, or if it does not involve your life story, if it is fun, or interesting what have you it is right out.
Now that I'm older and wiser (32), I've listened to enough music in my life and lived through enough trends to be able to judge music on its own merits. Pitchfork reviewers simply do not do this. Instead they critique each record as if it were an ar school project in the most irritating pseudo-intellectual way imaginable.
Posting little hissyfits full of uppercase letters and italics to show everyone when you're ANGRY and "ironic" is funny, especially when you're criticising someone else's writing.
If you hate everything about Pitchfork, you're an idiot. Same goes if you agree with everything they print. It seems to me that the Pitchfork writers don't necessarily love music, but they genuinely love the music that they love. They also seem to be honest about the fact that most music out there isn't terrible, only mediocre and not really worth $18.99 at Best Buy About 10 really great records a year pop up and everything else is just kinda there.
You know what though? Go be sad that you're not "indie" enough and tell everyone that slags your music to FUCK THEMSELVES, 'cause that's what My Chemical Romance would do. You'll feel better, 'cause your music is AWESOME! Fuck Pitchfork for giving them a 4.8. Assholes.
haha a white guy getting angry about hip-hop
Hey buddy, Ill review your stupid ass band Cabrini Green's 4 myspace song EP.Carbrini Green.MySpace EP.
Your songs are Hecka gay and you, my silly firend, are the one that sucks fat cock. One of your shitty band's songs actually starts off with the lyrics, "Well these small town lights dont burn as bright as they used too." Oh and your drummer sucks major ass. I dont mind your Pavementy, REMy guitar melodies, but everything else sucks major ass. Or cock. Whichever you prefer.
i LOVE how the pitchfork defenders can do nothing but call people "fags" and shit.
you're really convincing me to be a pitchfork fan! i thought pfork was just pretentious and stupid, but now that i see that they're big among ignorant homophobes, well, shit, SIGN ME UP.
assholes. grow up. you're all 15 anyhow.
pitchfork sucks, you must accept it.
He's not in Cabrini Green douchebag. Plus, if you're defending Pitchfork, shouldn't your review be 3,000 words?
Walk tall, speak the truth.
+40,000.
Here is the reason that all you fucks, whether you like the reviews or not, still check that fucking site every day: their jobs are to discover new music and present that music to you. 5 days a week, 4 new albums a day. Thats 20 albums a week that you are now aware of thanks to pitchfork. It doesn't matter if you like the review or the reviewers or their crooked cocks or what. They have already established themselves as THE most important promoter of independent music, and as such recieve press kits, by the hundreds, daily, of all your favorite shitty bands music and pictures of their greasy black emo mops they call hair. And when they dont like your favorite band? You cry like little bitches. Waste your fucking lives away at jizz stained keyboards, waiting to respond to some pointless comment, that no one will ever really care about anyway. Send your worthelss thoughts out into the wind, like you have nothing better to do. Move out of your moms house. Pay for your own fucking cable internet. Help a homless person and SHUT THE FUCK UP. Thats the reason. 20 albums a week.
TO the Mars Volta fan in the back there. Yes you. Anonymous i belive it is. DIIIID YOOU KNNOWWW that a lucid non-fan hurdleld piss at your secret hanky panky lover Bixler in a recent show in Seattle? I Laughed and laughed and laughed when I heard that. Almost pissed my own pants. HEY!
To anonymous "jizz-stained" keyboard guy. "20 albums a week" jajajaja. Who gives a shit? "help a homless" person... I'll deliver homs to any homless person that asks. "Move out of your moms house. Pay for your own fucking cable internet." Seriously dude, are you retarded?
hey jerkoff, what the fuck are you trying to say. jajajaja? Or am I not up on you jive ass blog lingo? Seriously. Dude. Seriously. Thats the way to end it. your on to something there prissy pants. Seriously. Dude.
THIS WEB PAGE SUCK BIG TIME UCK
i love to lick an suck my self off tast my cum an eat it also
pitchfork is nothing but overly self-indulgent, pretentious bullshit.
i feel bad for you man. to be attacked by all those hipsters and die hard pitchforkers. be aware, pitchfork media is not the only source of music to have ever existed. try AMG, or Wikipedia for christs sake. and stop listening to music critics! stop being spineless!
i side with this rant.
Fuck Pitchfork is right. Are they listening to the same fucking record I am listening too? The first half of that mew Justin Timberlake joint has a few hot songs but the last half is terrible r&b ballad bullshit. I can not stand how they will review some shit that only 5 people have heard about then Paris Hilton. Get the fuck over this commercial hip-hop vs. indie rock bullshit. It looks stupid and there are THOUSANDS of underground hip-hop groups that could use a good review on a site like that. Does anyone own fuckpitchfork.com? Let's do it.
Pitchfork displays some of the absolute worst writing I have ever had the displeasure of placing my eyes upon. While I, for the most part, can rely on liking most of their higher-rated albums, I find their reviews completely pointless and exhausting. The writers sound like the turds that made me cringe in my critical theory class. Thanks for the post; I'm really glad to have found out that they work for free.
Anonymous said...
Pitchfork displays some of the absolute worst writing I have ever had the displeasure of placing my eyes upon.
Because you're not a wordy, awkward, or chunky writer . . . .
If Bill O'Reilly wrote Indie music reviews, he'd write for Pitchfork Media.
We report. You decide.
God Bless You, Pitchfork is over rated and adding to the emasculation of men.
Obscurity doesn't equate to greatness, and I don't need to wear a half shirt with pink cowboy boots and horn-rimmed glasses to be musically "in the know".
It's fucking Tiger Beat for Adults.
Yes Pitchfork are annoyingly pretentious and wordy writers. Yes they write about indie rock and the most ridiculous pop music out of a sense of misplaced irony. Yes they don't write about much underground hip-hop because they don't know much about it. Yes they sometimes piss me off to the point of apoplexy when dissing a more "popular" band like Tool or King Crimson. Yes they're stuck in the indie-rock-hipper- than-thou-this-is-MY-little-band-that-I-discovered tar pit. Their opinions are often annoying but where are you going to find so much written about new bands?
Agree with your rant 100%. I don't understand the cult of music nerds that bow to this website. Overall the writing is incredibly weak, uninspired or over the top, and the bands they promote generally sound like shit. I'm glad that the Pitchfork backlash is in full effect, as I was telling everyone I know how crap this website was years ago. I refuse to visit it, and I also can't understand how their devotees are in any way "hipsters"-- they are some of the most terminally un-hip people at my school. My guess is that many of these writers are frustrated social outcasts who are locked up in their dorm rooms pretending to be Lester Bangs when they should be out partying or having a life.
boogerdick pee-pee and hominy-grits
my shabooshy noodle pick of my clit
agurglegurgle diggleddeepoop
yaay yaaay happyand gay
singemypeckerhair andlaugh at my jokes
muggles and buggles and muff in my teeth
crying tears pissing from my face
i'll kill a toad
pussyfart umbilical cord juice
im unique
pussyjuice cumsplat down on my knees
receiving jiggeldeezippydeepisslefartcumbubble
I agree with that guy that said that one thing about pitchfork and yeah what he said cuz he was right
I think the point is that Pitchfork (and much of today's music criticism in general) often lets the music take a back seat to snarky demonstrations of vocabulary and wit. The reviews are rarely genuine. But that's what Pitchfork was built on: Shock value, irony, the I-know-everything pretense. Look, my point is: you're a faggot, no you're a faggot, no, you're a faggot, no you're a faggot! No, you have a B.A. - No you have a b.a. no you have a b.a. no you have a b.a. 3000 words! No, 5 stars! No, 3000 words,No Lil' Wayne, No, Britney! and so on...
Post a Comment
<< Home