How does PITCHFORK work?
- Thread starter Buick6
- Start date
swears
preppy-kei
Some good downloads this month in Sherburne's column too!
http://pitchfork.com/article/feature/146496-the-month-in-techno
http://pitchfork.com/article/feature/146496-the-month-in-techno
bassbeyondreason
Chtonic Fatigue Syndrome
*insert ageist comment*
One thing I can't stand is how people swear by their lists ("Best albums of the 70s" etc.). I've met people whose ideas of what makes up canon material is virtually dictated by Pitchfork's idea of it, and if you try to argue against it (I, for one, will never believe that 'The Moon and Antartica' is classic anything), they become very very upset indeed.
The main problem with Pitchfork is how people rely on it so heavily that their ideas of the music they listen to are already decided by the articles they read before they even hear it. Many indie rockers that I've met seem to hate being one-upped or caught not knowing something someone else does, so a lot of them rely on Pitchfork as a cred bible of sorts. Which is obviously a problem with ALL music journalism, but Pitchfork in particular appears to have a much stronger influence on the readership than most music journalism.
The main problem with Pitchfork is how people rely on it so heavily that their ideas of the music they listen to are already decided by the articles they read before they even hear it. Many indie rockers that I've met seem to hate being one-upped or caught not knowing something someone else does, so a lot of them rely on Pitchfork as a cred bible of sorts. Which is obviously a problem with ALL music journalism, but Pitchfork in particular appears to have a much stronger influence on the readership than most music journalism.
Last edited:
David Cross, by request of Pitchfork, does his "Top Ten Records":
http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/artic...o-while-reading-overwrought-pitchfork-reviews
http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/artic...o-while-reading-overwrought-pitchfork-reviews
nomadthethird
more issues than Time mag
seconded they're kind of like an american indie-rock Oasis
This conversation seems about 8 years out of date, but Sick Boy is right, Pitchfork is really geared toward people who like music as a set of cultural signifiers of their own coolness and "in-the-know" abilities more than they care about music as something sonic. I always get the sense when I read pitchfork that like very few of their writers actually play music. Of course you don't have to play music to know about it, but what's missing is any creative engagement with music beyond "I live in Austin, Texas and I want to know which old and new bands I should name drop to impress people"
Remember when Pitchfork got all into post-punk, only to start bashing anyone who liked it a year later for being trendspotting lemmings? I do...
nomadthethird
more issues than Time mag
Um, if that's why they exist, then you've just explained exactly why I have no interest in reading music journalism. Especially trad rock crit.
nomadthethird
more issues than Time mag
David Cross, by request of Pitchfork, does his "Top Ten Records":
http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/artic...o-while-reading-overwrought-pitchfork-reviews
that was the funniest thing I've read in forever
I don't know if that's why they exist, but I think they do end up doing it. Same as critical theory, and the marketing thereof. I wonder what the alternative model would be. Fine-writing critics to be read for their own sake?
Jesus fuck me yes that really is the worst they have to offer i hope.
There was a time when they did have a broader remit on music, accepting and writing about all sorts of things they don't now, it's very much a site for established indie labels in the uk and us, with a slant towards us indie. Featuring music that isn't indieish seemed to stop as they grew, although the specialist pages are good.
their top 100 records of the 90's you could predict totally, and two pavement records in the top 10. I tell you i really do hate pavement, hearing their music makes me genuinley angry.
Last edited:
i'm gonna stick up for pavement here, i don't listen to them these days but i was well into them as a teenager and i'm pretty (well, very) glad that i was listening to them rather than britpop at the time. plus, i got into loads of other cool bands via them.
and pitchfork is shite for the most part, but nothing compared to the monstrosity that is drowned in sound.
and pitchfork is shite for the most part, but nothing compared to the monstrosity that is drowned in sound.
sodiumnightlife
Sweet Virginia
Amen to that. Pitchfork are ok. Some of it pisses me off admittedly, but really I do value certain reviewers opinions on certain albums. I am guilty of doing that thing though where you click on a review and go "oh only 5.8? Probably won't read the review then."