www.Pitchforkmedia.com

[Eomer]

I was kidding, for the most part. The original list higher up on the page I recognized the majority of the names, however I probably wouldn't recognize most of those band's songs, or even be able to name a song of theirs.

The list was put forth as being a list of "mainstream" albums/bands that Pitchfork media gave good reviews to or whatever. That's kind of a joke really, most of those bands are not even close to mainstream in any real sense.

And, I just read their review of Lateralus (or however you spell it). You know what it reminds me of? Me. Me when I was in grade eight and first heard Greenday's Basketcase on Muchmusic and hated it only because a lot of other people liked it. I hated it cause it was mainstream. Same thing with Offspring (although my hatred for their music I consider valid now, as it has gotten worse and worse), hell, basically any band that achieved any sort of success. I called them wannabees, and sell outs. Good thing is, I realize now that my opinions then were immature and unfounded, and that I hung onto them because I thought it made me cool and it impressed other people. It's too bad the people at Pitchfork are still holding on :/

[Originalclone]

Eomer, you said it all.

[somecleric]

Pitchfork are a review site. They are of course biased, as unbiased reviews are about as interesting and useful as dried vomit. Did they hate Lateralus? Yes. Was the review funny? Yes. Was it a little immature? Probably. If you'd read it would you have realized it was a parody of those eighth grade music fanbois? Maybe.

This and this and this perfectly illustrate the pitchfork attitude. They're unforgiving to albums that suck, and they're going to make fun of them, but they're also going to tell you what they're like, and what's wrong with them. Even when savaging an album, they still find time to give you a good idea of what it's going to sound like. What more do you want from a review? Automatic 10.0's for everyone? A coupon for a free ounce? Heaps of meaningless praise?

I like my reviews with information and points of comparison, and if it comes with attitude, I don't mind, just makes it more entertaining.

[Eomer]

What more do you want from a review?

I want a review from a layman's perspective. Now, please understand that I am not talking about Pitchfork in specific here. I am not familiar with them other than their Tool review (which I agree was funny in a tongue in cheek kind of way, I just totally disagree with their conclusions), so for all I know the intent of that site is to cater to people who like obscure music and who pat themselves on the back when they discover some new, barely listenable, avante garde group, and who sit around jerking each other off while listening to Thom Yorke and Beck shitting beside a microphone.

But reviews in general are often done by people who know much more about the medium than the vast majority of the people who will be looking for entertainment from them, and I think often that is a very bad thing. Reviewing music or movies from the perspective of a very learned insider will often alienate the reviewer from their readers. If their goal is to cater to a niche crowd, great fine wonderful. But most aren't, they mean for their reviews to be read by Joe Schmoe, who chances are doesn't get even half the snide references they make in the review. Things that the reviewer find to be faults with the reviewee (am trying to stay away from pronouns to ease confusion), a normal average person may not even notice, or might even enjoy.

Obviously music and movies are very much matters of personal choice and opinion. But the opinions of a normal average joe and someone who is much more knowledgable about a medium are going to be vastly different, more often than not. So why review things from that perspective? It virtually guarantees that your readership will disagree with you (unless of course, your readership is as jaded as you).

[Tarissa DR]

Personally I like reviews that make me believe that there is some form of "higher" criteria at work other than crabby apparently spiteful bashing because a certain album isn't a 'favorite' to the in-crowd of indie groupies. When the reviewers come off more as entertainers than real music critics, you can't help but feel drawn back - but for all of the wrong reasons.

[AngryGerbil]

I've always preferred the reviews of people rather than critics. (Yes, I classify them as different) Hence my attraction to this forum.

Seriously though, I don't want reviews tainted by a writers corporate agendas or desire to entertain. Even if a critics review isn't tainted financially, it is often written with the goal of making people want to read it, it is "spruced up" here and "edited" there so that it is more appealing to the "audience".

Sorry to sound like an anti-social hippie (truly........I am), and I don't think most people in media are corrupt or anything, just that they tend to have other goals than just stating their simple, and humble opinion.

When I go to gamespot.com I don't look at thier score of a game, I look at the reader reviews, because honestly, they are usually more accurate (I use that term loosely) than someone who makes money for writing it.

A good example is to compare the reviews of Warcraft3 which was a decent, but altogether underwhelming game. Gamespot treated it as the second coming of Christ.

Oh, and how can pitchfork list the top 20 albums of the 90's and omit Tool - Aenima? Those nazi baystirreds.....

[Tarissa DR]

This is pretty much why I have to recommend allmusic.com if you're going to use something as a source.

Nothing has the right to grade your own opinions, but you can at least find some form of help in their educated opinion. Both of the words educated and opinion keywords there

[Originalclone]

I just want a site where I can find good new/underground music easily. I learn nothing from Pitchfork's reviews.

[Hikaru]

seem pretty biased to me

[Heh]

although Maynard is generally worshipped as the second coming of jesus christ by internet forum posters, especially gamers for some reason, disliking a Tool album doesn't make your opinion worthless.

I personally own 4 tool albums ( never felt the need to buy salival ) and have listened to all of them until they are too scratched to play. I just moved on from my depressed 8-9th grade phase.

pitchfork is definately biased, it's a fucking indie music site, of course they are going to be pretentious assholes. that being said, I've never listened to an album they rated about 8.0 or higher and not added it permanently to my music collection with 1 notable exception... the fiery furnaces, I really dont know what the fuck is going on with that band.

if you arent inherently interested in indie rock there really isn't a whole lot of reason to frequent pitchfork, it simply isn't aimed at you.

[Enchiladitos]

Good ol' Pitchfork. I think this was one of my biggest WTF moments ever:

The experience and emotions tied to listening to Kid A are like witnessing the stillborn birth of a child while simultaneously having the opportunity to see her play in the afterlife on Imax.

yeah...

[Ham n Cheese]

I hate this site by the way. I think they rated "The Game" over some my all times favs. I'd go back to make sure, but fuck them.

[DiscW]

Andrew W.K. is the win, so they fail.

[Kiely]

:/ why does every critique rate OK computer better then The bends.. Like seriously the bends is clearly much more worth. Pissing me off now seeing all the ratings with OK computer so high. Brain washed anyone ? :/

[AngryGerbil]

nice bump btw