08 November 2007

Why Pitchfork Media Sucks.

Pitchfork Media sucks.

Although they are indisputably one of the biggest, and most well known indie media outlets, someone has to come out and say that they are in fact just another indie snob trying to get out its name, by destroying the name of some of the greatest albums of the last ten years.

Lets start off with a local favorite, Jimmy Eat World. Arguably the best Jimmy cd is Clarity back from 1999 (Bleed American wasn't reviewed, probably because it actually charted) . This is not only a great cd, but one of the quintessential emo discs of all time. Pitchforks spends days in a commercial dialect type review to drone on how the cd is sub par, giving the disc a 3.5/10. No more need be said.

Another quintessential disc, again in the emo realm, would be Saves the Day's Stay What You Are. Whether you like this type of music, its not hard to see that there isn't much more to be asked for on this type of album. But Pitchfork displays itself as another indie elitist rating the disc as a 2.9/10.

Moving to heavier music, the progressive/hardcore/space rock disc Jupiter by Cave In was also reviewed. This album, which is widely regarded as another of the best of its kind is still rated below a 5 by Pitchfork with a 4.9/10.

Perhaps the worst part of all this is that Pitchfork pretends to have knowledge outside of its small portion of the indie landscape and goes on to review Jay-Z and Rihanna's latest albums. Both discs received an 8.6 and 7.4 respectively. Nothing against either artist, but apparently originality and straddling several genres in one disc are not an important factor in the reviews done by Pitchfork.

So Pitchfork, next time you want to legitimize yourself as an indie reviewer, stick to your Saddle Creek, don't venture out of your comfort zone, and for the sake of indie remember one thing:

Indie is not limited to acoustic guitar, overbearing synth lines and artists that will never appeal to a demographic larger than the standard mismatched American Apparel and Ray-Ban wearing indie elitist.


Owen Marshall said...

As much as I think Pitchfork is cultish, pretentious, fascist and sometimes just plain wrong- my addiction to their overwrought music reviews means that I'm gonna have to make a rebuttal to your argument here. And if the length of that sentence is any indicator, it's gonna be long winded as well... and I'm probably gonna unfairly rag on Jimmy Eat World as well. So look forward to that!

Vince said...

It was funny because just based on the artists you used I knew it was you writing this. :p

becktronbexbecky said...

I'm with Owen on this one. Pitchfork is an addictive sort of evil: I love to love it, hate to love it, love to hate it, and hate to hate it. I'd totally write snobby reviews for them if they asked me.

Andy said...

I'm looking forward to some long-winded rebuttals on this one!

P.S. One of my next few articles is going to be on why Pitchfork rocks... so in essence we agree that its a thing you love to hate, and hate to love.

Anonymous said...

pitchfork thinks it's so cool. It hates pearl jam, so i'm gonna kill it. PEARL JAM FOREVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

becktronbexbecky said...

You love Pearl Jam? ...Really?

Ryne said...

Although I do feel that Pitchfork is overrated and pretentious, I don't think that expressing distaste towards their ratings of albums that in your opinion should be scored higher is a valid critique on why Pitchfork sucks.

I feel like Pitchfork tries too hard to be wordy and scholarly. They use unnecessary words that make them sound pretentious, like they used a thesaurus to come up with terms that no one really uses.

In the end, they mostly sound like a bunch of crap. I feel that they don't venture out of their comfort zone very often in reviews, sticking to the tried and true "indie" formula. I'd like to see them review other genres as well, to see how they write on those subjects.

Anonymous said...

Pitchfork gave the album Lateralus by Tool a 1.9. Pitchfork media is considered alternative, but is what I like to call "quasi-alternative."

Anonymous said...

Pitchfork is so pretentious. I wouldn't have the slightest qualm with them trashing every album that came out as long as they had legitimate argument for it. But they never do; all they ever have done is insist so strongly upon their own opinions it obscures any valid (albeit slanted) argumentation they may have. And sometimes I think that they listen to one track of an album and review the entire album from it. It seems like their actual immersion in the music they review is very watered down.

Camazza said...

It is thanks to Pitchfork if reading reviews is still worth something. If all reviewers were absolutely objective, correct it would be like looping a Dream Theater song over and over: technicism and no content. Please, read the actual Lateralus review and you'll immediately notice how it's meant to be a 9.1, not a 1.9.