|
ok, here's why i'm not jumping on any hateful bandwagons but also hate pitchfork:
1) they are way to pretentious in their writings. everything they write has too have big words and have this structure like if they were on an assigment for a college class; they write like my teachers would tell me to write and, while there's nothing wrong with that, writing reviews on rock (or at least contemporary music) doesn't really enable itself to look sincere or even about the same thing. if pitchfork were around in the 70's, all they would write about would be prog rock, the big words and literary wordery not fitting for anything simpler than yes or emerson, lake and palmer.
2) they use comparisons for everything, even if they don't fit in, and try to find logical reasons for liking music, when it's not always the case. they do math with albums. like "this album is their third; so i liked the first and the second was a bit better, and because this one is sounding in the same vein as the last, then i don't think i like it. plus, this band is influenced by this and that band and that doesn't make them original; so they suck". the reviews i hate the most are when they put a certain number of albums together (like the ep, whitey album and psychic hearts) and try to make sense of them and pit one against the other. they remind me of the retarded rolling stone reviews.
3) they are mostly ignorant of what they are talking about. it's hilarious to read the mess they throw themselves into when they try to talk like experts about bands or genres they know shit about. come to think of it, that part of pitchfork i like.
4) their agenda. most of their reviews are biased to promote the only typ of music they like, meaning everything that sounds similar to neutral milk hotel, belle and sebastian, sufjan stevens, etc. (that or mainstream/borderline underground hip-hop) and while that's not a bad thing either, they insist on reviewing other kinds of music to compare and contrast and prove that the music they like is the only music that matters and that sucks. of course, they sometimes throw in the sheepish, go with the bandwagon positive reviews of underground sensations to not be seen as out of the loop.
5) they try to find the irony for everything when it usually isn't there. irony is for suckers
6) mostly, they trash every album that remotely rocks.
7) they seem to be more concerned with indie cred from the artists than with the actual music.
i agree people tend to give pitchfork way too much credit and usually read it without a critical mind. i mostly get pissed at their reviews but i know they don't understand the music and they don't seem to give it a chance; i'm sometimes curious to see what they think, but i don't take them into account for anything, review-wise.
i do read pitchfork sometimes for the news, and the interviews sometimes. but, afterall, they are just another stupid website.
|