thebookofkevin wrote:

Run Around on Fire wrote:several writers at Pitchfork probably wrote reviews for the album, and they chose to publish the 0.0 since thats the most sensational, and totally fucked any chance Travis (even if its a bad album) may have had.

i write for a music reviewing website, and think that this statement is completely false. pitchfork writers get paid to write their reviews. why would pitchfork pay 4 people to write a review when only one of them is going to be published? (in the event that they only pay who gets published, why would you write a review you knew someone else was writing also, and therefore potentially stopping you from getting paid for your time?)

on the site that i write for, there is one writer assigned to each review. granted, i don't write for pitchfork, so i don't KNOW how they do it, what you describe doesn't make sense.


READ TINYMIXTAPES!

You very well could be right, as I have absolutely no idea how this thing works. I figured that they would at least have 2 people write a review for an album so they could put up the "better" one. Especially when they're rushed to get the review up the day before the album comes out. But maybe I'm retarded.

On the subject of tiny tix tapes: I read that too. I think whereas Pitchfork tries to be edgy and hip, Tiny Mix Tapes tries to be funny, and they do just as much gae postmodern bullshit in their music news section (ie, writing the day's music news in the form of an AIM conversation) as 'fork. Whenever I read tiny mix tapes I skip the first paragraph or two of every story because it's usually just a bunch of unfunny references and hipster feces.

on the site that i write for, there is one writer assigned to each review. granted, i don't write for pitchfork, so i don't KNOW how they do it, what you describe doesn't make sense.


READ TINYMIXTAPES!

hey, if that is the site you write for, tell them to get their automated mailing system working (the one that's supposed to send you their mailing address.)

the guy who said not to take it seriously had the right idea. let mark prindle tell you WHY an album is good, and if you're bored at work and want to hear people musing about brooklyn and all the hip musicians who live there, give it a read.

otherwise, just listen to the music and make your own judgements.

154 wrote:

on the site that i write for, there is one writer assigned to each review. granted, i don't write for pitchfork, so i don't KNOW how they do it, what you describe doesn't make sense.


READ TINYMIXTAPES!

hey, if that is the site you write for, tell them to get their automated mailing system working (the one that's supposed to send you their mailing address.)

i know not of this automated mailing system... is it for labels to get the address to send promos to or something?

and maybe it's just cause i'm 19 and a "hip" college kid who got over pitchfork about a year and a half ago, but i find some of the news on tinymixtapes to be hillarious.

granted, there's a lot of bullshit there too, but i find myself laughing sometimes. i'm not a newswriter though, so whatever.

my most recent review was written in (more or less) fake italian before it got edited.

i'm sure a number of people found it to be the second most pretentious thing on the planet.

John W. wrote:http://pitchforkmedia.com/cgi-bin/searc ... terms=10.0

the thing that pisses me off about pfork (pretty much the only thing) is that they have Neutral Milk Hotel's In the Aeroplane over the Sea listed as a 10.0. However, a few years ago, when I started reading it, they only gave it a 7.something. I remember this because I thought "how the fuck did this beautiful record only get a seven? this past year, they changed the rating and deleted the old review as if they had loved it all along.


cunts.



Faiz

kerble wrote:

John W. wrote:http://pitchforkmedia.com/cgi-bin/searc ... terms=10.0

the thing that pisses me off about pfork (pretty much the only thing) is that they have Neutral Milk Hotel's In the Aeroplane over the Sea listed as a 10.0. However, a few years ago, when I started reading it, they only gave it a 7.something. I remember this because I thought "how the fuck did this beautiful record only get a seven? this past year, they changed the rating and deleted the old review as if they had loved it all along.


cunts.



Faiz

Hahaha, that's great! Stalinist hipsters!





Fucktards...

i know not of this automated mailing system... is it for labels to get the address to send promos to or something?

yup.. it either doesn't work or they just ignore it..

either way, it's a pretty good site still

Yeah, the whole pitchfork phenomenon is kind of strange. They seem to have nailed a particular niche of internet bound indie rock fans.

I have to say that a really good pitchfork review does incite my interest in a band, like a lot.

I have to ask, for all the people here who have criticized pitchfork, how many of you look at the site at least once a week? Though the reviews are annoying and a bit snotty, I still look at the site every damn day.

I look at it everyday and furiously masturbate to the list of the Pitchfork staff as I pray to God to give me a new kind of STD that instantly kills whoever I'm thinking about while doin' the five knuckle shuffle.

Look, Chris just to make it better, here is a picture of headless pretty ladies in short-shorts. It was on the Pitchfork page when I looked and made everything feel much better.