chickendelicious wrote:Here's a spoof of the pitchfork website by Subpop you all might enjoy:

http://www.subpop.com/features/pdork/

here's another PF spoof, more scathing:

http://www.somethingawful.com/fake/richdork/

chickendelicious wrote:Here's a spoof of the pitchfork website by Subpop you all might enjoy:

http://www.subpop.com/features/pdork/

here's another PF spoof, more scathing:

http://www.somethingawful.com/fake/richdork/

upon further inspection, much much funnier than the subpop one.

Pitchfork is NOT CRAP for a couple reasons:
1) They're pretty good with news stuff.
2) They've turned me on to some pretty good music.

They are CRAP for a couple reasons:
1) Reviews should actually be about the music they're reviewing and not be about going out to lunch with mom.
2) They didn't hire me as a writer. I guess maybe I offended them with my "avant oh god" comment.

Pitchfork's review of the new Milemarker record is comically bad.

Alright, I've been meaning to ask this for some time. I know I'm retarded and not internet-trained, but what in the fuck is this thing? It's not wet fannies is it? or Wailing Flagellator?

You know, I only learnt recently what LOL emant so I guess I am quite far behind the times.

si-maro wrote:Alright, I've been meaning to ask this for some time. I know I'm retarded and not internet-trained, but what in the fuck is this thing? It's not wet fannies is it? or Wailing Flagellator?

You know, I only learnt recently what LOL emant so I guess I am quite far behind the times.

The thing about the Fork lately is that they have just become hyper aware of themselves… far too aware. They officially hold incredible power to sell records… set the taste and have proven this a whole bunch these last few years (arcade fire). At the same time, they love to sort of pump bullshit out there trying to make an entire world of journalism out of the small number of bands they really bother to cover.

Since they have switched to the new "more content" format, I have paradoxically found less to read on there (this month in Grime? WTF?). There just may not be enough for these damn people to write about day in and day out without scrapping the bottom of the barrel.

The reviews are often predictable… I had the Wilco GIB review pretty much pegged before hearing the album. 5. something.

To be fair though, I have been losing my taste for what’s “hot” these days for the last few years, and I can’t tell if it’s pitchfork disappointing me, or music in general…

DefinitelyNOTtheSWEDE wrote:

si-maro wrote:Alright, I've been meaning to ask this for some time. I know I'm retarded and not internet-trained, but what in the fuck is this thing? It's not wet fannies is it? or Wailing Flagellator?

You know, I only learnt recently what LOL emant so I guess I am quite far behind the times.

The thing about the Fork lately is that they have just become hyper aware of themselves… far too aware. They officially hold incredible power to sell records… set the taste and have proven this a whole bunch these last few years (arcade fire). At the same time, they love to sort of pump bullshit out there trying to make an entire world of journalism out of the small number of bands they really bother to cover.

Since they have switched to the new "more content" format, I have paradoxically found less to read on there (this month in Grime? WTF?). There just may not be enough for these damn people to write about day in and day out without scrapping the bottom of the barrel.

The reviews are often predictable… I had the Wilco GIB review pretty much pegged before hearing the album. 5. something.

To be fair though, I have been losing my taste for what’s “hot” these days for the last few years, and I can’t tell if it’s pitchfork disappointing me, or music in general…

I think you do a very good job of summing up one of the major problems with the site now... but also, i think the writing staff is pretty horrible. there are some reviews from non-everyday writers that have impressed me, but for the most part it's some of the worst writing i've seen, music journalism or otherwise. Perhaps this is due in part to what you said, them being hyper aware of their power... it could translate into writers feeling like they have to be verbose and esoteric, but quite frankly i can't read the actual reviews. i just look at the ratings and if it's something i know and like i can expect them to give it an unjust grade.

DefinitelyNOTtheSWEDE wrote:
Since they have switched to the new "more content" format, I have paradoxically found less to read on there (this month in Grime? WTF?). There just may not be enough for these damn people to write about day in and day out without scrapping the bottom of the barrel.

YES...I have been meaning to mention this here. Grime, dub-step, British hip-hop, dancehall....who listens to this shit? I guess that's what I should like about Pitchfork: that it introduces me to new stuff. Call me a dick but I'll pass on the Grime/Dubstep.

Also, they've really crossed the line using hip-hop slang constantly. It's really embarrassing.

I know its pretty unnecessary to point out their off-base reviews, but in my opinion, this review of Pinback's Blue Screen Life was the worst (another writer even made an off-handed comment in a separate article about how bad this review was):

http://pitchforkmedia.com/record-reviews/p/pinback/blue-screen-life.shtml

i don't read it anymore on account of the miniscule text size and the animated ads. it's really painful, and the writing staff doesn't help. self-awareness is a good thing, but i don't think they deserve any high marks for excellence. so unless they agree, they're not self-aware.

I used to check it every couple days, but haven't bothered for a while. Anyone know why the site is crushingly slow now? Those reviews linked in this thread took forever to load. Too many Arcade Fire fans hitting the site? A DDOS attack orchestrated by Joan of Arc fans?