[/color]/CRAP 0. Oh and those concept "clever" story type reviews crapcrapcrap[/quote]

Those fucking KILL me. I'm an editor, and I typically find that the first two paragraphs of any given story are total bullshit, and this formula applies almost uniformly to Pitchfork, except often it's the first six. Having said that, I do think the writing has gotten a lot better in the last year (it used to JUST be about kids trying to be smartasses, now it seems split 50/50 between them and kids who are thoughtful). Having said THAT, in the interest of full disclosure, I just got a good review from 'em, but that's not coloring my opinion. Seriously. -E

In Pitchfork's defense, I always thought this NIN review was mostly a good piece of work. Silly, funny, honest and insightful, despite a glaring factual error.

While I totally agree with every post so far, I do look at it every day as a source of news and information. Sometimes the reviews suck, but typically if you are looking for backstory, you can gleen enough between the zeniths of pretention.

The guy who writes the news appears to have his tongue in his cheek, but some of the other stuff is like reading a college newspaper.

Their 100 best whatever lists are typically very funny, not in the good way,
and about 25% accurate.

Not Crap, with a giant waffle, only 'cause I read it for a few seconds almost daily.

I say not crap, because I really get a kick out of reading negative reviews even if it's a band I like, and Pitchfork seems to dish out enough to make me want to visit the site every now and then.

There are times when I've gone out and bought a record based on a Pitchfork review and ended up liking it, otherwise I would have never heard of it. I reckon the same could be said for any ol' magazine or website for just about anybody, though. I just don't think it's worth getting all riled up about a website like Pitchfork that obviously doesn't take itself too seriously in the first place.

I also like www.buddyhead.com, but it's not updated very often. Very funny site.

Thank you for turning me on to a new site for music news, everyone. There's not a lot going on down here and I need every port in a storm.

Pretty annoying design, though.

How could it be anything other than Crap?

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

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

i enjoyed brent dicrescenzo's take on some bands (fugazi, q and not u, radiohead, right on all accounts), but i haven't seen anything from him in years. he made reviews were entertaining and rock critic geeky. now it's either one or the other. yuck.
they just download mp3s and write reviews without even bothering to hear the source, which to me is sacrilege. it was most obvious on their zwan review, because they complained about the "loops." the only looped version of that album was a pre-release mp3 leak.
shoddy journalism. hit-and-miss entertainment value. crap.

I love this site!

http://www.pitchfork.com/

I believe it was DiCrescenzo who did the 'fragile' NIN review, which was br-illiant