Doyou enjoy Pitchfork?

[Dymytry Vance]

I understand there's a lot of negative bias behind this website, but be honest. Do you like pitchfork in general. Their reviews, their writers, their opinions... etc....
Personally, I find them refreshing, just their not exactly what I'm looking for. However, I usually disagree wqith what they say. Of Montreal is not the best thing to happen to the musical world, and TMV and Jimmy Eat World are not the worst.

[FueledByRock]

Pretty much no. I've visited a few times, and they seem to rave about bands that are just not all that great.

[Indoor Living]

I enjoy them about as much as I enjoy Rolling Stone.

[MADSTA]

Truly don't care about Pitchfork.

[Yellowcard2006]

They gave Jimmy Eat World- Bleed American and Futures a 3/10

The site can go down tomorrow for all I care.

[FueledByRock]

This is weird, google Pitchfork and read its description.

[Dymytry Vance]

They gave Jimmy Eat World- Bleed American and Futures a 3/10

The site can go down tomorrow for all I care.Had I known that I would not have voted yes.

[stereokiller]

They gave Jimmy Eat World- Bleed American and Futures a 3/10

The site can go down tomorrow for all I care.

oh my fucking god, i'll burn their goddamn building.

[flow2345]

I enjoy a great deal of stuff they introduce, but I find the site a bit pretentious.

[briewer]

Half of the things they say are good are bad, and about an eighth of the things they say are bad are good. Still, that's better than most publications, they introduce me to a lot of new music, and have a lot bigger berth and depth of coverage than any other 'indie' publication that might get it right more often based solely on their large budget, so I don't mind them. I'd say I prefer Tiny Mix Tapes more, though.

[domotime2]

it's just not the kind of music ap kids are interested in. and vice versa.

[thehereaway]

Can't stand their reviews, but they have introduced me to some gems and have some cool features.

[Theseventhson]

Their reviews are either overly critical of or overly praising of bands a lot, but a lot of other things on there are really cool, like the videos section.

[And Hours Pass]

The site delivers similar-sounding indie bands to elitists craving some affirmation of their separation from all other music listeners because that's too "mainstream." I'm sorry, but I think sites like pitchfork are a waste of time. They're biased with a clear agenda, and their reviews are completely unreliable as they skew towards overly critical displays of their own intellect.

[FullCollaspe]

I enjoy it overall, but I barely agree with their reviews, like for the new Cursive album.

[Dymytry Vance]

Half of the things they say are good are bad, and about an eighth of the things they say are bad are good. Still, that's better than most publications, they introduce me to a lot of new music, and have a lot bigger berth and depth of coverage than any other 'indie' publication that might get it right more often based solely on their large budget, so I don't mind them. I'd say I prefer Tiny Mix Tapes more, though.
This.

[Dymytry Vance]

This is weird, google Pitchfork and read its description.
Pitchfork: Home (http://pitchfork.com/)
Advertising for agriculture, farming, livestock, exotic animals, equine and western art, all horse breeds and all cattle breeds.
pitchfork.com/ - Cached (http://74.125.93.132/search?q=cache:bn70KG3O248J:pitchfo rk.com/+Pitchfork&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&ie=UTF-8) - Similar (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=related:pitchfork.com/)
Album Reviews (http://www.google.com/url?q=http://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/&ei=Ayu4SoL_OpHplAe2yZjIDg&sa=X&oi=smap&resnum=1&ct=result&cd=1&usg=AFQjCNEOVPB7v7hrpKezDL3ycfejP11 Hog)
2008 Albums (http://www.google.com/url?q=http://pitchfork.com/features/staff-lists/7573-the-50-best-albums-of-2008/&ei=Ayu4SoL_OpHplAe2yZjIDg&sa=X&oi=smap&resnum=1&ct=result&cd=2&usg=AFQjCNFQGdFdaFvGrPY29WSh-8Lmla7TCg)
Best New Music (http://www.google.com/url?q=http://pitchfork.com/reviews/best/&ei=Ayu4SoL_OpHplAe2yZjIDg&sa=X&oi=smap&resnum=1&ct=result&cd=3&usg=AFQjCNFUi0yegHLI0-HkvO1W0mn_F8L5YA)
Songs (http://www.google.com/url?q=http://pitchfork.com/features/staff-lists/7572-the-100-best-tracks-of-2008/&ei=Ayu4SoL_OpHplAe2yZjIDg&sa=X&oi=smap&resnum=1&ct=result&cd=4&usg=AFQjCNGa72uSEWFXj1DCkXfeWwbTuci LHA)
Best New Albums (http://www.google.com/url?q=http://pitchfork.com/reviews/best/albums/&ei=Ayu4SoL_OpHplAe2yZjIDg&sa=X&oi=smap&resnum=1&ct=result&cd=5&usg=AFQjCNGJTMP4mWfzx_5vLlBqR4uRRa0 nGw)
News (http://www.google.com/url?q=http://pitchfork.com/news/&ei=Ayu4SoL_OpHplAe2yZjIDg&sa=X&oi=smap&resnum=1&ct=result&cd=6&usg=AFQjCNHba-0_0JVsVCowVXyDuxhaJFZOAQ)
Best New Tracks (http://www.google.com/url?q=http://pitchfork.com/reviews/best/tracks/&ei=Ayu4SoL_OpHplAe2yZjIDg&sa=X&oi=smap&resnum=1&ct=result&cd=7&usg=AFQjCNEXnH27emFW6NVK3v6qpI_qU5L rng)
TV (http://www.google.com/url?q=http://pitchfork.com/tv/&ei=Ayu4SoL_OpHplAe2yZjIDg&sa=X&oi=smap&resnum=1&ct=result&cd=8&usg=AFQjCNE_V1SICLLiaoUnBfidj4HTJQa HKQ)
More results from pitchfork.com » (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=+site:pitchfork.com+Pitchfork&ei=Ayu4SoL_OpHplAe2yZjIDg&sa=X&oi=smap&resnum=1&ct=more-results)

the fuck?

[pianorocklove]

I don't like music reviews in general. I don't care what anyone thinks of the music I listen to. Everyone will have a different opinion, anyways.

[Baby for Pree]

The site delivers similar-sounding indie bands to elitists craving some affirmation of their separation from all other music listeners because that's too "mainstream." I'm sorry, but I think sites like pitchfork are a waste of time. They're biased with a clear agenda, and their reviews are completely unreliable as they skew towards overly critical displays of their own intellect.
Couldn't you make the same argument about AP.net?

[And Hours Pass]

Couldn't you make the same argument about AP.net?
I hear what you're saying on that one. I've always found that AP.net was far less biased in terms of reviews, didn't push a transparent agenda, and didn't have their reviews based around displays of intellect and pompousness. However, I do see where you're coming from. I think that AP.net definitely pushes a lot of the same music and some members think anything "mainstream" is garbage, but I always felt like AP.net didn't approach it with such a holier-than-thou attitude. Well, some members do, but not the site itself. What do you think?

[briewer]

I hear what you're saying on that one. I've always found that AP.net was far less biased in terms of reviews, didn't push a transparent agenda, and didn't have their reviews based around displays of intellect and pompousness. However, I do see where you're coming from. I think that AP.net definitely pushes a lot of the same music and some members think anything "mainstream" is garbage, but I always felt like AP.net didn't approach it with such a holier-than-thou attitude. Well, some members do, but not the site itself. What do you think?
How? Everyone says this but has nothing to back it up with. Are you just stereotyping based on some preconception of what you think 'hipsters' are like? Or can you actually provide examples of this happening?

[And Hours Pass]

How? Everyone says this but has nothing to back it up with. Are you just stereotyping based on some preconception of what you think 'hipsters' are like? Or can you actually provide examples of this happening?
To clarify: are you asking me to provide examples of what's in bold? As in, you want me to provide examples of AP.net not being bias? It's nearly impossible in a situation like this to provide an example of a negative (not being bias) rather than an example of a positive (the site being biased). I just want to understand exactly what you're asking before I try to respond.

[briewer]

To clarify: are you asking me to provide examples of what's in bold? As in, you want me to provide examples of AP.net not being bias? It's nearly impossible in a situation like this to provide an example of a negative (not being bias) rather than an example of a positive (the site being biased). I just want to understand exactly what you're asking before I try to respond.
No I want examples of how Pitchfork is pompous and holier-than-thou. And you're not proving a negative, which I know is impossible, you're proving a comparative relationship.

[Baby for Pree]

I hear what you're saying on that one. I've always found that AP.net was far less biased in terms of reviews, didn't push a transparent agenda, and didn't have their reviews based around displays of intellect and pompousness.
If you believe that, then you've clearly never read one of their reviews on a crunk core album, which come off as very pompous. Sure, from our point-of-view, these "reviews" (which are so poorly written that I hesitate to refer to them as reviews) are completely warranted but, in the same way you think Pitchfork is biased against certain types of music, the crunk core community may think AP.net is biased against them. I'm not attacking you or anything, I'm just saying that the major claims leveled against Pitchfork can be leveled against any music review website.

However, I do see where you're coming from. I think that AP.net definitely pushes a lot of the same music and some members think anything "mainstream" is garbage, but I always felt like AP.net didn't approach it with such a holier-than-thou attitude. Well, some members do, but not the site itself. What do you think?
I don't think AP.net has a "holier than thou" attitude, at least not anymore than Pitchfork does. Both sites have a focus on a certain type of music so, naturally, when the two audiences cross-over, there will be conflicts.

[Poe-tryGirl]

Never been on there.

[Alex DiVincenzo]

Not a fan.

[briewer]

The site delivers similar-sounding indie bands to elitists craving some affirmation of their separation from all other music listeners because that's too "mainstream." I'm sorry, but I think sites like pitchfork are a waste of time. They're biased with a clear agenda, and their reviews are completely unreliable as they skew towards overly critical displays of their own intellect.
Okay, I read your second post before this one, and I'm not really concerned with what you have to write back, because you are wrong. "Similar-sounding indie bands"? Indie is only a fraction of the music they cover. Look at their top 10 albums from last year:

10. DJ/rupture- Uproot (Club/Dubstep)
09. Hercules And Love Affair- Hercules And Love Affair (House)
08. M83- Saturdays = Youth (Shoegaze/Ambient)
07. Vampire Weekend- Vampire Weekend (Indie)
06. TV On The Radio- Dear Science, (Neo-Soul? Post-Rock?)
05. Deerhunter- Microcastle (Shoegaze)
04. Cut Copy- In Ghost Colours (Electropop/Dance Punk)
03. No Age- Nouns (Noise Pop)
02. Portishead- Third (Trip-Hop)
01. Fleet Foxes- Fleet Foxes/Sun Giant EP (Folk)

If anything, they seem pretty electronica-ly biased. Eschewing the mainstream? Did you see their top 20 tracks of the past decade (http://pitchfork.com/features/staff-lists/7693-the-top-500-tracks-of-the-2000s-20-1/)? Your mom knows the words to half of them. "Biased with a clear agenda"? Why, because they review records their readership might care about? Like every successful music site in existence, including this one? Listen, you might not give a shit about the new Tiny Vipers, Nudge, or High Places records, but the people who visit the site do, in much the same way that they could give a shit less about the new Every Time I Die, Thrice, or Boys Like Girls records that y'all care about. Go ahead, find Pitchfork "a waste of your time", you don't have to like the music they cover. But don't accuse them of bullshit that is based simply on people liking things that are different than your own tastes. It makes you look like a douche.

[And Hours Pass]

No I want examples of how Pitchfork is pompous and holier-than-thou. And you're not proving a negative, which I know is impossible, you're proving a comparative relationship.

Here's some elitist material for you here:

"Honest question-- did Kanye West pull an inside job on Big Brother here? I mean, he gets all the good lines on "Run This Town" and getting Jay to follow his punchdrunk, slouchy flow on "Hate" has to be the result of some bar bet. But it isn't a matter of Kanye fronting him bad beats as much as a state of mind, the sort of maniacal need for approval that often humanizes Kanye but just makes Jay-Z sound insecure and whiny (see: most of The Blueprint 2). "****** want my old shit/ Buy my old album," he sneers in "On to the Next One" over a hyperactive Swizz Beatz track that indicates Jay's not the only one trying to sum up his entire career within the span of four minutes. But "Thank You", "Reminder", and "So Ambitious" all go to great lengths to reiterate accomplishments that we've heard dozens of time, but without naming names, they ultimately feel toothless considering his detractors in 2009's rap game are almost incapable of being taken seriously."

or here:

"Especially when the unkempt male in question is Pete Yorn, who had an unfairly panned sleeper of a debut album back in the David Gray era, then followed it with the kind of blandly forgettable slump that made a lot of people wonder why they ever liked either of those guys in the first place."

or here:

"Break Up, by contrast, resembles a Yorn album: nine tracks of tastefully beige, electronics-brushed roots-rock. Suddenly, Zooey Deschanel and M. Ward's collaboration as She & Him sounds like The Velvet Underground & Nico."

or here:

"When paired with rote punk variations, laziness that's been confused for brattiness and a profound propensity for short, shambling pop-punk tunes that are as aimless as they are irritating, well, you've got the London-based female trio Pens-- they can't play, shout directionlessly at each other most of the time, and make sure that each song on their debut Hey Friend, What You Doing? sounds exactly like the one before it, a pastiche of uninformed garage footnotes, slug-and-chug hardcore rhythms and boneheaded tee-hee in-jokes."

I have no idea what you're so up in arms about. Pitchfork coddles the same few artists (Grizzly Bear, Fleet Foxes, Bon Iver... etc), and then writes completely biased scathing reviews about those that don't fit in the genres they prefer. Read on to see the rest of what I want to say, I just want to put it below the other quote to answer both.

If you believe that, then you've clearly never read one of their reviews on a crunk core album, which come off as very pompous. Sure, from our point-of-view, these "reviews" (which are so poorly written that I hesitate to refer to them as reviews) are completely warranted but, in the same way you think Pitchfork is biased against certain types of music, the crunk core community may think AP.net is biased against them. I'm not attacking you or anything, I'm just saying that the major claims leveled against Pitchfork can be leveled against any music review website.


I don't think AP.net has a "holier than thou" attitude, at least not anymore than Pitchfork does. Both sites have a focus on a certain type of music so, naturally, when the two audiences cross-over, there will be conflicts.

I don't think AP.net is unbiased. While I hate crunk-core, I will agree that AP.net certainly creates a bias towards them. But that's one genre. Pitchfork creates a bias towards anything but one genre. And I do think that some AP.net users have a holier than thou attitude. I'm sorry you don't see that, but it's completely true. I saw someone express an opinion and then get completely lauded because he had metro station in his favorite artists. A lot of people on this site think they're better than the general population's taste in music, and I don't dwell on that.

I agree that you can level an argument of bias against any music site. It's just my personal opinion that Pitchfork is more elitist than AP.net. In the end, both are to a degree.

[And Hours Pass]

Okay, I read your second post before this one, and I'm not really concerned with what you have to write back, because you are wrong. "Similar-sounding indie bands"? Indie is only a fraction of the music they cover. Look at their top 10 albums from last year:

10. DJ/rupture- Uproot (Club/Dubstep)
09. Hercules And Love Affair- Hercules And Love Affair (House)
08. M83- Saturdays = Youth (Shoegaze/Ambient)
07. Vampire Weekend- Vampire Weekend (Indie)
06. TV On The Radio- Dear Science, (Neo-Soul? Post-Rock?)
05. Deerhunter- Microcastle (Shoegaze)
04. Cut Copy- In Ghost Colours (Electropop/Dance Punk)
03. No Age- Nouns (Noise Pop)
02. Portishead- Third (Trip-Hop)
01. Fleet Foxes- Fleet Foxes/Sun Giant EP (Folk)

If anything, they seem pretty electronica-ly biased. Eschewing the mainstream? Did you see their top 20 tracks of the past decade (http://pitchfork.com/features/staff-lists/7693-the-top-500-tracks-of-the-2000s-20-1/)? Your mom knows the words to half of them. "Biased with a clear agenda"? Why, because they review records their readership might care about? Like every successful music site in existence, including this one? Listen, you might not give a shit about the new Tiny Vipers, Nudge, or High Places records, but the people who visit the site do, in much the same way that they could give a shit less about the new Every Time I Die, Thrice, or Boys Like Girls records that y'all care about. Go ahead, find Pitchfork "a waste of your time", you don't have to like the music they cover. But don't accuse them of bullshit that is based simply on people liking things that are different than your own tastes. It makes you look like a douche.
I would actually assert that your whole post just made you look like a douche. I'm sorry I tried to answer your last post honestly before reading this one. You bring up a point I should have made: Maybe there aren't elitists on this site, but there certainly are opinionated douchebags who are too thick-headed to comprehend the idea that their opinion may not be the be-all-end-all of music.

Way to have a mature discussion. You're a pro.

[dru]

i really enjoy reading pitchfork. i've gotten into a lot of music from them. they also do review a lot of music i like (jimmy eat world), and give them bad reviews, but i usually don't agree with those/ignore them. there's a good deal of music that is praised on that site i highly agree with.

[jbaseball44]

Pitchfork's okay, they probably get an unwarranted bad rap on here for promoting "hipster" music but that really isn't true, they cover a wide range of music

[briewer]

Here's some elitist material for you here:

"Honest question-- did Kanye West pull an inside job on Big Brother here? I mean, he gets all the good lines on "Run This Town" and getting Jay to follow his punchdrunk, slouchy flow on "Hate" has to be the result of some bar bet. But it isn't a matter of Kanye fronting him bad beats as much as a state of mind, the sort of maniacal need for approval that often humanizes Kanye but just makes Jay-Z sound insecure and whiny (see: most of The Blueprint 2). "****** want my old shit/ Buy my old album," he sneers in "On to the Next One" over a hyperactive Swizz Beatz track that indicates Jay's not the only one trying to sum up his entire career within the span of four minutes. But "Thank You", "Reminder", and "So Ambitious" all go to great lengths to reiterate accomplishments that we've heard dozens of time, but without naming names, they ultimately feel toothless considering his detractors in 2009's rap game are almost incapable of being taken seriously."

or here:

"Especially when the unkempt male in question is Pete Yorn, who had an unfairly panned sleeper of a debut album back in the David Gray era, then followed it with the kind of blandly forgettable slump that made a lot of people wonder why they ever liked either of those guys in the first place."

or here:

"Break Up, by contrast, resembles a Yorn album: nine tracks of tastefully beige, electronics-brushed roots-rock. Suddenly, Zooey Deschanel and M. Ward's collaboration as She & Him sounds like The Velvet Underground & Nico."

or here:

"When paired with rote punk variations, laziness that's been confused for brattiness and a profound propensity for short, shambling pop-punk tunes that are as aimless as they are irritating, well, you've got the London-based female trio Pens-- they can't play, shout directionlessly at each other most of the time, and make sure that each song on their debut Hey Friend, What You Doing? sounds exactly like the one before it, a pastiche of uninformed garage footnotes, slug-and-chug hardcore rhythms and boneheaded tee-hee in-jokes."

I fail to see how any of these are elitist. They review albums in a fairly loose, snarky manner, but that isn't in any way an assertion that they think they're better than everyone else. Maybe you should learn the definitions of words before you start using them.

I have no idea what you're so up in arms about.
You're taking a very relativist view to this entire situation. If they were writing the same reviews in the same manner and tone for albums you liked, we wouldn't be having this discussion. It's only elitism because it's music you don't like.

Pitchfork coddles the same few artists (Grizzly Bear, Fleet Foxes, Bon Iver... etc),
I fail to see how you can coddle two bands that have been in existence for all of a year and have released a full-length and an EP apiece. I also fail to see how liking equals coddling. Does this site not also coddle Brand New, Say Anything, and Blink-182 in the same manner, if not an even more blatant one?

and then writes completely biased scathing reviews about those that don't fit in the genres they prefer.
So they write critical reviews on albums they don't like. How is this a bad thing? Every fucking critic does this. Every fucking critic has to do this. They wouldn't be a critic if they didn't do it. So what are you bitching about?

I don't think AP.net is unbiased. While I hate crunk-core, I will agree that AP.net certainly creates a bias towards them. But that's one genre. Pitchfork creates a bias towards anything but one genre.
I've already told you why that's wrong.

And I do think that some AP.net users have a holier than thou attitude.
But that's not the discussion. Pitchfork isn't run in the same fashion as this site and thus doesn't have users like us to give it a good name for itself. You have no idea what people who visit Pitchfork think because there's no way to express their opinion through the site. All you see are the people that run it, and if you have any experience at this site at all, you already know the admins here can be fairly bitchy too. They named a news story "Douche On The Dance Floor". Tate seems content with banning anyone who slightly disagrees with him (Dear Jason Tate, don't take that the wrong way. I like it here, and a lot of the people you ban are pretty dumb to begin with. Please don't ban me. Signed, Brian <3). Even so, I fail to see how any of those qualities from either website make them 'elitist'. It seems that you apply that tag that to anyone who seems to be opinionated, or critical, or biased, or anything that you are supposed to be as a website that reviews music. Being biased or opinionated is not elitist, it's doing your job as a music reviewer.

I agree that you can level an argument of bias against any music site. It's just my personal opinion that Pitchfork is more elitist than AP.net. In the end, both are to a degree.
Again, bias =/= elitism.

I would actually assert that your whole post just made you look like a douche.
I addressed all of your stupid claims in a very frank manner. That doesn't make a douche, especially because I was right.

I'm sorry I tried to answer your last post honestly before reading this one.
Funny, I did the same thing.

You bring up a point I should have made: Maybe there aren't elitists on this site, but there certainly are opinionated douchebags who are too thick-headed to comprehend the idea that their opinion may not be the be-all-end-all of music.
Writing reviews =/= thinking their opinion is the be-all and end-all of music.

Way to have a mature discussion. You're a pro.
That's my only weak point, that I have a tendency to play at the level of my opposition.

[And Hours Pass]

I fail to see how any of these are elitist. They review albums in a fairly loose, snarky manner, but that isn't in any way an assertion that they think they're better than everyone else. Maybe you should learn the definitions of words before you start using them.


You're taking a very relativist view to this entire situation. If they were writing the same reviews in the same manner and tone for albums you liked, we wouldn't be having this discussion. It's only elitism because it's music you don't like.


I fail to see how you can coddle two bands that have been in existence for all of a year and have released a full-length and an EP apiece. I also fail to see how liking equals coddling. Does this site not also coddle Brand New, Say Anything, and Blink-182 in the same manner, if not an even more blatant one?


So they write critical reviews on albums they don't like. How is this a bad thing? Every fucking critic does this. Every fucking critic has to do this. They wouldn't be a critic if they didn't do it. So what are you bitching about?


I've already told you why that's wrong.


But that's not the discussion. Pitchfork isn't run in the same fashion as this site and thus doesn't have users like us to give it a good name for itself. You have no idea what people who visit Pitchfork think because there's no way to express their opinion through the site. All you see are the people that run it, and if you have any experience at this site at all, you already know the admins here can be fairly bitchy too. They named a news story "Douche On The Dance Floor". Tate seems content with banning anyone who slightly disagrees with him (Dear Jason Tate, don't take that the wrong way. I like it here, and a lot of the people you ban are pretty dumb to begin with. Please don't ban me. Signed, Brian <3). Even so, I fail to see how any of those qualities from either website make them 'elitist'. It seems that you apply that tag that to anyone who seems to be opinionated, or critical, or biased, or anything that you are supposed to be as a website that reviews music. Being biased or opinionated is not elitist, it's doing your job as a music reviewer.


Again, bias =/= elitism.


I addressed all of your stupid claims in a very frank manner. That doesn't make a douche, especially because I was right.


Funny, I did the same thing.


Writing reviews =/= thinking their opinion is the be-all and end-all of music.


That's my only weak point, that I have a tendency to play at the level of my opposition.
I would sit here and really read what you had to say in response, but after the way you handled your last post, I just don't care. It's really frustrating encountering people like you that would rather insult people than have a discussion. As soon as you said you weren't concerned with whatever I wrote because you thought I was wrong you made it clear that you were going to carry on as a child. I don't have time to babysit. Enjoy your day!

[briewer]

I would sit here and really read what you had to say in response, but after the way you handled your last post, I just don't care. It's really frustrating encountering people like you that would rather insult people than have a discussion. As soon as you said you weren't concerned with whatever I wrote because you thought I was wrong you made it clear that you were going to carry on as a child.
I said I wasn't concerned because it was clear you already had your mind made up, and nothing would change it. You guys, just the best type of people to have discussions with. And I'm sure if you say I'm a child enough times and act like you're more mature than me, it might actually come true. Ignoring what I've said over this entire discussion because of one sentence and acting like it negates the fact that I've upstaged every accusation you've had is definitely the most adult thing you could have done in this situation.

I don't have time to babysit. Enjoy your day!
Ah, the holier-than-thou-attitude-based-on-the-fact-that-your-mother's-egg-was-fertilized-at-an-earlier-time-than-mine-was. If you really want to get an eyeful of elitism, just take a glance in the mirror you pompous ass. Your hypocrisy is so thick and blatant it is palpable; I can literally taste it from wherever you're broadcasting from. I say with all the sincerity I can muster, go fuck yourself. You have no sense of logic or intelligence and the less people you talk to and spread your stupidity to, the better. Please don't reproduce, au revoir until I see you in hell!

[Dymytry Vance]

Okay, I read your second post before this one, and I'm not really concerned with what you have to write back, because you are wrong. "Similar-sounding indie bands"? Indie is only a fraction of the music they cover. Look at their top 10 albums from last year:

10. DJ/rupture- Uproot (Club/Dubstep)
09. Hercules And Love Affair- Hercules And Love Affair (House)
08. M83- Saturdays = Youth (Shoegaze/Ambient)
07. Vampire Weekend- Vampire Weekend (Indie)
06. TV On The Radio- Dear Science, (Neo-Soul? Post-Rock?)
05. Deerhunter- Microcastle (Shoegaze)
04. Cut Copy- In Ghost Colours (Electropop/Dance Punk)
03. No Age- Nouns (Noise Pop)
02. Portishead- Third (Trip-Hop)
01. Fleet Foxes- Fleet Foxes/Sun Giant EP (Folk)

If anything, they seem pretty electronica-ly biased. Eschewing the mainstream? Did you see their top 20 tracks of the past decade (http://pitchfork.com/features/staff-lists/7693-the-top-500-tracks-of-the-2000s-20-1/)? Your mom knows the words to half of them. "Biased with a clear agenda"? Why, because they review records their readership might care about? Like every successful music site in existence, including this one? Listen, you might not give a shit about the new Tiny Vipers, Nudge, or High Places records, but the people who visit the site do, in much the same way that they could give a shit less about the new Every Time I Die, Thrice, or Boys Like Girls records that y'all care about. Go ahead, find Pitchfork "a waste of your time", you don't have to like the music they cover. But don't accuse them of bullshit that is based simply on people liking things that are different than your own tastes. It makes you look like a douche.

Thanks, I always thought they were a hip-hop group, but then because of that description I checked them out, and they're quickly becoming a favorite. Only electronica band I like.

[zachff]

Pitchfork is a snarky, elitist site. I think that's just a well known fact.

[Theseventhson]

What's with all the Pitchfork hate?

[Baby for Pree]

ITT: People who don't want to accept JEW does not have a universal appeal.

[batmannj]

It might not be my favorite site, but I've got into some good bands they rec and I enjoy some of the writers there.

[briewer]

Wow, I am a really mean drunk.

[GamEin]

They gave Jimmy Eat World- Bleed American and Futures a 3/10

The site can go down tomorrow for all I care.

This was my main reason for my dislike of Pitchfork. They also tear up The Promise Ring if I remember correctly. Pisses me off. I'm not even sure anyone over there actually enjoys music.

[GamEin]

The Promise Ring - Wood/Water gets a 3.
The Get Up Kids - Something to Write Home About gets a 2.

Just thought I'd share.

[joeag1985]

I checked to see what they've said about Thrice. They've only ever reviewed Illusion of Safety... and it was clear that the reviewer hated to be writing about it. I just think It'd be nice if someone on their staff would take the time to review such great musicians. They write about great music for the most part.

[Yellowcard2006]

The Promise Ring - Wood/Water gets a 3.
The Get Up Kids - Something to Write Home About gets a 2.

Just thought I'd share.
Well that's just disgusting. Damn them.

[Un'Aria Ancora]

oh my fucking god, i'll burn their goddamn building.

that's really funny even though you're probably borderline serious...

But PF is to Indie what AP is to pop/punk. PF is better.

[doyouhas?]

The site delivers similar-sounding indie bands to elitists craving some affirmation of their separation from all other music listeners because that's too "mainstream." I'm sorry, but I think sites like pitchfork are a waste of time. They're biased with a clear agenda, and their reviews are completely unreliable as they skew towards overly critical displays of their own intellect.


because absolutepunk doesn't do this...

[And Hours Pass]

because absolutepunk doesn't do this...
Read ahead of my original comment if you want to see the debate that ensued. It went from a mature discussion to disaster pretty quickly...

[briewer]

because absolutepunk doesn't do this...
Don't even bother. I said one thing he didn't like and he got really butt hurt. He's set in what he thinks, nothing you say is going to change that.

[MyNameIsRoss]

nope

[Baby for Pree]

Read ahead of my original comment if you want to see the debate that ensued. It went from a mature discussion to disaster pretty quickly...
A disaster? He said one thing out of line and you used it to justify your leaving the argument just because you knew you were losing.

[Baby for Pree]

The Promise Ring - Wood/Water gets a 3.
The Get Up Kids - Something to Write Home About gets a 2.

Just thought I'd share.
Shitty albums get shitty scores. Nothing to write home about (get it?).

[HometownHero]

They have really good writers on the site. And great music. They just are very biased

[And Hours Pass]

A disaster? He said one thing out of line and you used it to justify your leaving the argument just because you knew you were losing.

Don't even bother. I said one thing he didn't like and he got really butt hurt. He's set in what he thinks, nothing you say is going to change that.

It had nothing to do with winning or losing. I thought we were going to have a discussion and instead it played out as a right and wrong argument that was ornamented with insults. I appreciate discussion, and I'm sorry that the last one got to the point that it did, but I just wasn't in the mood to get home from work to read obnoxious comments with the occasional argument embedded in it. I'm sorry if that soured and I didn't mean for it to get to where it did, but I just didn't want to have a mean-spirited argument. A discussion would be fine. An insult-flinging match was not what I was looking for. And it doesn't really help your argument of you having an intellectual discussion when you use phrases like "he got really butt hurt." Does that really help your cause?

[briewer]

I thought we were going to have a discussion and instead it played out as a right and wrong argument that was ornamented with insults. I appreciate discussion, and I'm sorry that the last one got to the point that it did, but I just wasn't in the mood to get home from work to read obnoxious comments with the occasional argument embedded in it. I'm sorry if that soured and I didn't mean for it to get to where it did, but I just didn't want to have a mean-spirited argument. A discussion would be fine. An insult-flinging match was not what I was looking for.
Insults? Where did insult you?
Okay, I read your second post before this one, and I'm not really concerned with what you have to write back, because you are wrong. "Similar-sounding indie bands"? Indie is only a fraction of the music they cover. Look at their top 10 albums from last year:

10. DJ/rupture- Uproot (Club/Dubstep)
09. Hercules And Love Affair- Hercules And Love Affair (House)
08. M83- Saturdays = Youth (Shoegaze/Ambient)
07. Vampire Weekend- Vampire Weekend (Indie)
06. TV On The Radio- Dear Science, (Neo-Soul? Post-Rock?)
05. Deerhunter- Microcastle (Shoegaze)
04. Cut Copy- In Ghost Colours (Electropop/Dance Punk)
03. No Age- Nouns (Noise Pop)
02. Portishead- Third (Trip-Hop)
01. Fleet Foxes- Fleet Foxes/Sun Giant EP (Folk)

If anything, they seem pretty electronica-ly biased. Eschewing the mainstream? Did you see their top 20 tracks of the past decade? Your mom knows the words to half of them. "Biased with a clear agenda"? Why, because they review records their readership might care about? Like every successful music site in existence, including this one? Listen, you might not give a shit about the new Tiny Vipers, Nudge, or High Places records, but the people who visit the site do, in much the same way that they could give a shit less about the new Every Time I Die, Thrice, or Boys Like Girls records that y'all care about. Go ahead, find Pitchfork "a waste of your time", you don't have to like the music they cover. But don't accuse them of bullshit that is based simply on people liking things that are different than your own tastes. It makes you look like a douche.
I said I wasn't concerned with what you had to write because you had said it all in the post this was replying to. I had no reason to hear what you had to say because you had already said it. And saying "it makes you look like a douche" is not an insult, it's me attempting to help you out. You don't want to look like a douche, do you? Then I was suggesting you don't do what you had just done. Other than that, none of that could be taken as an insult. It seems like you just don't like the way I write and eschew that as elitism/immaturity, which really begs the question: how does that not make you elitist and immature, considering something that inconsequential and peripheral would make you abandon a conversation?

And your amount of revisionist history is stunning, considering anyone can confirm or deny any of this by just jumping back two pages.

And it doesn't really help your argument of you having an intellectual discussion when you use phrases like "he got really butt hurt." Does that really help your cause?
What intellectual discussion? You ended the discussion three replies ago. I'm just telling this guy that the frustration of talking to you is not worth it.

[And Hours Pass]

Insults? Where did insult you?

I said I wasn't concerned with what you had to write because you had said it all in the post this was replying to. I had no reason to hear what you had to say because you had already said it. And saying "it makes you look like a douche" is not an insult, it's me attempting to help you out. You don't want to look like a douche, do you? Then I was suggesting you don't do what you had just done. Other than that, none of that could be taken as an insult. It seems like you just don't like the way I write and eschew that as elitism/immaturity, which really begs the question: how does that not make you elitist and immature, considering something that inconsequential and peripheral would make you abandon a conversation?

And your amount of revisionist history is stunning, considering anyone can confirm or deny any of this by just jumping back two pages.


What intellectual discussion? You ended the discussion three replies ago. I'm just telling this guy that the frustration of talking to you is not worth it.

Yes, they can see the history of the conversation. And that would invalidate your first now-bolded statement as you responded to my initial post once, and then before I had the chance to respond, you wrote again telling me that you didn't care what I had to say cuz I was wrong and then called me a douche. No need for revisionist history, it all speaks for itself. I don't know what happened to you as a kid to make you as defensive and instigative as you are, but you should try being a bit more friendly. You never know, you might find that being pleasant isn't a terrible thing.

[briewer]

This shit is getting ridiculous.
Yes, they can see the history of the conversation. And that would invalidate your first now-bolded statement as you responded to my initial post once,
No, it was your second post.
http://absolutepunk.net/showthread.php?p=54362622#post54362 622

and then before I had the chance to respond, you wrote again telling me that you didn't care what I had to say
No, that was after reading your first post, which I hadn't read before responding to your second post, and which I had said when responding. Again, you responding would have been redundant because you had already said it all in your first post. You were clearly of the opinion that Pitchfork is elitist and nothing was going to change that.

http://absolutepunk.net/showthread.php?p=54380312#post54380 312

cuz I was wrong
Well, you were.

and then called me a douche.
I said you were acting like a douche. Calling someone a douche and saying someone actions make them seem douche-ish are completely different things.

No need for revisionist history, it all speaks for itself.
The irony of this statement is killing me.

I don't know what happened to you as a kid to make you as defensive and instigative as you are,
When was I being defensive? And being defensive and instigative are the complete opposite things.

but you should try being a bit more friendly. You never know, you might find that being pleasant isn't a terrible thing.
I have yet to anger or aggravate anyone I like with my tone or candor. I see no reason to change.

[And Hours Pass]

This shit is getting ridiculous.

No, it was your second post.
http://absolutepunk.net/showthread.php?p=54362622#post54362 622


No, that was after reading your first post, which I hadn't read before responding to your second post, and which I had said when responding. Again, you responding would have been redundant because you had already said it all in your first post. You were clearly of the opinion that Pitchfork is elitist and nothing was going to change that.

http://absolutepunk.net/showthread.php?p=54380312#post54380 312


Well, you were.


I said you were acting like a douche. Calling someone a douche and saying someone actions make them seem douche-ish are completely different things.


The irony of this statement is killing me.


When was I being defensive? And being defensive and instigative are the complete opposite things.


I have yet to anger or aggravate anyone I like with my tone or candor. I see no reason to change.
How you don't think your post reads as childish is mind-boggling. I tried to bring things to a nicer close than the first interaction we had, but that seems impossible. Best of luck with your future arguments. I'm sure I'll see you somewhere on here making an overly-opinionated rant soon.

[briewer]

How you don't think your post reads as childish is mind-boggling. I tried to bring things to a nicer close than the first interaction we had, but that seems impossible. Best of luck with your future arguments. I'm sure I'll see you somewhere on here making an overly-opinionated rant soon.
Once again, ignoring everything I've said just to make a comment on my diction. So mature, this guy. Anytime you want to admit you're wrong, you know where to find me.

[Dymytry Vance]

:lurking:

[Dymytry Vance]

Briewer pwned. And yes I said pwned for a reason. Pwned.

[pnkhrdwndr]

it's an indie website much as this is rock/indie that hates screaming. Alternative Press is more screaming. and Ultimate guitar is old metal heads

[applescruff]

You mean..... BITCHfork?
I go on the site to see reviews even though they are always negative, and to examine the bad writing they perceive.
I love a majority of the artists they cover, no matter their opinion.
I just hate how rude and presumptuous they are about EVERYTHING.
Who gives a shit if you don't like pop-punk Pitchfork? DON'T REVIEW IT.

[Theseventhson]

You mean..... BITCHfork?
I go on the site to see reviews even though they are always negative, and to examine the bad writing they perceive.
I love a majority of the artists they cover, no matter their opinion.
I just hate how rude and presumptuous they are about EVERYTHING.
Who gives a shit if you don't like pop-punk Pitchfork? DON'T REVIEW IT.
Who cares if you don't like Crunk core AP? DON'T REVIEW IT.

[DeadCityScars]

I really like pitchfork. I think I use it for music news moreso than this site even... Some of their writers do get a bit 'daffy' with the reviews...but on a whole I trust their ratings. I've only ever disagreed with their rating of Full Collapse. But that was ages ago and they have yet to review a new Thursday album anyway.

[TcicatrizMespV]

Don't have too much to say, some of their reviews use bizarre rhetoric for the sake of being rhetorical, but the site's a good place to get music news that isn't covered here.

Case in point, here is the first line to the new Pearl Jam review:

If you're between the ages of, say, 25 and 35, chances are you either significantly overrate or underrate Pearl Jam.

wat.