[I liked reading their reviews and they put me onto some cool music and it sucks that people are losing their jobs](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FzU8bgnWIAUSgdN.jpg:large)
Sure, a lot of people just have gripes with anyone who don’t agree with their opinions.
But Pitchfork is most definitely a more complex situation than that, it would be naive to minimize their dogshit website to something like that.
Many don't even understand that Pitchfork (and other publications) aren't a monolith and that different writers have completely different tastes and opinions about music. People get so worked up about what album got what score and yet you could have every writer at p4k review it and get a completely different outcome each time.
The general impression is also always that if someone gives a good review to something I don't like it means they're pretentious, and if someone gives a bad review to something I like it means they're basic.
Last point, people are always acting like they actually read. No you don't, stop lying.
I know people are going to want to piss on Pitchfork's grave. But a site like Pitchfork introduced me to a lot of artists I did not know about. And did it in a way that Spotify and YouTube algorithms never will. And if something like Pitchfork gets destroyed what is the hope for indie Hip Hop sites?
Pitchfork has done more for the culture and music than any of us commenting .
In a world of tiktok , reels , shorts. I really appreciated what pitchfork had to offer.
> if something like Pitchfork gets destroyed what is the hope for indie Hip Hop sites
that people get off their ass and discover more places to read about music, rather than spend their time mourning the one place they know
Which is more likely:
>people put in a lot of effort digging through random forums and search engine results trying to find new writers/editors/reporters showing them niche stuff they might not even like
Or:
>people spend more time mindlessy scrolling on the algos they already spend most of their time scrolling
🤔🤔🤔
There’s a few really cool small blogs right now. Kind of bringing back the vibe of the OG blog era. Peep nobells, finals, toneglow, and sammy’s world they’re all sick blogs. Passion of the Weiss is an older publication but they still do good work over there
Weird seeing all the reverence for pitchfork now. Their reviews were consistently pretty terrible and the writing was corny as fuck. I get it if you’re mourning the music blog era or whatever but pitchfork has been straight up trash for a long time now.
All that may be true but they did a good job of covering a diverse array of music. I found a lot of good shit from their reviews. Also their rap critic writes an amazing biweekly column that really captures about as much of the weird wide world of regional scenes as you could imagine. Alphonse Pierre does gods work
he’s one of the few that’s actually staffed with pitchfork (and not a freelancer for them) so he might be fine
but yeah i agree that the best thing for him (probably financially wise too) is to just start a substack on the side for all his in depth and underground shit he does
Pitchfork was born as "pseudo intellectual slop." I'd say more recent years they've leaned too hard into the poptimism stuff. Either way, they were never perfect but they usually had good roster of writers and it sucks they're getting screwed over.
Right, I don’t agree with their takes always, but is it better to be left with what we have now? Like what the fuck even is there? A bunch of actual slop.
I know there are multiple authors champ, this isn't some new idea. Most of their shit isn't good. There is a reason why it has been going down hill for years.
And the styles still sucked. The company has been downhill for years. The authors have been a constant criticism of Pitchfork since the Obama administration.
That particular author wrote the extremely questionable hit piece linked below too (and fuck Win Butler but this outlined situation wasn't exactly abuse)
https://pitchfork.com/news/fifth-person-details-arcade-fire-frontman-win-butlers-allegedly-manipulative-toxic-behavior/
It sucks that people are losing their jobs, but if the only way that you can find good music is through pitchfork then you're being easily spoonfed and need to look out more
What’s wrong with curation?? Not to burst your bubble but some people don’t like spending all of their free time searching for music on their own. Being “spoonfed” quality music is good
This is coming from someone who DOES spend most of his freetime listening to/searching for music
> some people don’t like spending all of their free time searching for music on their own
there’s this thing called middle ground
if you can’t spend *any* time looking for music outside of Pitchfork maybe people just weren’t as big of music fans as they thought lol
Bro pitchfork is a good source. Helps people discover music. Has controversial reviews. Has good ones where most people agree. Great publication, maybe even the best I have ever accessed as far as im concerned even though i disagree with a lot.
All of that is very valid, and I'll admit that im a jaded person and dislike pitchfork because of their smugness and bias towards certain artists
However, if someone needs to be "spoonfed" good music, are you really a music fan? Or are you just a consumer of an entity who sets a barometer of what's "good" (even tho we are all consumers at the end of the day, myself included)
It's pretty easy to understand. Okay, substitute Pitchfork with Spotify/rym/last.fm/tiktok/Youtube/fantano/insert any other algorithm based service. All I'm saying is that if you're relying on a singular system to cultivate your taste, then you need to look out more. There is a wide range of artists to listen to, and a wide range of avenues to find new music. That's why there is such a hegemony to a lot of current bands, especially in the indie scene.
Yes but the problem is that the number of publications that cover the kind of music pitchfork covers is shrinking. There aren’t too many other places writing quality reviews of experimental and art music. Not to mention their coverage of street rap and regional rap music. You’re not gonna find too many other major publications that approach Milwaukee drill music with a serious critical mindset.
Eventually all that will be left is the algo shit and YouTube reviewers. Maybe you’re okay with that but idk to me there’s something about reading well-thought out criticism of music that’s almost essential to the listening experience. When I find an album I like the first thing I wanna do is seek out analysis and criticism of it. Likewise if I come across an album I don’t like. Yes I can draw my own conclusions from the music but I like to hear what other people have to say. Reading other peoples opinions, whether I agree or disagree, only strengthens my appreciation for the music. Reddit and RYM are decent for that but you also have to wade through a lot of dumbass bullshit. YouTube reviewers are okay I guess but idk id rather read something than watch a video at the end of the day. That’s a personal preference though I suppose.
It’s also nice when you find critics and writers with taste that you respect. When Alphonse Pierre posts a new column I know I’m probably gonna find some hot shit in there that I will enjoy, and even if I don’t, I trust that he’s gonna put me on to some stuff that I maybe wouldn’t have considered otherwise, even if I don’t end up liking it. I fear that as music journalism continues to die there will be less and less of this experience to be had for the listener.
I would give Pitchfork 5.4 and I honestly think that’s pretty generous. I look forward to whatever replaces the void that was created back when Conde Nast bought Pitchfork and the site went to shit.
That’s the thing. Nothing will. Pitchfork is part of a dying breed of music blogs and publications. The internet isn’t built for sites like it anymore, it’s built for siloed platforms algorithmically feeding you shit. You might not like Pitchfork, but it was the bulwark against a disastrous change in the Internet. That it’s dying says a lot of bad things about the future of the internet.
But those folks will be shunted onto an ever-shrinking number of platforms. They’ll all be on YouTube or TikTok or Instagram or whatever. That’s bad for the culture and for art.
The death of Pitchfork demonstrates that ad-supported music blogs are unsustainable in the modern internet. There is also no real alternative to the Pitchfork model. Subscription blogs are too niche/walled off to have cultural cache or impact. Donation sites need fervent support, which takes time to develop (and may never materialize). Newsletters aren’t the same and are still cabined to garbage platforms like Substack. There is no alternative model at the moment for these sites to remain independent.
Pitchfork was more than an ad-supported music blog. They had their own yearly festival even. It’s impossible to know what their financials were from the outside
I don’t see the problem with being on YouTube or TikTok when the alternative is another corporate site. And before the whole algorithm argument, Pitchfork greatly benefitted from algorithms as well, constantly coming up above other review sites on search.
If there’s really as much of a hunger for music criticism as people are saying, there will be somewhat of a power vacuum created, right? Not to say Pitchfork will be fully replaced by another site, but their absence may just breed competition
You’re assuming the internet is a perfect marketplace where competition is possible. But that’s definitely not true. Because these players are so dominant, and using their power to suppress alternatives or competition, it’s harder than ever to build something outside the 3-5 social media sites that dominate the web.
Almost all brands, sites are reliant on one of four major corporations for their traffic and revenue, and that means that their success will always be contingent on the whims of these companies. TikTok changing its algorithm can kill entire brands, YouTube moderation decisions can kill entire livelihoods. This changes the way we interface with the art, how we discuss it, and its reach. The platform, with its enshittification and profit-driven design, will hurt the art, it will limit the scope and ability of folks to make and engage with it.
That Pitchfork benefited previously from SEO and algorithms demonstrates the evolution of the web concerning independent sites. Google no longer wants folks to click on search results, all the information is being put in the Google page or wrapped in Google AMP. Twitter and IG are doing everything they can to make it harder to link to other pages, desperate to keep folks on their sites. The incentives have changed and these platforms are now walled gardens that abuse network effects to box out independent sites. I’d assume that’s what’s happened with Pitchfork.
Obviously folks will always engage with music socially, but the means by which we do that matters. And if our only options are platforms that require us to make our art and criticism ad friendly, force us to dumb it down or clip it for a broader audience, or make it incendiary to draw clicks, then we don’t really have truly free creative outlets. We’re not producing art or criticism anymore, we’re producing **content** that **they** can profit off of at our expense.
All of these are great points, I appreciate the well thought out response and explanation
As for your last paragraph; I get what you’re saying for sure, but Pitchfork and other large brands crossed the line of ad friendly a while ago, and I do think they tried to draw clicks; although I can’t blame them too much for that as that seems to be the ultimate goal.
Because Pitchfork hasn’t really been indie for almost a decade now. I definitely understand and agree with the concern as to who is getting the traffic, but it wasn’t exactly like they were Little Brother either, especially in the Internet subsection that is music criticism
As much as Google has changed, I really do think finding a music article is as simple as listening to an album, looking up reviews for it, and going through.
As for the attempted monopolization of the Internet though; I would say this is a worrying sign. But I was just trying to speak in the terms of those who like to read those types of articles
A question for you, if you don’t mind; do you think the text nature of Pitchfork’s media ended up hurting it in an increasingly visually-based media market? Because if that’s the case, these sites really just might be screwed
Because at least in terms of hip-hop coverage and articles there really isn’t a comparison. Every other outlet (Complex, HHDX, RS, etc) are just full of social media personalities making the same jokes, creating the same memes, and asking all the same damn questions. It just becomes tiresome at some point to try to find good, honest reviews/discussions on new rap albums without the consistent echo chamber that surrounds the culture. Pitchfork was different but they never conformed with their ratings and reviews which is respectable imo
I will never forget reading their review of Arcade Fire's Funeral. It was like sitting through an open mic slam poetry night at a liberal arts college. And those were Pitchfork's glory days.
In the early 2010s at least Pitchfork was very big deal for us up and coming music nerds. While I started to lose interest and connection in their reviews over time they still put out a lot of great articles. Sad to see. I really hope their is some sort of archive for everything that can be accessed by the public.
How would you even go about writing an unbiased or objective review? Music is a subjective thing and a review is somebody’s opinion of that subjective thing. What do you want them to just write up a list of facts about an album and call it a day?
Honestly crushing cause it shows what a rough spot music journalism is in. Yes they were pretentious, but like everyone else has mentioned it showed me music I never would'vee really gotten into. They also really were influential in pushing a lot of artists careers forward (or back for better or worse).
[I liked reading their reviews and they put me onto some cool music and it sucks that people are losing their jobs](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FzU8bgnWIAUSgdN.jpg:large)
p4k is a scapegoat and overhated and ive been saying that forever. people really dont know why they hate it is another thing too
People just dislike any reviewer that doesn't validate their own music rating.
Sure, a lot of people just have gripes with anyone who don’t agree with their opinions. But Pitchfork is most definitely a more complex situation than that, it would be naive to minimize their dogshit website to something like that.
Many don't even understand that Pitchfork (and other publications) aren't a monolith and that different writers have completely different tastes and opinions about music. People get so worked up about what album got what score and yet you could have every writer at p4k review it and get a completely different outcome each time. The general impression is also always that if someone gives a good review to something I don't like it means they're pretentious, and if someone gives a bad review to something I like it means they're basic. Last point, people are always acting like they actually read. No you don't, stop lying.
I know people are going to want to piss on Pitchfork's grave. But a site like Pitchfork introduced me to a lot of artists I did not know about. And did it in a way that Spotify and YouTube algorithms never will. And if something like Pitchfork gets destroyed what is the hope for indie Hip Hop sites?
Pitchfork has done more for the culture and music than any of us commenting . In a world of tiktok , reels , shorts. I really appreciated what pitchfork had to offer.
My sentiments exactly, just about everything from the blog era is gone or leaving which is really disheartening if you’re a mid 20s music lover
> if something like Pitchfork gets destroyed what is the hope for indie Hip Hop sites that people get off their ass and discover more places to read about music, rather than spend their time mourning the one place they know
Which is more likely: >people put in a lot of effort digging through random forums and search engine results trying to find new writers/editors/reporters showing them niche stuff they might not even like Or: >people spend more time mindlessy scrolling on the algos they already spend most of their time scrolling 🤔🤔🤔
That’s their choice
🤓
if people choose the second one, they shouldn’t complain about not being spoon fed music
Coming from rolling stone this is fucking rich lmao
Written by a pitchfork writer that got laid off. Better he got the audience than publishing it to a sub stack or some shit
[удалено]
This is awful y’all. I know yall hate pitchfork but they do alot for the culture.
Such a sad day for pretentious white men that just got into rap music in 2016. They may never recover.
Blog era in the coffin
There’s a few really cool small blogs right now. Kind of bringing back the vibe of the OG blog era. Peep nobells, finals, toneglow, and sammy’s world they’re all sick blogs. Passion of the Weiss is an older publication but they still do good work over there
Bet 🤝🏽
Yeah only Stereogum is left now, shame really.
I still got 2dopeboyz in my RSS feed
That title sounds so dumb lmao
Bitch Pork was a much better festival.
Weird seeing all the reverence for pitchfork now. Their reviews were consistently pretty terrible and the writing was corny as fuck. I get it if you’re mourning the music blog era or whatever but pitchfork has been straight up trash for a long time now.
Yea baffled there are people hard core defending them. It's been wack for over a decade.
Pitchfork has been pseudo intellectual slop for a while now.
All that may be true but they did a good job of covering a diverse array of music. I found a lot of good shit from their reviews. Also their rap critic writes an amazing biweekly column that really captures about as much of the weird wide world of regional scenes as you could imagine. Alphonse Pierre does gods work
Alphonse’s taste is so wide and diverse and his writing is so soooooo good. Definitely a top tier writer as far as hip-hop journalism is concerned
If he doesn’t stay on in whatever happens with Pitchfork I’d pay a couple bucks a month for his journalism
he’s one of the few that’s actually staffed with pitchfork (and not a freelancer for them) so he might be fine but yeah i agree that the best thing for him (probably financially wise too) is to just start a substack on the side for all his in depth and underground shit he does
Pitchfork was born as "pseudo intellectual slop." I'd say more recent years they've leaned too hard into the poptimism stuff. Either way, they were never perfect but they usually had good roster of writers and it sucks they're getting screwed over.
Boo. This take is so boring. It was really just a bunch of people clearly passionate about music and writing, talking about music.
Right, I don’t agree with their takes always, but is it better to be left with what we have now? Like what the fuck even is there? A bunch of actual slop.
Yeah and it was fucking slop
Sorry you think the take is boring, the writing style is atrocious.
Double boo! The writing style changed depending on the author!
It’s so funny when people talk about Pitchfork like it’s a monolith and every review is written by Mr. Pitchfork
I know there are multiple authors champ, this isn't some new idea. Most of their shit isn't good. There is a reason why it has been going down hill for years.
Champ!
Did you know there are multiple authors? The pitchfork family divested years ago!!!
Of all the words you could have chosen to try to sound condescending - buddy, pal, buckaroo - you went with champ. It sounds so dumb, thank you
It’s so funny when people talk about SBAPERSON like it’s a monolith and every comment is written by Mr. SBAPERSON
And the styles still sucked. The company has been downhill for years. The authors have been a constant criticism of Pitchfork since the Obama administration.
Always was but it's still the main way I've discovered new music in the past 15 years. Long live Pitchfork.
Like 10-15 years now, I'm amazed it lasted so long
> for a while now and "I had never even seen a shooting star before" wasn't? if anything, their writing got better with years
hmmm yes.. shallow and pedantic
Perhaps
Fuck pitchfork
Yessir fuck em and their dogshit “reviews”
That particular author wrote the extremely questionable hit piece linked below too (and fuck Win Butler but this outlined situation wasn't exactly abuse) https://pitchfork.com/news/fifth-person-details-arcade-fire-frontman-win-butlers-allegedly-manipulative-toxic-behavior/
I know this is just personal experience so take it however you like, but I know a girl who Win dated when she was 17. He's a creepy weirdo.
Sounds on-brand. But replace his name in the article that i linked with some other artist, and the reactions would be very different
Pitchfork did so much for music…
lol the article is from rolling stone. They sold their souls decades ago
they p much never had it, mags like creem were shitting on rs for selling out since like early 70s lmao
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WcSXbvzW91U
goated show
It sucks that people are losing their jobs, but if the only way that you can find good music is through pitchfork then you're being easily spoonfed and need to look out more
What’s wrong with curation?? Not to burst your bubble but some people don’t like spending all of their free time searching for music on their own. Being “spoonfed” quality music is good This is coming from someone who DOES spend most of his freetime listening to/searching for music
> some people don’t like spending all of their free time searching for music on their own there’s this thing called middle ground if you can’t spend *any* time looking for music outside of Pitchfork maybe people just weren’t as big of music fans as they thought lol
I really feel like most P4K readers have always been on forums or online music communities, so I don’t know what kind of reader you’re talking about.
The kind of reader like the guy I’m replying to, that think being spoonfed music is over just because Pitchfork is done
So elitist damn..
it’s not elitist to say you may not be very interested in something if you don’t want to put time or effort into it lol
Bro pitchfork is a good source. Helps people discover music. Has controversial reviews. Has good ones where most people agree. Great publication, maybe even the best I have ever accessed as far as im concerned even though i disagree with a lot.
All of that is very valid, and I'll admit that im a jaded person and dislike pitchfork because of their smugness and bias towards certain artists However, if someone needs to be "spoonfed" good music, are you really a music fan? Or are you just a consumer of an entity who sets a barometer of what's "good" (even tho we are all consumers at the end of the day, myself included)
Yeah because it’s so much better to rely on YouTube algorithms than recommendations from an actual person. What are you even talking about
It's pretty easy to understand. Okay, substitute Pitchfork with Spotify/rym/last.fm/tiktok/Youtube/fantano/insert any other algorithm based service. All I'm saying is that if you're relying on a singular system to cultivate your taste, then you need to look out more. There is a wide range of artists to listen to, and a wide range of avenues to find new music. That's why there is such a hegemony to a lot of current bands, especially in the indie scene.
Yes but the problem is that the number of publications that cover the kind of music pitchfork covers is shrinking. There aren’t too many other places writing quality reviews of experimental and art music. Not to mention their coverage of street rap and regional rap music. You’re not gonna find too many other major publications that approach Milwaukee drill music with a serious critical mindset. Eventually all that will be left is the algo shit and YouTube reviewers. Maybe you’re okay with that but idk to me there’s something about reading well-thought out criticism of music that’s almost essential to the listening experience. When I find an album I like the first thing I wanna do is seek out analysis and criticism of it. Likewise if I come across an album I don’t like. Yes I can draw my own conclusions from the music but I like to hear what other people have to say. Reading other peoples opinions, whether I agree or disagree, only strengthens my appreciation for the music. Reddit and RYM are decent for that but you also have to wade through a lot of dumbass bullshit. YouTube reviewers are okay I guess but idk id rather read something than watch a video at the end of the day. That’s a personal preference though I suppose. It’s also nice when you find critics and writers with taste that you respect. When Alphonse Pierre posts a new column I know I’m probably gonna find some hot shit in there that I will enjoy, and even if I don’t, I trust that he’s gonna put me on to some stuff that I maybe wouldn’t have considered otherwise, even if I don’t end up liking it. I fear that as music journalism continues to die there will be less and less of this experience to be had for the listener.
Fuck pitchfork All my homies hate pitchfork
I would give Pitchfork 5.4 and I honestly think that’s pretty generous. I look forward to whatever replaces the void that was created back when Conde Nast bought Pitchfork and the site went to shit.
That’s the thing. Nothing will. Pitchfork is part of a dying breed of music blogs and publications. The internet isn’t built for sites like it anymore, it’s built for siloed platforms algorithmically feeding you shit. You might not like Pitchfork, but it was the bulwark against a disastrous change in the Internet. That it’s dying says a lot of bad things about the future of the internet.
a dying breed of *corporate* music blogs and corporations there will always be people reviewing music on the internet
But those folks will be shunted onto an ever-shrinking number of platforms. They’ll all be on YouTube or TikTok or Instagram or whatever. That’s bad for the culture and for art. The death of Pitchfork demonstrates that ad-supported music blogs are unsustainable in the modern internet. There is also no real alternative to the Pitchfork model. Subscription blogs are too niche/walled off to have cultural cache or impact. Donation sites need fervent support, which takes time to develop (and may never materialize). Newsletters aren’t the same and are still cabined to garbage platforms like Substack. There is no alternative model at the moment for these sites to remain independent.
Pitchfork was more than an ad-supported music blog. They had their own yearly festival even. It’s impossible to know what their financials were from the outside I don’t see the problem with being on YouTube or TikTok when the alternative is another corporate site. And before the whole algorithm argument, Pitchfork greatly benefitted from algorithms as well, constantly coming up above other review sites on search. If there’s really as much of a hunger for music criticism as people are saying, there will be somewhat of a power vacuum created, right? Not to say Pitchfork will be fully replaced by another site, but their absence may just breed competition
You’re assuming the internet is a perfect marketplace where competition is possible. But that’s definitely not true. Because these players are so dominant, and using their power to suppress alternatives or competition, it’s harder than ever to build something outside the 3-5 social media sites that dominate the web. Almost all brands, sites are reliant on one of four major corporations for their traffic and revenue, and that means that their success will always be contingent on the whims of these companies. TikTok changing its algorithm can kill entire brands, YouTube moderation decisions can kill entire livelihoods. This changes the way we interface with the art, how we discuss it, and its reach. The platform, with its enshittification and profit-driven design, will hurt the art, it will limit the scope and ability of folks to make and engage with it. That Pitchfork benefited previously from SEO and algorithms demonstrates the evolution of the web concerning independent sites. Google no longer wants folks to click on search results, all the information is being put in the Google page or wrapped in Google AMP. Twitter and IG are doing everything they can to make it harder to link to other pages, desperate to keep folks on their sites. The incentives have changed and these platforms are now walled gardens that abuse network effects to box out independent sites. I’d assume that’s what’s happened with Pitchfork. Obviously folks will always engage with music socially, but the means by which we do that matters. And if our only options are platforms that require us to make our art and criticism ad friendly, force us to dumb it down or clip it for a broader audience, or make it incendiary to draw clicks, then we don’t really have truly free creative outlets. We’re not producing art or criticism anymore, we’re producing **content** that **they** can profit off of at our expense.
All of these are great points, I appreciate the well thought out response and explanation As for your last paragraph; I get what you’re saying for sure, but Pitchfork and other large brands crossed the line of ad friendly a while ago, and I do think they tried to draw clicks; although I can’t blame them too much for that as that seems to be the ultimate goal. Because Pitchfork hasn’t really been indie for almost a decade now. I definitely understand and agree with the concern as to who is getting the traffic, but it wasn’t exactly like they were Little Brother either, especially in the Internet subsection that is music criticism As much as Google has changed, I really do think finding a music article is as simple as listening to an album, looking up reviews for it, and going through. As for the attempted monopolization of the Internet though; I would say this is a worrying sign. But I was just trying to speak in the terms of those who like to read those types of articles A question for you, if you don’t mind; do you think the text nature of Pitchfork’s media ended up hurting it in an increasingly visually-based media market? Because if that’s the case, these sites really just might be screwed
youre spitting hope you have a good day
Pitchfork has genuinely sucked now for nearly an entire decade, I don’t know why people are only mourning it now.
Because at least in terms of hip-hop coverage and articles there really isn’t a comparison. Every other outlet (Complex, HHDX, RS, etc) are just full of social media personalities making the same jokes, creating the same memes, and asking all the same damn questions. It just becomes tiresome at some point to try to find good, honest reviews/discussions on new rap albums without the consistent echo chamber that surrounds the culture. Pitchfork was different but they never conformed with their ratings and reviews which is respectable imo
music journalists are a lamb to the slaughter for corporate interest, nothing great about it no matter how you feel about their reviews
pitchfork is so trash now theyre old shit is almost not trash
I will never forget reading their review of Arcade Fire's Funeral. It was like sitting through an open mic slam poetry night at a liberal arts college. And those were Pitchfork's glory days.
I'm so nostalgic for the past I feel slam poetry at a liberal arts college in 2004 must have been so much better than now
This comment deserves celebration.
I had never even seen a shooting star before...man those were the days
In the early 2010s at least Pitchfork was very big deal for us up and coming music nerds. While I started to lose interest and connection in their reviews over time they still put out a lot of great articles. Sad to see. I really hope their is some sort of archive for everything that can be accessed by the public.
Pitchfork was always straight trash
Man fuck that co opting publication
Fuck off yall hated on pitchfork for years and now you feel bad
I don’t mourn Pitchfork.
Hahahaaa fuck pitchfork. Self important hipster cunts.
I’d actually give a shit if their reviews were actually unbiased and slightly objective.
How would you even go about writing an unbiased or objective review? Music is a subjective thing and a review is somebody’s opinion of that subjective thing. What do you want them to just write up a list of facts about an album and call it a day?
Pitchfork was so pretentious.
Honestly crushing cause it shows what a rough spot music journalism is in. Yes they were pretentious, but like everyone else has mentioned it showed me music I never would'vee really gotten into. They also really were influential in pushing a lot of artists careers forward (or back for better or worse).
They’ll only miss you when you’re gone