pitchfork is dumb (#34985859340293849494 in a series.)

they should just embrace it all, state their intention to broaden their audience, add the usual shit about bringing the perspective of the most trusted voice on music (tm) to new subject matter, etc etc. rip the bandaid off

Attention all journalists: This is really getting out of hand. Stop saying "woke." You sound fucking ridiculous.

― Mr. Snrub, Monday, December 12, 2016 1:54 PM (two days ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

"performatively woke" is useful because it describes the ubiquitous practice of disguising media politics, personal friendships, personal grudges and/or personal boners as social justice issues

Basically what we can conclude here is that white people ruined "woke", as with everything else.

Hey guys we can actually carbon date the ruination of "woke":

https://www.buzzfeed.com/michaelblackmon/can-we-talk-about-how-woke-matt-mcgorry-was-in-2015

xp exactly

LOL at the AMA, had to scroll down quite a bit before i hit an answer from one of them. the Coltrane review is near the top

just one white supremacy brand engaging with another. nothing to see here

white lines

Ha, I was just browsing that AMA and someone brought up that Nothing - Tired of Tomorrow somehow made the best shoegaze records of all time list (silly on its own) yet couldn't place on the 50 best of 2016 list. Guess they feel shoegaze isn't so cool these days.

http://i.imgur.com/YDD6TdM.jpg

lol

I've found the most pedantic person on the internet!

https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/5i58lp/were_the_editors_of_pitchfork_we_just_finished/db5hiwd/

the whole thread is literally millennial males sperging out because Pitchfork gives good reviews to black people now and Mark and Matt ignoring them, good showing everyone

You often give Best New Music distinctions to artists who you then announce will be part of the Pitchfork Music Festival. Is that a conflict of interest, and why or why not?

looks like someone stumbled on the conspiracy of a website dedicate to promoting music being engaged in the business of promoting music

Hey I'm just saying I didn't realize shoegaze apparently isn't so trendy anymore

xposts

it kinda tears me up a little how many guys are still out there thinking music criticism is the quiet, steady cataloguing of factual data

xxp lol why wouldn't they put artists they like on the festival bill?

"YOU SHOULD ONLY PUT ARTIST I LIKE ON THE FESTIVAL BILL!"

Your description of Frank Ocean's album to justify its lofty #2 spot highlights a blowjob joke he makes. How is that supposed to show that this is a quality album?

yes albums are only good if they mention blowjobs, no other reason

Do you think of music as a hierarchy that artists must climb and your scores to be a barometer of how far they have climbed up that ladder? If not, how can it be that nearly all of the highest scoring albums this year are from artists that scored high in prior years?

Do you think of music as a hierarchy that artists must climb and your scores to be a barometer of how far they have climbed up that ladder? If not, how can it be that nearly all of the highest scoring albums this year are from artists that scored high in prior years?Do you think of music as a hierarchy that artists must climb and your scores to be a barometer of how far they have climbed up that ladder? If not, how can it be that nearly all of the highest scoring albums this year are from artists that scored high in prior years?Do you think of music as a hierarchy that artists must climb and your scores to be a barometer of how far they have climbed up that ladder? If not, how can it be that nearly all of the highest scoring albums this year are from artists that scored high in prior years?Do you think of music as a hierarchy that artists must climb and your scores to be a barometer of how far they have climbed up that ladder? If not, how can it be that nearly all of the highest scoring albums this year are from artists that scored high in prior years?Do you think of music as a hierarchy that artists must climb and your scores to be a barometer of how far they have climbed up that ladder? If not, how can it be that nearly all of the highest scoring albums this year are from artists that scored high in prior years?Do you think of music as a hierarchy that artists must climb and your scores to be a barometer of how far they have climbed up that ladder? If not, how can it be that nearly all of the highest scoring albums this year are from artists that scored high in prior years?

the thread that's been coating their monitors in spittle every time these guys cover something that is NOT MUSIC is really sticking it to Reddit rn.

that is sort of a fair criticism xp

and not xp

lol music as a hierarchy

the guy that is superior to petty conversations about p4k and who needs to obsessively establish his superiority to the thread that's been coating their monitors in spittle every time these guys cover something that is NOT MUSIC is really sticking it to people who obsess over petty conversations about p4k rn

Yeah, let's not act like these dudes on Reddit aren't bringing up some fair and valid criticism. Not in the most articulate or tasteful way, but they do make a few points.

the thread that's been coating their monitors in spittle every time these guys cover something that is NOT MUSIC is really sticking it to Reddit rn.

― Whiney G. Weingarten

yeah c'mon guys, pfork's explanation of why they cover "stranger things" was perfectly logical, coherent, and reasonable. what right do we have, really, to call out a site packed to the gills with white supremacists?

confirmed

wow how is ian cohen still this much of a meme to redditors?

fuckin seriously reddit, THIS HERE IS HOW YOU INTERROGATE P4K!! fuckin poseurs do you see the date on the OP in this thread it is MARCH 31 2002!!

p sure ILM was fighting with pitchfork back in 2000 tbh

shit, cat

Oh wow

The changing of scores though is a legit question I want answered too. If they edit a score they should at least leave a note of the previous score and a reason for changing it - well maybe just the previous score as I suppose every edit would be 'we were wrong this sucks/rules'

The changing of scores though is a legit question I want answered too.

you're in luck!

Changing grades/stars/points upon reflection is a pretty common thing--see the Rolling Stone record guides, the Source awarding retroactive 5 mics etc. The reason seems pretty obvious.

Are we talking about altering scores on old reviews, or publishing a new review with a new score? If they publish a new review with a new score, there's nothing wrong with that. Likewise, Rolling Stone album guides come in editions, which are expected to be updated. It's different if it amounts to misrepresenting their prior opinions.

But does Pitchfork even do that? What's an example?

P4K will sometimes change it if they review reissues of an album they reviewed in the past. If it's a new review I agree with the practice, but changing scores of old reviews seems like cheating... it also changes the context of the review no? If they give an album a 7 and the review is bashing several aspects of the album and its suddenly changed to 8.5 it can be confusing.

like voter fraud score changing happens way less often than you're suggesting

unless the russians hacked pfork

Deleted and changed reviews Edit
Pitchfork has been criticized for deleting older reviews from their archive in an effort to keep up with the changing trends in indie music.[29][30][31][32] One such example is the 9.5/10 review written for ska band Save Ferris' album It Means Everything.[33][34] Similarly, the original review of Psyence Fiction by Unkle received 9.8, but the review was later deleted[35] and when the group released their next album four years later, the website gave it a score of 5 and described it as an improvement on their debut, calling Psyence Fiction "one of the most anti-climactic and jaw-dropping disappointments of recent years" which "came up short on little things like, oh, vitality, restraint, emotional resonance, and tunes."[36]

Negative reviews of two By Divine Right albums were also removed from Pitchfork after members Brendan Canning and Leslie Feist became successful with the band Broken Social Scene and their own solo work. Steven Byrd's deleted review of By Divine Right's Bless This Mess, on which Canning and Feist play bass and guitar, went so far as to compare the band to "retard(s) with a guitar" who "wouldn't know Rock and Roll if she broke into their house and beat up their children," rating the album 1.8.[37] After Belle and Sebastian's "comeback" in the mid-to-late 2000s, Pitchfork removed their .8 review of The Boy with the Arab Strap from the site.[38][39] The reviewer lambasted the band for writing songs that were "so sticky they should be hanging from Ben Stiller's ear, and I don't mean that in a good way."[40] Pitchfork originally gave the Flaming Lips album Zaireeka a scathing 0 in a review that also derided all Flaming Lips fans.[41]

Pitchfork has also removed the 9.4 review for the album Things Fall Apart by The Roots.[42] They also removed the 1998 review of In the Aeroplane Over the Sea by Neutral Milk Hotel, which initially received an 8.7.[43] Schreiber's review of the John Coltrane album Live! at the Village Vanguard was deleted after attaining notoriety for its supposedly poor writing and alleged racist stereotypes,[44] particularly in the lines, "It's like a dream I had: I floated on the River Nile, smokin' some fresh weed, relaxin'. But I ain't ever gonna see the Nile anyhow."[45] Additionally, Schreiber's original 7.5 review of a reissue of The Beach Boys' Pet Sounds, which criticized the album for being dated and passe compared to more modern albums like OK Computer, was later removed.[46]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pitchfork_(website)

Those are all examples of deleted reviews, not score changes.

lmao i never knew about this one, new hood classic

Some bands can pull off this kind of flippancy, but when you're walking that thin line between "talented musician" and "retard with a guitar" like these guys are, that lack of effort shows.

Allmusic changes scores all the time.

the original review of Psyence Fiction by Unkle received 9.8, but the review was later deleted[35] and when the group released their next album four years later, the website gave it a score of 5 and described it as an improvement on their debut, calling Psyence Fiction "one of the most anti-climactic and jaw-dropping disappointments of recent years"

continuity error by the P4K bot who writes all the reviews

That Coltrane review peeked my interest and I can see why they deleted it... it's all written in some sort of jive talk

https://web.archive.org/web/20040810064854/www.pitchforkmedia.com/record-reviews/c/coltrane_john/live-at-the-village-vanguard.shtml

Piqued not peeked

Those are all examples of deleted reviews, not score changes.

They gave In the Aeroplane a 10.0 when it was reissued, though.