pitchfork is dumb (#34985859340293849494 in a series.)

pitchtok

xpost well then I'd expect them to dress well

I love music ™ and I also like papaya chunks

Do they usually run this long into January with only two reviews a day? I know they always slow way down for the holidays and immediately after, but I'm not sure if this intentional or a reflection of the post-holiday new release trickle.

January is slow, man.

reminder that this is still the website that determines whether or not your music will be popular

This can't be true anymore

Yeah. Now an album's popularity is based on the opinion of some bald dork with glasses.

I wish

YOUNG bald dork with glasses unfortch

Plus TikToks and Netflix syncs, and I think that accounts for everything, yup.

i just realized pitchfork hasnt given any best new tracks since October? what's going on here

Idk but Dua Lipa Rates Pokémon, Ikea, and Selfies

they have also only reviewed 6 tracks total since october, probably related

Conde has to put it out to pasture soon, surely. Its existence just seems pointless now.

enjoyed today’s thin lizzy review: https://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/thin-lizzy-jailbreak/

Every January we have this discussion about the track reviews

P4K: "This new Tame Impala record is so good, we're gonna give it an 8.0 score!"

P4K social media person, not a fan:

Think of this album as psychedelia for people with meditation apps and vape pens https://t.co/4dbr34thxu

— Pitchfork (@pitchfork) January 18, 2021

the complaints in this thread about the number of reviews are basically the old "the food here is terrible ... and such small portions" joke

not sure if that tweet is supposed to be a criticism

xp They do publish well-written reviews (which are praised in this thread) in addition to the head-scratchers; and there would be even more good reviews to commend if they printed more stuff. Is it even a “full-time” publication (whatever that means)?

Yeah, the tweet made it sound vaguely appealing

i was gonna ask if that's a burn? seems like they just described their target audience

is it common for them to tweet out year-old music reviews?

makes sense if they're barely publishing new ones atm

I see Weezer have two (2) new albums on the way

tame impala was included on the biden/harris inauguration playlist, probably causing an uptick in search traffic

that explains the tweet and the tone aimed at a more curious, general audience

^^^ this guy markets.

haha seo is a dirty job

Huh, their Twitter feed is crazy active (multiple tweets per hour); but they’re tweeting out a mix of recent and older—from 2019, in some cases—articles & reviews.

The records are probably still available.

The context of my surprise is the discussion at hand—I expected to see a few tweets per day, to reflect their publishing schedule. But all the recycling doesn’t seem to hurt their Twitter engagement (who are these readers replying to a old features & reviews; did they miss them the first time around?).

there's a lot of data to suggest that's what you should do, tweet things over and over at certain intervals, only a small portion of your followers actually sees a particular tweet, if they aren't on when it is posted it just gets swept by in the feed

it's kind of annoying but understand the logic

That’s interesting; I’ve always been the type to read every tweet in my TL (but I don’t follow a zillion accounts or only check infrequently, as others must).

it's one of many reasons twitter is bad and best experienced second hand via curators

curators such as not follow @pitchfork ?

morrisp, I ask without any hint of malice: why do you care about Pitchfork's habits so much?

I admit my own biases as a contributor.

It’s the only music site I visit regularly, so I guess find it interesting to discuss its strengths and shortcomings in this thread (though I’m sure my observations are not very interesting). I checked their Twitter feed only b/c of that tweet posted above, usually I just visit the site.

ok thanks!

(Also, I briefly worked in online music journalism very long ago, and so I guess I wish it were “better” or different today in some ways… but I know that’s a big “who cares.”)

Feels very weird to see a link to this very website in a Pitchfork article:

https://pitchfork.com/thepitch/start-a-virtual-listening-club-itll-change-your-life/

Congrats, we're "now-fabled"

😎

amazing that the first thing the pfrk reader sees when clicking through is this thread title

We’re no Steve Hoffman tho.

it's still early

From the heyday of now-fabled message boards to contemporary Twitter threads, online music discussions tend to descend quickly into competition or argument, mansplaining or dick-waving.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3PakAiTZWAs

ILXor being called out as a cesspool of toxic masculinity by the site that said Ginger Spice looks like a (slur redacted), you truly love to see it

one thing any pitchfork reader should know is that everyone on ILM knows MUCH more about music than any pitchfork reader, and that everyone on ILM thinks that

we gotta stir things up around here, this could be the big influx the ILM community needs

i'm just goofing, sorry. it is funny, though, that anyone clicking that link might find a thread with this title, with over 17,000 posts on it