pitchfork is dumb (#34985859340293849494 in a series.)

They should add comments back in

Why don’t I get a direct voice on the review

bring back the pfork mailbag!!!!!!

Hire me to answer your mail, pitchfork

You COWARDS!!!

I wish Chris Ott were alive to see this

lol now Pitchfork seems to be down, they couldn't handle the traffic from enraged Interpol stans

nevermind, one can only dream

I can't precisely describe what is so off-putting about this revisionism... it's like they already made a move to bend the arc of an artist's career upon the release of an album, now they've invited themselves back into the narrative and it feels (to me) to be unwanted and/or unnecessary. Like "we already dealt with your website once, now you're back at our door(s) again?" Retrospectively raising the score of an album doesn't feel like a correction so much as it reminds us of a slight already inflicted. Saying "the Pitchfork staff was wrong about Liz Phair s/t" doesn't undo the shittiness of the original act, and changing the number (in theory only, even!) seems to only re-open the wound. Retrospectively lowering the score of an album just feels petty.

An album I made in 2014 got a 3-star review from Michael Hann in the Guardian, and Alexis Petridis revised it to 4-stars on year's end. I hated the feeling. It didn't feel vindicating to see it happen, it just made me feel like "the effects of Hann's original indifference are still being lived", and "this seems to highlight the arbitrariness of the review process more than it highlights the quality of my work", and "I feel gross that I'm having to spend even MORE time interacting with the psychological effects of work-being-reviewed a second time around"

gotta admit the first sentence of the first blurb -

Rilo Kiley’s Take Offs and Landings is now seen as an undeniable classic, but our review—which was written as a screenplay

- caught me off guard and got a loud laugh out of me. dont remember that review but such a perfect example of weird old pfork, i love it.

"this seems to highlight the arbitrariness of the review process more than it highlights the quality of my work

This gets at it for me

(not that I'm an artist)

I've been mad about these Run-DMC ratings for 16 years, fix them!

https://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/11816-run-dmc-king-of-rock-raising-hell-tougher-than-leather/

― licorice in the front, pizza in the rear (Whiney G. Weingarten), Tuesday, October 5, 2021 11:00 AM (fourteen minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

what the fuck!

jesus what assholes

pretty sure Breihan might think differently now

That's a really honest, and accurate, review. Run-DMC were a great singles act. Their albums are all at least 50% filler.

yeah the opinions are defensible (and I agree about Raising Hell). That's good writing for Pitchfork in 2005

i'm talking about the way it shits on their legacy and importance, the bow wow line was completely egregious

none of y'all deserve larry smith production

Miss me with that, unperson and Soto

"honesty" = "someone being wrong but with confidence"

a lonely word too

I like Back From Hell and Down With the King

it's also easier to be a harsh and ahistorical critic than a good one

a lonely word too

everyone is so untrue

they downgraded interpol, nice

the downgrade made a connection between the interpol singer and ian curtis' voice, and that is very bad. it is perhaps my biggest musical writing pet peeve, and i don't even like interpol, i swear. i just cannot fathom a universe in which music writers repeatedly make that connection. interpol singer is not within 1 trillion miles of ian curtis in any way or form, not even superficially

i have been listening to stories from the city/sea obsessively the last few weeks so i wholeheartedly agree with the upgrade

I'd be more peeved if we'd pulled the site's frat boy attitude toward queer artists at its inception.

a harsh and ahistorical critic

Those Run-DMC reviews are definitely harsh, but they seem pretty cognizant of rap history as it stood in 2005.

The recent ones that come to mind where I think they were way off:

The 1975 - I like it when you sleep, for you are so beautiful yet so unaware of it
6.5 -> 8.7

Kanye West - Jesus is King
7.2 -> 4.2

Also would be nice if they had reviewed Paramore, Taylor Swift, et al. pre-2017 but I appreciate that they're working to rectify some of those gaps.

Kanye West - Jesus is King
7.2 -> 4.2

A little disappointed there wasn't at least one "Middling Sub-Best New Music Score" -> "Not Even a Passing Grade" shift.

the funny thing about this whole monday morning quarterbacking effort is that they seem to think that *now* they've reached full enlightenment and aren't a product of their times just as much as those old reviews were a product of their times, that future generations will look at say, Turnstile's Glow On, and feel like yes Pitchfork was right this is an enduring and influential masterpiece

Just wait for the next Pitchfork Anniversary retrospective where they reconsider the Best New Music handed to Wiki's Half God.

i would support a constant churn of revising all their ratings on a weekly basis dependent on twitter mentions, sociological change, clickthrough, astrological charts, reverse alphabetical order and blood type of original reviewer

all universal donors get a 1.6+ hike

all ratings should be contained within magic eye images

you really want to know how that new Low scores? well, cross your eyes a little and just zone out...

One of my only superpowers is being able to see Magic Eyes instantly. And no, my eyes are not permanently crossed.

what will be the first record to get a second revision? and will it be low>high>low, low>high>higher, high>low>high?

"It was cool to like Prince in 2021, and this was arguably not the case in 2004. Now that it's 2025 and we know more about his sexual proclivities, Musicology cannot in good conscience be higher than a 5.4"

and so the new editor-of-chief was chosen not by a vote, but by universal recognition of the chosen pair. chosen pair of eyes.

good money to be made with a social media scanning algorithm that can fix all these automatically on a minute by minute basis

Thread:

While I'm here, when I started at Pitchfork, you had to write 50 reviews *gratis* before you started getting paid (won't even tell you the number of bounced checks I collected). Workload was 2x 800 word reviews weekly, hence all the crazy long intro graphs in those old reviews.

— βετα (@betaworldpeace) October 5, 2021

The Grimes downgrade makes me think her next album has to be outstanding or she has to take a long hiatus or she’ll get ravaged by critics.

thing is, that new album really did suck badly (imo)

she could just put some good music out, it would probably help her case!

last year's album was fine.

Welcome to realiti.

Oh well if anything goes wrong she can continue doing 6M NFT scams.

thing is, that new album really did suck badly (imo)

I disagree, I think it was really strong and still sounds good, and the scramble to downgrade it 1.5 years later (because the "narrative doesn't cohere" or w/e) is laughable, but that's lyfe I guess

Welcome to New Jerzi

oh, i remember! i think it was well liked here. just saying, to at least one set of ears it really was pretty bad. her descent into being a really, really shitty person in the last couple years probably did contribute though, i can see what you mean

While they’re at this revisionism might as well get Ignition remix out of their top 20 songs of the 2000s

but i think i'm just a sucker for more low frequency synths that are less harsh paired with reverbed out vocals being delayed to infinity. it's a trick and easy to do but i like it. by contrast her new music seems designed to reflect the awful future she's actively trying to create

I agree with KM, not a fan of the contrived concept, the obnoxious lyrics and specially the sound of it. I could ignore it all if it sounded good but it’s super harsh sounding to my ears.