pitchfork is dumb (#34985859340293849494 in a series.)

i think i was confused earlier bc this is just a list of important artists and has little if anything to do with pfork's coverage of them

lol deej will be happy with some Chief Keef retroactive justice!

The Grimes downgrade is lol, but the Big Boi one is not tho.

It’s tied in with p4k’s 25th anniversary but has little to do with the kind of music coverage that made them rise to prominence.

Aww. I was really hoping for a downgrade of the score for Tobias Jesso Jr's Goon. That or Chance's Coloring Book.

Chairlift: Moth (2016)
7.6 → 8.5

honestly unsure what score i originally pitched for this record, but fun to see, especially given how many ppl here fucking hate it

the grimes downgrade is stupid af but i guess she deserves it

my version of this exercise:

Poppy: I Disagree (2020)
6.5 → 10

I did not expect Chairlift to mean that much to them.

these score revisions seem more like each writer's opinion than an official decree from on high about a record's quality

They do seem to follow CW in most cases though

It’s cool to like Prince now, and this was arguably not the case in 2004.

cough

morrisd

lol i still love that foxygen album. they got it right the first time

also who the hell that doesn't like that record is still thinking about it in 2021

^^ a question best asked of every entry

This is sooooooo stupid.

(#34985859340293849494 in a series.)

The Interpol downgrade is OTM, although probably should be lower.

hahaha they are such a bunch of assholes

not interpol, pitchfork

well, from what i understand, a not insignificant percentage of interpol are assholes too

i see the big article about the Pitchfork canon but where are these rating revisions at?

oh i see now, from clicking 25th Anniversary on the top banner of the site.

yerg

a real rollercoaster ride for Daft Punk

In this thread you will find people who will provide myriad reasons why Pitchfork is stupid and not an influence on their impeccable taste in music. In this thread you will find people who also are aware that Pitchfork has posted a new article within hours or even minutes of it getting released.

wow you got our number

6.5

Honestly this rescoring exercise is the most fun thing they've done in a while.

0.0 → 6.0

Woo, F to D-minus!

They should designate all their reviews as noncanon fanfic going forward.

The rescoring exercise feels like the result of a lot of "Pitchfork is dumb" types, with various axes to grind, getting the chance to work at Pitchfork.

still no justice for Travistan

I still miss the slapdash condescension of the early days tbh

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/

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