pitchfork is dumb (#34985859340293849494 in a series.)

(#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

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