Slate's Pitchfork Take-Down Gets A 4.7 - Idolator Comments

Slate's Pitchfork Take-Down Gets A 4.7

so1omon — Wed, 29 Nov 2006 01:14:08 EST

To be fair, that Dandy Warhols record is godawful.

Slate's Pitchfork Take-Down Gets A 4.7

janine — Tue, 28 Nov 2006 18:06:59 EST

Maybe I'm out of the loop on this but does anyone really obey Pitchfork (for lack of a better word)? I know the website is a lightning rod, but it seems that people are more interested in whether their reviews of any given band reinforces the readers' opinion of how Pitchfork will review the band.

I can't pitcure this imaginary Pitchfork reader that doesn't frequent other music blogs. If anything influences readers, I imagine it's critical consensus not a single review on a single site.

The most insightful statement in the whole piece is: "...non-Pitchfork bloggers are the real engines of the site's influence..."

janine

Slate's Pitchfork Take-Down Gets A 4.7

Wolverines — Tue, 28 Nov 2006 16:59:42 EST

In response to Dr. Proteus - Pitchfork gets the hits and the reputation because they have a large staff and can crank out 6 new record reviews every day - something most MP3 blogs can't really manage. Yes, there are competitor sites like Stylus, Cokemachineglow, or whatever else - but they don't update as frequently or run as many reviews (and they all, like Splendidzine, take a certain amount of pleasure in being contrarian).

What bothers me most, and I think what Slate nails them the hardest for, is that the reviewers are just brutally horrible writers. They write line after line of incomprehensible meaningless descriptive drivel. A reviewer should give an idea of what the record sounds like, and an opinion of it - Pitchfork routinely omits the former. Say what you will about their review of Jet (the monkey pissing into it's own mouth), but at least I understood where they stood on it - read their review of Swan Lake, and tell me if it has 1/8th the clarity.

Wolverines

Slate's Pitchfork Take-Down Gets A 4.7

Dr. Paul Proteus — Tue, 28 Nov 2006 15:16:51 EST

The problem is pitchfork is somewhere in limbo between a fansite and a legitimate source of music journalism. When they review some records with wordy, large vocabulary riddled paragraphs and the next by simply showing a video of a monkey peeing in its own mouth, no one knows how seriously to take them.

Which is basically why the problem really lies within the readership. People hate pitchfork because they abuse the influence they have over the "indie rock" scene. But they only have that influence because people blindly listen to everything they say. If everyone read pitchfork with a grain of salt and took the time to make thier own judgements, then maybe it's control would diminish.

Either Pitchfork needs to establish itself as a legitimate journalistic source or it needs to stop acting like one. And people need to stop following thier orders and formulate thier own musical opinions. The only reason they are such a "pulse" of the indie music scene is because everyone lets them be. Find new sites! There are like a million blogs out there. Pitchfork is nothing big. They review records and scour the internet for mp3s and news. That's it. If more people woul start writing better web sites then maybe people would go to them instead.

Dr. Paul Proteus

Slate's Pitchfork Take-Down Gets A 4.7

BillRocksCleveland — Tue, 28 Nov 2006 14:21:31 EST

What, no mention of the infamous Save Ferris review or the equally imfamous Kiss Alive review? No attack on Pitchfork is complete without digging in those old wounds.

BillRocksCleveland

Slate's Pitchfork Take-Down Gets A 4.7

slutsguts — Tue, 28 Nov 2006 13:37:50 EST

the writer keeps returning to the point that pitchfork is often out of lockstep with critical consensus, which i don't think is a very strong one. he seems a little too concerned with the imagined intentions of the site's writers and editors... not much to say there.

slutsguts

Slate's Pitchfork Take-Down Gets A 4.7

Dickdogfood — Tue, 28 Nov 2006 13:17:52 EST

Wait...Bill Baird? The puppeteer?

Dickdogfood

Slate's Pitchfork Take-Down Gets A 4.7

Jeff Weiss — Tue, 28 Nov 2006 13:10:30 EST

Your pts are all valid....I wish more bloggers would do full-fledged album reviews, it definitely undermines them when after three singles,a band can be annointed "Next Big Thing" status...last year Birdmonster came out with a 3 song EP and they actually made several bloggers' year end Best Of Albums List. Not to be a dick, but if you put a 3-song album in your top 20 list of the year, at the expense of bands that actually put out whole albums, then you're retarded.

Jeff Weiss