Or, more accurately, why does anyone take Pitchfork seriously when they insist on publishing joke reviews like this one for Autechre's new album? Seriously, I think they should be embarassed about publishing crap like this. And this is a common tactic for their critics, the "story as review." It's like the writers just get bored and don't feel like actually doing a review, so they toss together one of these "humorous" pieces. Why isn't the editor doing his job and telling his staff to do their jobs?

You know it's going to be a great day when you get this annoyed at a stupid review . . .

They've been doing reviews like that since day one, and honestly, that wasn't one of the worst. It was a little disappointing for that particular writer, but it actually wasn't such a terrible read.

Personally, I'm just finding myself at odds with more of their ratings this year than I ever have been. It doesn't seem like they're uncovering and praising anything all that interesting, but in the meantime they've been shitting all over some really good stuff.

Because 'art' is subjective?

In a similar vein, look at this review for Swervedriver's 99th Dream:

http://pitchforkmedia.com/record-reviews/s/swervedriver/99th-dream.shtml

I can't stand their joke reviews.

Reviews aren't art, though. I want to read a review for information about the album, not a failed screenwriter's attempt at a review.

I rather enjoyed this review. It's the best of both worlds. (I say this without any irony, much like the Van Halen anthem.)

I look to reviews to give me an impression of the record and to pass some judgment. The author is clear enough with the descriptions and how she felt about it. Sure there's some inside jokes in there, but all in all it is an effective diversion.

By no means is this review unreadable. (Unlike my defense, perhaps.) I enjoy reviews in which a writer attempts to pay homage to the nature of the music and in a way, the left brain vs. write [sic] brain battle results in the enforcement of a code all it's own. Much like Autechre.

Err. Something!

I couldn't give two shits about the author's homage to the nature of whatever. I don't want to know the author's zeitgeist. I don't care if the author "approves" of the artist's subjective hipness or relevance. I don't want "clever" that lacks discussion of the album itself.

I want to know this:

What does the album sound like?


This review nearly does that - nearly - so, as goofy as it is, it's not a complete failure.

...a completely useless reveiw would be more along the lines of the critic writing several paragraphs about the contents of her nose...

The only real use they have anymore is Best New music and News sections.

i like music.

i go and glance at the 'daily news' section these days. i don't even both with the reviews anymore.

'I' should never ever be present in a record review.

I don't want to read about you, I want to read about the band/record.