http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/15/arts/ ... odayspaper

Respect.

Looking forward to the fest this weekend but I have to say, the above stat is a bit fishy, especially since many of these reviews came out after the lineup was announced.

Bookmarked PRR, hadn't heard of it before but I really dig the guy's writing.

this stat is examined every year. sonic youth actually has the lowest-rated album of anyone who's ever played their festival. (but it wasn't their most recent.)

I found the above quote on how they come up with ratings to be particularly interesting.

especially that part about The Hive...or TEHG HIGHVE or whatever the fuck its called.

Man, I hate p'fork.

The only good thing I can say about it is the volume of reviews that they get out in pretty much real time. P'fork, better than anyone else, saw the change in listening habits caused by the internet and have kept their reviews in sync when almost no one else did. But they're Rolling Stone for a new generation - Good for them.

people who have a problem with pitchfork are retarded.

Don't like the reviews, fine.
don't like the music they cover, fine.

They get people to check out things that they normally wouldn't have, their A/V programming is great...sure they're star making/breaking ability might be a bit ridiculous, but they've earned it.

This pretty much sums it up for me. It's hard for me to hate on them for basically offering a better product (in many ways) than just about anyone else. Their reviews are too long and there are other things I dislike about the site but it's still the only review site I check on a daily basis.

Now, if they are really giving bands better reviews because they're pals, their label advertises on the site or they're playing forkfest or whatever, that's a different story.

It's retarded to not like a website's reviews which determines the general direction of the music I love? Yeah, I'm retarded then. Fuck p'fork. No one "earns" the ability to make shitty bands. The reviews suck whether I agree with them or not.

yeah but you never see one star/1.7 reviews in rolling stone.

They most certainly have earned that ability because they broke several bands that were actually worth it...you don't like what they cover then you don't have to read it.

I mostly don't. But that's like saying, "you don't like spinach, you don't have to hate it, just don't eat it." Like I said, it annoys me that so much weight is given to their selections, which generally determines the direction of music. So even if I ignore them, they still are relevant in my life because I'm a fan of music. Clearly, since I post on an indie music message board, I care about indie music. So p'fork is kind of inescapable. A broken clock is wrong twice a day, doesn't mean they've earned anything.

I was at a show last night. Two girls in front of me were chatting.
"So what do you think?"
"I'd give tonight a 7.5 on the Pitchfork scale".

I clenched my fist for a second until I realized I wasn't sure whether or not she was serious.

Pitchfork is probably the most influential and informative music/review source available right now. Better than any magazine, and better than most sites.

If you don't agree, I'd love to hear some other options.

i can respect them for how far they've come

having said that, i've read two p4k reviews my whole life

I think Rolling Stone and NPR are more influential mainly because they reach more people...informative is pretty subjective though.

Pitchfork is pretty much the early-adopter standard with a fairly broad range of music. Maybe KCRW in LA gives them a run for their money at least in LA metro. Rolling Stone is now network TV to Pitckfork's cable. NPR gives too little airspace for new music.

The consensus process for the ratings explains a lot to me. I can almost always understand/hear why an album gets over an 8.0 when it does even if it's not my cup of tea, but the reviews are often jibberish, and I often think how can this reviewer get the number right. Some reviews are artful, but I think I can count on one hand the times I have read a whole review all the way through.

I agree. It may be a generational context. I go to p-fork like a "Spin" and others(mostly here) as a filter. I get more artist ideas from them when they post a rare video or a single than from the actual reviews so I can't complain too much. I can see the reviews attracting an audience of type by their own success as a website, but read them in full I rarely do.

Good god i hate CMT.

The pace of technology and the way it changes lifestyle is now so rapid that meaningful art is or will soon become incompatible with modern life, at least a technological life.

Popular music is in its death throes and Pitchfork reflects that but only in the sense that Pitchfork isn't a music site at all. Anyone who has ever read it should immediately pick up on the fact that there is no real feeling or understand about music and most of the writing is utter gobbledygook.

Pitchfork is less about music, more about technology. It's about embedded videos, hyper links, it's about networking with your Twitter/Facebook/FriendFeed/Google/Mixx/Digg, it's about downloading MP3's, it's about "Forkcasting", it's about information at speed. The fact that the information has a vague theme really isn't important.

It is simple a fact that the Apple iPad has excited more people than any album released in the last five years. Today, the only buzz that counts is the tech buzz. Pitchfork is part of that world, otherwise it would be no more noticed than the shop with it's shutters down that used to sell records.

Death throes are always identified too quickly. Lady Gaga has the YouTube video most downloaded in history. Dreck sure, and cultural artifact unquestionably, but she produces music. "Album" certainly is moribund. "Music", not so much.