pitchfork has officially lost all credibility...
 

http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/articl...ut-jacks-creek

going on and on about sun gity girls' tremedous influence on modern music, but then giving them three mediocre to awful reviews??? please, go fucking bust your nut over of montreal or something.

they never had any in the first place.

7.0/10 doesn't mean mediocre for me...

This is a good thing -- it's not like I want to agree with pitchfork on anything whatsoever. Though to be fair, juggernaut isn't that great, but those other two albums are amazing. I didn't bother reading the reviews, I just highlighted the link and saw what albums they were talking about.

In more important news, I've now heard every single sun city girls release, including the carnival folklore ressurection series, and all solo/side projects.. the only thing I'm missing is a few of the cloven casettes...

Oh, and they gave an album a 7.0? I'd say a 7 means good then.

why does the reviewsd of one or two individuals mean that all of pitchfork has lost their credibility? you know what credibility means right? It means the ability to be believed, to have one's words be trustworthy.
pitchfork's record release info is always dead on.
Their tour dates info is always dead on. Their reviews are, like all reviews of any media, to be taken with a grain of salt and an open mind. what's the big deal?

I just do not understand the hate for a website that reviews almost many new releases in "underground" music, from reggae to rap to r&B to punk to dub to techno to hardcore to whatever. As Husker Du sang "It makes no sense at all."

It is like the old backlash in the late 80's and early 90's against Maximum Rock n Roll. who else was gonna review self-released cassettes and 7" singles by the hundreds? fuck.

Meh, Pitchfork has correct news, but it's usually not news about bands I care about. And their reviews are almost always WRONG. I remember when I actually bothered to read their site... and I noticed.. any new, innovative, awesome record by an amazing band always gets about a 7.5 or so. Any record that sucks by an established band that pitchfork doesn't want to piss off also gets about a 7.0/7.5. Any overhyped bullshit record (bloc party or something) easily gets a 9.0. You could say that about any site/magazine, but it's REALLY noticeable with Pitchfork. I can tell you what their reviews will say/what the ratings will say before I read them usually. The only time I was shocked was stuff like Zaireeka and NYC Ghosts and Flowers getting 0's and the mediocre Source Tags and Codes getting a 10. Those kinda came out of nowhere.

As it is, I think Mars Volta have spot-on assessment of things like the Mars Volta, but Pitchfork is purely motivated by money, as I've said before. Someone on here showed a link to a post on a message board where some dudes hacked into the pitchfork webmaster's email account a few years ago and found all these emails from record companies paying pitchfork to give good reviews to their records and emails where the webmaster would advise his editors to give certain things good/decent reviews. It was a really entertaining through, lasting a good 100 pages or so, it had tons of print-screen images and such. Two of the pitchfork editors were apparently fucking and there was gossip about it on there too with print screenshots. It was fucking hilarious!

Anyway, it's not really shocking or anything.. just.. you know. Pitchfork sucks.

Haha, out of curiosity, I just went there, and sure enough, the awful Mountain Battles by Breeders got a 7.5... just as I pedicted in the post above.

Something to pay attention to if you read their site.

Also, something I'd like to mention, why exactly are they on a 100 point scale? (0.0 to 10.0). What do they base their criteria on? I can see a 10 point scale, but the numbers after the decimal are what confuses me. They just listen to a record and go, "Oh, this is definitely a 6.8!" Makes no sense to me.

Anyway, my advice: If you want good sun city girls reviews, go to www.markprindle.com .. I agree with a lot of his reviews on that site, though obviously not all................. (the sonic youth page has a lot of weird inconsistencies for example)

These things ahppen, which is why I stated that the reviews need to be taken with a grain of sal. they have very god interviews, news, and information, as well as free downloads and shit.
I give pitchfork an 8.2

you do have a point. the info they give out is really good. if i do look at the site it's for that only. i used to read the reviews for laughs but i don't really care for a review that is about as big as a term paper and looks like it was one.

i like maximum rock n roll's reviews. short and to the point.

If you like them/don't mind them, then cool man.

I kinda just use message boards for any info about bands I care about, and I guess a lot of that info comes from pitchfork, but again pitchfork doesn't usually cover bands I necessarily care for.

I just choose to not read them unless someone brings them up, and then I get curious. They're just too snobby to bother with most of the time in my opinion.

http://www.theonion.com/content/news...ives_music_6_8

Pitchfork gives music a 6.8

is not the virulent anti-pitchfork hate, nearly irrational I may add, not just another form of snobby elitism?
as in "I am too cool for the website that emphasizes the music I love?"

I don't personally love most of the music they cover, though. I give them points for covering everything from william basinski to gaji to dengue fever, but those artists hardly get the coverage of something like KANYE FUCKING WEST or bloc party.

Years ago, I used to read pitchfork every day out of curiousity but again it just seems like a chore to go their site and deal with their snobbery and misinformation.

And to agree with batreleaser's original point, you do have to wonder why they even bother covering something like the sun city girls. Or why they're reviewing those reissues of old albums instead of that NEW excellent singles collection that came out last month. They try to cover a little bit of everything to present themselves as an all-knowing source so you can "Trust" them for new musical finds... but I can PROMISE you I have never once discovered a band that I've liked from reading pitchfork -- I think most of us are more advanced and "in-the-know" than pitchfork is , honestly.

I don;t know atsonic. you listen to some very obscure shit. shit that maybe only a thousand other people in the entire world listen to, you know? for real.

tons of the bands you like and list I have never ever heard of.

EXACTLY. Rob, I love you. This is the message I wanted to post for a while.

jeez, they are only jounalists who give opinions......only the operson listening can give an opinion. i love reading reviews but i will make my own mind up if i like something and then ill say i discovered it first and pitchfork is crap!

I'm totally with you on this. I fucking hate it when a website which is read by literally millions of people covers a good band that are known by roughly four people. Don't they understand anything?

they dont understand that hipster doofuses love to poo-poo a band the moment anyone other than themselves knows about them.

I stopped giving reading pitchfork reviews when I read that review of some Animal Collective album and it was all expressionist dreamscape shit. And a rating number. Pitchfork just feels like it is run by a collection of art history majors to me which is what really puts me off.