|
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.
__________________
|