Exactly. Why bother?

I completely agree, the album is a perfect 10 in my mind too, but that doesn't take away from it being one of Pitchfork's funniest reviews.

Pitchfork have such a large catalog of writers that finding well-wrought ones is next to impossible, as the ridiculously pretentious outweigh those with genuine writing ability... I've found a few, but then again I don't consider myself interested enough in Pitchfork to 'scope those writers out' for more reviews. Their website can't be defined by two terrible reviews, but it's also undefined by the few good ones.

for a joke. unfortunately it seems to have sailed over FAR too many heads.

Some people here have a peculiar notion as to what a review is. A well written review may well make your blood boil, and you may completely disagree with it, but agreement is never the point. Witnessing the effect of music on an articulate individual, and exploring the similarities and differences between their reaction and yours is. Sloppy reviews are easy to pick out; they're usually generalised, or overly focused on image or character, while being dismissive or vague about other notable musical qualities. A good journalist will be analytical, to the point, and immediately focused on the merits or detractors, differenciating between personal preference and genuine craftsmanship without losing their own personality.

Pitchfork admittedly isn't a bad place to look for new music. Stuff that they usually rate around a 7 or so is often worth checking out. Whatever band they happen to be hyping at the moment should probably be avoided at all costs though.

Merged.
Any more Pitchfork threads will be burned at the stake.

Not the band's fault pretentious people deem them a bandwagon to be jumped onto though.

Wow, that's interesting. How about going back to what music press is supposed to be about, you know, letting you know about good music, not trying to tell you if you like what you've already heard. Crazy right?

I know I've probably said this a hundred times by now, but I like Pitchfork because I think they write well and their taste in music is very compatible with mine and since I sadly don't have the time anymore to download the whole friggin internet and listen to every goddamn underground band whose grandma paid for their recording session I need a filter, a site to give me recommendations which I will then listen to and either like or dislike.

Also, those kinds of reviews account for about one millionth of their output. Sure, sometimes they like to take the piss out of some band/albums, but most of the time they write thought out reviews...

But what I'm saying is, in my opinion, most of those bandwagons aren't worth jumping on (think Panda Bear).

I agree with a lot of their high ratings, but I disagree with far more of them.