Pitchfork (lyric, soundtrack)

Rainard Jalen · 08-11-2008, 03:02 PM

I think y'all are TOTALLY underestimating the degree to which Pitchfork (OFTEN) actually just give good reviews based on what they expect the general level of hype to be from other major critics. The indie critics play off each other in this way. Pitchfork don't exclusively control taste, they are not its sole arbitrators. More than half the time they rate stuff as they expect it to be generally received. This allows them to "get it right", so to speak. Conversely, other indie sites rate stuff according to how they expect Pitchfork to receive it. This is how the indie hype machine works. Follow carefully you will see how this is the plain truth.

On the topic of Brent DiCrescenzo, you might not like what he says but he's an exceptionally skilled music journalist with some of the highest quality writing you are likely to find within the field.

I personally think Fleet Foxes are a derivative (and irritating) pile of poo. That band's a perfect example of the indie hype machine licking its own a$shole. Pitchfork's responsibility for them, again, stops at them merely singing the collective tune.

lucifer_sam · 08-12-2008, 12:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rainard Jalen

I personally think Fleet Foxes are a derivative (and irritating) pile of poo. That band's a perfect example of the indie hype machine licking its own a$shole. Pitchfork's responsibility for them, again, stops at them merely singing the collective tune.

Jesus Christ man, how many bands are you going to knock off in one sitting? Do you have anything GOOD to say about bands that get generally good reviews?

There are indie artists that receive way, way, WAY too much hype for mediocre albums (Band of Horses and My Morning Jacket come to mind as of now), but when good artists like Fleet Foxes and Bon Iver come along you shouldn't automatically reject their music because of some idiotic presumptions you have about listening to what the critics have to say. Fleet Foxes were critically praised across the board, not overhyped by Pitchfork and indie mags. And their debut album was impressive by any standards. If you don't like it, that's fine, but it wasn't fuckin' overhyped by Pitchfork. They gave it a good review, but they stopped short of calling it an American classic (which The Guardian failed to do) and they certainly didn't herald it as an album of the year (which plenty of other sources chose to do).

Please, if you're going to trash these bands, find a legitimate reason -- not your hatred for Pitchfork.

08-11-2008, 03:02 PM	#1 (permalink)
Rainard Jalen Music Addict Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 2,219	I think y'all are TOTALLY underestimating the degree to which Pitchfork (OFTEN) actually just give good reviews based on what they expect the general level of hype to be from other major critics. The indie critics play off each other in this way. Pitchfork don't exclusively control taste, they are not its sole arbitrators. More than half the time they rate stuff as they expect it to be generally received. This allows them to "get it right", so to speak. Conversely, other indie sites rate stuff according to how they expect Pitchfork to receive it. This is how the indie hype machine works. Follow carefully you will see how this is the plain truth. On the topic of Brent DiCrescenzo, you might not like what he says but he's an exceptionally skilled music journalist with some of the highest quality writing you are likely to find within the field. I personally think Fleet Foxes are a derivative (and irritating) pile of poo. That band's a perfect example of the indie hype machine licking its own a$shole. Pitchfork's responsibility for them, again, stops at them merely singing the collective tune. Last edited by Rainard Jalen; 08-11-2008 at 03:08 PM.