Wanted from Pitchfork Media
Submitted by lukeprog on Tue, 02/15/2005 - 12:13
Tags:
- 'Top 100 Albums of the 60s'
- Album review: Paul Ruskay - Homeworld (2000)
- 'Music Primers', ala Greencine's Movie Primers that provide a knowledgeable overview of a particular style of recent or emerging indie music.
- 'Top 100 [or less] Albums of the 50s'
- 'Top 100 [or less] Albums of the 40s'
- More video game soundtrack reviews.
- 'Top 100 Albums of the 20th Century'
- More 'world music' album reviews
- Album review: Muse - Absolution (2003)
- Album review: Mew - Frengers (2003)
Author Comments:
Yeah, I'll admit to being a big Pitchfork fan. They didn't include Metallica on their 'top 80s albums' or Dream Theater in their 'top 90s albums', but I understand why. Their reviews are dense, entertaining, and extremely knowledgeable. They also don't waste my time by reviewing every popular release - just the underground stuff I'm interested in. Their also very harsh critics, and prefer relentless boundary-pushing to steady style refinement (I like to think they'd prefer 'Kill 'Em All' to 'Master of Puppets', for example). These are things Pitchfork skipped over or hasn't gotten to yet that I really would love to see from them.
Any other fans of Pitchfork here? What do you want?
I read Pitchfork every day and I've gotten a lot of good ideas on stuff to buy, but sometimes their reviews are pretentious garbage. I do like the lists they do. Top 100 Albums of the 60's would be pretty great.
This is pretty much my developed view on Pitchfork. I don't agree with a lot of their reviews (or the way they're written), but they introduce me to a lot of albums I love...it's sorta a love/hate relationship.
They don't have terrible taste as a collective, and their lists are wonderful.
I understand that Stylus and Pitchfork are sorta fueding. They put out their seperate lists for the Best of the Decade so far, and I've read a Stylus writer complaining about being ripped off by Pitchfork's Albums list. Apparently, he resented the fact that Pitchfork had suddenly begun embracing pop and hip-hop (which is a pretty transparent run-to-catch-up move) when Stylus always has.
Oh Pitchfork, what emotions you provoke.
Pitchfork is sometimes pretentious and sometimes just extremely knowledgeable and well-articulated. For every silly or inadequate review, there are usually a few really good ones. As far as 'catching up', I don't know how Stylus can lay sole claim to reviewing pop and hip-hop records but I don't mind giving Stylus credit where credit is due.
Pitchfork's site redesign is horrible - no new functionality, just more ads. But their writers are still usually very good. In fact, I enjoy Pitchfork's dense, semi-pretentious writing so much I'm trying to write a few of my own Pitchforkian album reviews! It's a bit hard because I'm so new to music, but it's fun.
You're probably aware of it, but Tiny Mix Tapes is a decent alternative for a non-commercial effort. (.com doesn't stand for 'commercial' anymore, obviously)
Tiny Mix Tapes is pretty good. I also like Cokemachineglow and Splendid.
Thanks, I wasn't even aware of those!
Holy crap Splendid is prolific.
You're right, there are some gem reviews. I think they've gotten much better over time. Some of their earlier reviews (which are beginning to be deleted or edited) are so far off-base that you can't believe they were at some point posted on Pitchfork.
The early writing reminded me of Harry Knowles in its fanboyism. The new writing is much better, I will concede that.
I don't actually agree with Stylus in this situation, but I have noticed that Pitchfork has been much more receptive to hip-hop, dance, and pop music lately. I guess when they expand their staff, the taste is less specified.
Man, I can't stand any of the AICN writers.
I hardly ever read it...self-important fanboys are annoying...now, if you'll excue me, I mustgo back and declare my all-important opinions through published lists.