It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Pitchfork Media

page: 1

log in


posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 06:59 PM
Ok so I never thought I would have to rant about something like this but here it goes.

I wanted some new music to listen to. I'm a progressive/post/alternative/art/metal kind of guy, but I like most music in general (save anything that does not stoke the intellect).

My freind suggested Pitchfork media as a place where little known indie artists are usually reviewed. So I checked it out and I found a lot of good indie artists on the site that they gave great reviews for.

But just out of curiosity I wanted to check out some reviews for some music I already have (just something I do when I go to review sites). So I checked out the reviews for Radiohead all of which praised their albums, "cool" I thought "these guys must have good taste in music". So I decided to check their reviews on my favorite band which is Tool.

To my horror they reviewed Tool's Lateralus and gave it a 1.9. I was kind of shocked." Maybe they just dont like Tool" I thought. But curiously I saw a link to the album "Who is Mike Jones?" by Mike Jones. I started thinking "Ok I like rap music, but if they gave Lateralus a 1.9 they have to give Mike Jones a solid 0".

I click on the link...7.0.............what..............I grew up in Memphis TN I know what rap is, especially underground rap. Mike Jones is one of the stains on rap and to put his musical achievements (or lack there of) above that of a band which has consistently pushed the boundaries of music is absurd.

I mean come on listen to this.

compared to

IMO the music speaks for itself.

It seems pitchfork is exclusively biased against the progressive rock/metal and post-rock scene. They seem to compare everything to Radiohead and or Thom Yorke like they are a yardstick for musical talent, I mean I saw Radiohead live in 06 and they were amazing, but they are not the hallmark of music that all other music should look up to. I think that is reserved for people likes of Bob Dylan, Pink Floyd, King Crimson and the like. Give Radiohead 20 more years then we will talk.

They also give special treatment to indie and electronic bands regardless of how good their music is. I listened to some of the electronic stuff they suggested and dear lord was it horrible. By brother is a trance DJ and going to clubs with him I have been exposed to some bad electronica but nothing near as bad as some of the bands on pitchfork.

I am one who believes that music is all about opinion. But when I see mainstream pop/rock bands who don't write their own music and lyrics get pushed above those who do...I get a little pissed.

Ok guys sorry about that, just no where at work I can go and scream in peace.

posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 07:25 PM
Hey man, I like Tool over Mike Jones, any day, but that's just how pitchfork is. I LOVE the site, but ya have to use it as a guide, not a definate answer. If something intrigues you even though they score it low, then check it out, a few timews i've disagreed with them, but in the end, all of the incredible music they have pointed me towards FAR outweighs the ones i disagreed with.

posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 07:26 PM
not having been on that site for a good 10 years, i dont know about now but back in the late 90s they were horrible. i actually think they started on the premise that they were going to be mean spirited. hence the name" pitchfork".

the main type of music they used to review were more obscure indie rock bands but eventually branched out to other genres(like indie rap, the occasional metal band and some classic bands). the reviews back then were long winded, immensely pretentious and bizarrely vague. it was like most of the reviewers were told to go out of their way to be jerks. but then again,maybe im biased. they did give one of my bands a 2. something haha.

with all that said, i actually did find some really great music from that site and learned i needed a thicker skin. its not hard to take a critique on something you enjoy as a personal attack on your character but art is objective. its about what moves you personally.

posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 08:43 PM
reply to post by GoldenObserver

Oh I agree man. I have found some great stuff so far from them.

I guess I should have aimed the thread at reviews in general. I like it when someone reviews an album from a musicians stand point. Being unbiased not having genres and labels in the way.

But Pitchfork seems to just go. "Oh this is an indie band, it must be good" but despite it being bad they will review it good just because they are expected to, due to of their affect on the indie scene.

I never let reviews sway me away from something, especially if its only one review. I give it a try always.

posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 08:52 PM
I'm glad I never heard of it until now. I get extremely angry about music.

I grew up on metal, the latter stages of New Wave and pretty much everything post-1984 along with British punk from the mid-late 70s, all kinds of 90s music and then newer metal bands since 2000 but my main love is of course metal/alternative rock.

I've seen and read supposed "showbiz writers" for major magazines and papers as well as tv trash my main love and hold bands and artists I find horrible and boring to listen to as gods and goddesses.

One guy even tried to claim in a full page newspaper article that hating Coldplay at the time was the new trend. Sorry but I hated them since their very first single "Yellow", thought they sucked then and still think they suck now. To even dare to generalise and put everyone who didn't like the band into the label that we're all idiots for not worshipping what is basically music to put yourself to sleep or worse was an absolute disgrace.

Everyone puts the talentless on a pedestal such as Cheryl Cole and ignore actual talent who don't make it through ridiculous talent shows that only look for stuff that sounds the same as everything else polluting the music scene.

I had to support an old friend's band a few years ago at a gig in the hope that going along would secure him to finally record my own music after a year of excuses.

I write and play metal and alternative rock, he was in an indie rock band (similar to Radiohead, Arctic Monkeys,that kind of thing).

On the way, I met by coincidence a close friend from college who was on his way to playing a gig with his newly formed metal band and asked if I wanted to go. I declined and explained and he understood. By the end of the night, I wished I'd gone with him instead because I was surrounded by the indie crowd and my supposed friend spent less than 2 minutes talking to me the entire time.

This now ex-friend and his band hated everything that wasn't them and had massive egos even though they weren't anything special and to my ears, were the same as everything else in the mainstream and therefore boring. On the other hand, the metal band my other friend is still in were awesome guys who thought they were good but knew there were others better than them.

Pitchfork Media sounds like my ex-friend and his band therefore (to give a point to my rant) #ting on the good music and giving crap high scores for the hell of it.


log in