Everyone here hates Pitchfork.... right...?

I'm fairly indifferent to them.

I adore them.

check it daily
never read it
fml

>>54009020

why?

>>54008963

It's difficult to hate P4k because no other music website can keep up with independent and major labels across the whole spectrum like them

>>54009101
tiny mix tapes does it better and finds more obscure/interesting stuff and has more interesting reviews and is way less flavor-of-the-week oriented. furthermore, p4k barely ever reviews anything i wouldn't have known about on my own.

>>54008963
They were the law in previous years. Not sure where they stand now.

File: pitchfawk.jpg (32KB, 660x272px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 660x272px

>>54008963
Yes

>>54008963
>Everyone here hates Pitchfork.... right...?
They pretend to, just to mask the fact that they themselves are p4k-drones.

This wouldn't even be a question two years ago.

Even though the p3k review thread are ironic, the whole idea of them shows how this board continues to devolve into shit.

And yes they're awful. They're only useful for news. Almost everything they review is boring as shit. The make people care about a whole scene of "indie" music that no one would otherwise care about.

File: screenshot-pitchfork.com 2015-03-04 20-58-09.png (135KB, 660x323px) Image search: [Google]

135KB, 660x323px

They recently just reviewed this, they gave Nicki Minaj a 7.5.
It's pretty evident their reviews are bought out and if you've got half a brain you'd realize that's a pretty shitty thing to do.

Rae Sremmurd

>>54008963
Generally, yes. I feel like they've become a bit more self aware and lax lately though.

Or maybe I have...

>>54009192
When will the "p4k drone" boogeyman meme finally die?

>>54008963
yes, even more than fantano

they give ye the praise he deserves so I have no problems

>>54009959
When /mu/tants stop being contriains and no longer deny their follwings

>>54008963
No, in the past /mu/ genuinely hated them. Now people pay lip service to disliking them but still listen to the exact shit they push

>>54010076
Maybe because pitchfork writes about music that's popular. Someone could very easily enjoy music that p4k pushes without ever visiting p4k.

It's amazing that somewhere with flat out inept reviewers is so popular

For all the verbiage they're all too often caught making basic factual errors

Useful source of news
Reviews are badly written, if for some reason I'm reading one I skip the first two paragraphs every time
Scores are generally okay, sometimes good, sometimes bad

Their facebook and twitter are posting like 5 Kanye stories a day lately. Shits infuriating...

>>54009124
yeah but tinymixtapes' reviews somehow manage to be even worse than p4k's

>>54010237
Oh if there's one thing I'm extremely fond of them for its that they give hip hop the respect it deserves

>>54008963
just don't acknowledge them

>>54008963
news = good
reviews = high school level
I thought everyone knew this

>>54010314
See i don't mind either site, p4k doesn't go as underground with what they review but they still cover a pretty wide variety of indie music. TMT does cover a lot of awesome underground music but it's not as accessible a lot of the time. In either case I use both sites as more of a way to see what's out there versus like a written in stone guide as to what i should listen to.

Personally, I think we shouldn't argue over pitchfork and focus on taking down the real enemy: Rolling Stone

Sort of. They've put me onto Father John Misty but there's a lot of stuff they rank highly that isn't as great as they think it is.

>>54010889
Which is worse: RS or NME?

>>54010997
RS gave Songs Of Innocence a 5/5
NME gave it a 4/10

which do you think is worse

>>54008963
Pitchfork is wack as fuck, the only reason they still lauching is because teenagers stupids still care for the bad scores reviews.... FUCKK

>>54008963
I love them but I've never understood their logo.

never read it.
They clearly have some sort of agenda.

>>54009997
what the fuck, fuck you

>>54009192
exactly!!!!!!!

FUCK P4K DRONES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

>>54011450
you have a bad taste on reviews

Yes.

Useless. It's fucking useless. You'll find better music if you lurk on sharethreads for a week here.

>>54011509
What? I don't see any reason to be so rude.

>>54011450
Its a pitchfork in a circle

>>54011537
shut the fuck upp p4k pleb tone
they have a bad recommendations and the company records pay for a "sponsored review" to make buzz ... they all a sellout music critic, fuck yall

*Daily Reminder That Using Pitchfork As A News Site Is Perfectly Fine*

>>54009182
wtf