Times when pitchfork have been absolute savages, regardless whether

>>68253280
always vindicating when pitchfork shits on stuff like mumford and sons

>>68253289
why is this so fucking funny

>>68253280
>ABSOLUTE SAVAGES
>ITS SOOO LIT
>SO LEGEND

what are you you 15?

>>68253347
22 going on 23 actually m8
you mad?

>rating things on a 100-point scale
why do they do this? what's the difference between a 2.1 and 2.0 or 2.2?

>>68253280
The time they have Gambino a 1.6 and his career wasn't affected by it at all.

>>68253385
>you mad
>m8

stop

>>68253280
Their review for "the fragile" was pretentious garbage

File: IMG_4731.jpg (72KB, 750x834px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 750x834px

Have you read this review?
It's fucking outrageous.

File: IMG_0853.jpg (36KB, 632x334px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 632x334px

boooiiii

>>68255411
kek

>>68255116
2.2 is the best and 2.0 is the worst

http://pitchfork.com/news/45924-jet-break-up/

>>68255234
u sound mad m8 ayyy lmao

>>68255411
desu this is an accurate rating

>>68255411
what the fuck
it's not THAT bad

File: 1473644841904.jpg (20KB, 450x384px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 450x384px

>>68255326
at most it was a 1.8 amiright

>>68256153
deserved

File: Screen Shot 2016-10-05 at 11.28.07 AM.png (527KB, 1904x668px) Image search: [Google]

527KB, 1904x668px

10 years later and it got 8.6 best new reissue

>>68256559
Almost like it was reviewed by different people with different opinions
Wild

>>68256559
link for true lols

>>68256584
just look it up retard.

>>68256566
Still, that just smacks of inconsistency across their organisation. Deplorable really - they should have a holistic approach to their opinions, and their influence. But I guess why would they care? None of their audience even reads the random selections of words their 'reviewers' post, and only look at the numbers anyway.

someone post the Jet one

>>68256630
we did.

>>68253304
that's because you have no personality

>>68255411
I was recording an album with my band and telling our drummer about this review, and our sound engineer (middle aged stoner) overheard and asked me what album I was talking about. When I told her she said "Ohhh, that album was fucking TERRIBLE"

File: Screenshot_20161005-114103.png (355KB, 720x1280px) Image search: [Google]

355KB, 720x1280px

>>68253280

>>68256614
>they should have a holistic approach to their opinions
This is Pitchfork we are talking about, right?

>>68256566
I wasn't saying it was a bad thing. The reissue review directly mentions the original.

File: Screen Shot 2016-10-05 at 11.44.38 AM.png (155KB, 984x396px) Image search: [Google]

155KB, 984x396px

>>68253280

From now on every time you guys fetishize Pitchfork and their scores I will satirize you by fetishizing other music websites/magazines to show how goddamn stupid you look.

>>68256682
>>68256718
undeserved, green was way worse

>>68256727
we do that anyway, except with rolling stone

>>68256845
Doesn't the writer of this review regret the score?

>>68256912
probably regrets his existence more

File: 1*5K0FDXXjSdre0lncDkP8Tg.png (215KB, 660x320px) Image search: [Google]

215KB, 660x320px

Times where Pitchfork actually ruined an artist's life

>>68257230
This is honestly kinda sad
I feel bad for him

File: ss (2016-10-05 at 02.42.30).jpg (30KB, 977x307px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 977x307px

surprised nobody posted this yet

>>68256329

It deserves a better rating for Outside, Heartbeat and That Power alone. I'll concede most of the album is pretty bad though.

>>68256650
what does that have to do with anything

>>68256329
>>68259767
>it's not lit, therfore it's bad

New rap fans need to leave.

>>68259726
kek

>>68255442
holy fuck. hahahaha

File: Screen Shot 2016-10-05 at 1.21.16 PM.png (125KB, 1005x530px) Image search: [Google]

125KB, 1005x530px

BTFO

>>68257117
came to post this

File: Untitled.png (103KB, 511x480px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 511x480px

True Story. I will never ever trust PF because of this review.

And of the ultimate cringe circlejerk 9.7 for Funeral.

and the 7.5 for Pet Sounds.


http://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/452-funeral/

http://cheezburger.com/6177443328

http://web.archive.org/web/20040805162134/www.pitchforkmedia.com/record-reviews/b/belle-and-sebastian/boy-with-the-arab-strap.shtml

>>68261489
but that b&s review is on point

>>68259306
the "review" itself is straight garbage.

File: tmp_7704-Screenshot_2016-10-05-13-56-05~01-1418286803.png (251KB, 689x486px) Image search: [Google]

251KB, 689x486px

It wasn't that bad

>>68255374
what is this from?

>>68256682
the original pressing version of "Perfect Situation" is legitimately moving
It deserved at least a 1

>>68255411
Even a broken clock...

>>68261670
I don't think the album with This Is Such a Pity, The Damage in Your Heart, and Haunt You Every Day deserves less than a 4. It's a shame that the singles cast such a bad shadow on the album, when it's at worst their 3rd worst album.

>>68261877
Smh someone actually took the time to make this

>>68261877
yeah i liked the new solange too

>>68261877
i gotta say, this album is a little overrated

>>68261577
it's fucking hilarious though and every person i've met that likes tool acts like that. one of the funniest reviews they've written which is really the only plus a P4K review can have

>>68261971
t. virgin

>>68261667
joan of arc?

ironic because they're promoting them rn
probably because emo is "cool" now and the kinsellas are worshipped

>>68256678
She sound cool

>>68261489
>and the 7.5 for Pet Sounds.
That's correct though, the indie establishment is just revising history and overrating this album so they can sell more copies of mediocre dadrock to trendy young white kids. You all fell for the meme. Nobody talked about Pet Sounds until the 2000s, which is a bad sign for a so-called "classic" album

>>68262041
>>>/pol/

File: 1475701777817.jpg (360KB, 1269x836px) Image search: [Google]

360KB, 1269x836px

>>68261877
If you're gonna do this, at least make it realistic.

>>68257230
this was such bullshit

travis morrison is a great guy, fucking clowns at pitchfork had no real reason to do this

>>68256845
Why does everyone hate this album? It is at least a 6/10, and I think it's a 7.5

>>68257230
What happened to him?

>>68261022
kek

>>68257230
>lives in Pork Slope
>works for HuffPo
Whatever happened he deserved it.

>>68263615
That's not true. The singles for that album were classics that have gotten radio airplay since the 60's. It obliviously had a profound effect on contemporaries like The Beatles, and even more modern artists like the Elephant 6 Collective. I also know you're full of shit because my parents know what Pet Sounds is and loved it way before this revival in popularity. My dad still has his copy he bought in the 60's.

Of course you were just baiting for (You)'s, so ha ha, you got me.

>>68263615
(u)

>>68253280
I just read the review; why is it so god damned vague?

>>68263993
Yeah, ok. They're still second-tier. That's like if p4k suddenly decided that everyone should like the Lovin' Spoonful, and gave their albums 9s and told about how influential they were in the Summer of Love. I love the Lovin' Spoonful, but that would just be blantant dishonesty.

Just because your dad knows what it is doesn't make it any good. Pet Sounds was basically lost to obscurity because it's just an orchestral pop group. And arguing that it's good because it "influenced" revivalist groups makes you look like a drone and a fool.

>>68259726
I thought pitchfork loves empty political sloganeering and crybaby bs?

File: Screen Shot 2016-10-05 at 4.08.50 PM.png (431KB, 2180x680px) Image search: [Google]

431KB, 2180x680px

>There's this guy who crawls onto my subway car on my way home from work every now and again. A loud, scraggly man, he always blares, "Ladies and gentlemen, may I please have a minute of your time." This is absolutely not a question, and he is certainly not a polite person. He has no legs, nor a wheelchair. He has an acoustic guitar strapped to his back and insists on performing a song. He'll keenly request a wink-wink donation if his tune rocks your world. This man, who we can call Studebaker for the sake of identification, sings very popular, well-known songs like "...Baby One More Time" and "More Than a Feeling" and "Bootylicious". But he replaces them with his own stoopid-clever lyrics that highlight his plight. "Subway car, can you handle this? No. 6 Line can you handle this? America, can you handle this? I don't think you can handle this!" He's a great guy; I always give him a buck.

Honestly, fuck pitchfork.

>>68255411
holy fucking kek.

>>68261642
>Rating based on inconvenience and not the quality of the music

Never change p4k

>>68264110
pet sounds's influence extends wayyy beyond "revivalist" groups

take a minute and look up the artists who have cited it as an influence

it's basically the reason 70's progressive / art rock came about

File: savage.png (471KB, 2408x748px) Image search: [Google]

471KB, 2408x748px

Just another example of pitchfork giving into Kanye's demands.

File: Screen Shot 2016-10-06 at 10.20.32 am.png (108KB, 469x367px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 469x367px

This one always pissed me off.

>>68263177
seems about right

Why do you cucks take pitchforks opinion to heart? I'm genuinely curious.

>>68265717
They used to be taken seriously in indie circles
Now they don't even like indie music so there's really no reason