"The Most Trusted Voice in Music" speaks again

>two different reviewers have two different opinions

what's the problem here exactly?

>Pitchfork has been criticized for deleting older reviews from their archive in an effort to keep up with the changing trends in indie music.[29][30][31][32] One such example is the 9.5/10 review written for ska band Save Ferris' album It Means Everything.[33][34] Similarly, the original review of Psyence Fiction by Unkle received 9.8, but the review was later deleted[35] and when the group released their next album four years later, the website gave it a score of 5 and described it as an improvement on their debut, calling Psyence Fiction "one of the most anti-climactic and jaw-dropping disappointments of recent years" which "came up short on little things like, oh, vitality, restraint, emotional resonance, and tunes."[36]
also see their I Get Wet reviews

It's because the definitive edition is better.

>Trent's magnum opus
PLEASE

>>70269177
It shows that back in the day pitchfork thrived on being elitist and contrarian but now that Trent/NIN has proven to be culturally influential they decided it's actually good because that is what they care about now.

>>70269177
because a large publication is not just some willy nilly blog and they should have some sense of integrity and not be weasels about how retarded they are

why does anybody put any stock into the opinions of these hipster cocksuckers? pitchfork may be worse now than it used to be, but it has always sucked.

>>70269239
trent was culturally influential in the 90s man

>>70269242
not an argument

File: Untitled.jpg (237KB, 1887x866px) Image search: [Google]

237KB, 1887x866px

kek

it's okay to like him now because hes recognized by the academy awards

classic pitchfork
somebody has that "wall of shame" collage handy?

>>70269447
are u a nazi or something?

>>70269146
Wow, they gave a different score 18 years later. I'm truly shocked that anyone cares about this.

>>70269400
how much of a retard you are, and how retarded Pitchfork writers are is the real non-argument

>>70269177
The "problem" isn't supposed to be that the writers contradict each other, more that the website itself almost always uses reissues as an opportunity to make sure their new score aligns with the established cultural narrative of the album in question.

I have no reason to doubt both writers put forward sincere reviews, but it's a bit naive to think the process is that simple and Pitchfork doesn't pick and choose who reviews what based on whether they think their review will be positive or negative.

If you actually defend Pitchfork I have zero respect for you. You're a clueless moron.

i miss brent

>>70269569
what is wrong with pitchfork besides one's own attitude towards them

better come with some good conspiracy corporate greed shit

>>70269542
Pitchfork definitely does align with the most hippest, most current narrative, but it is hard to blame them when it's years down the line.

Ariel Pink's 'The Doldrums' (probably the most "classic" of his albums along w/ House Arrest) only got a 5.0 but of course when he put out Before Today they slapped BNA and a 9.0 on it.

Things get misunderstood, it's just that we can go back and see just how off the mark Pitchfork was.

That said, Pitchfork kinda sux.

>>70269404
That second review is pretty good at capturing what made PHM a great album, whereas that first review is just "bawww 80s music sounds TINNY"

>nu-males will now start liking NIN

well i didn't see this coming

>>70269209
SHIT CAT

File: brent.jpg (200KB, 800x948px) Image search: [Google]

200KB, 800x948px

Oh Brent, you were a trendsetter to how all Pitchfork writers end up looking.

is that linux? who the fuck actually uses linux?

>>70269239
or it's because two completely different people wrote the reviews. I mean yeah p4k is shit but this isn't why. Pitchfork is shit because their writers write like high schoolers writing essays worthy of a B.

>>70270546
I remember Brent slammed a Tortoise album (It's All Around You) and a Stereolab album (Cobra and Phases Group) because they used vibraphones on them. What a fagboy.

File: ulver P C.jpg (48KB, 1001x335px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 1001x335px

waiting the new review of Ulver

>>70270546
>>70270584

Franz Ferdinand AOTY

>>70270283
nice tabs kek

>people are mad that pitchfork is less contrarian than they were 18 years ago

>>70270522
lol NIN's fanbase has always been teenage numales

>>70270522
Huh? I mean I know this must be bait but NIN allowed for "nu-males" to flourish by providing a direct pathway from pre-teen angst-coddling nu-metal to more Pitchforkian "good music"

Think of Pitchfork as a person. When you're young, you're contrarian and obnoxious (i.e. most people on /mu/) and then when you get older, you realize how dumb and childish you were and grow to like the things you thought you hated.

Who actually reads review sites as if they were some kind of consumer guide, instead of a source of interesting or entertaining writing?

>>70271210
people who want to appear fashionable and trendy to others

>>70271143
This would imply that pitchfork is good now

>>70269330
And during that time pitchfork thrived on being elitist/contrarian.