what does /mu/ think of pitchfork can't really seem to

Pitchfork is too old a meme.

File: 1347383492891.gif (3MB, 400x225px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 400x225px

>>71029401
>>71029359
>shitfork

.4/10 post

The fact of the matter is that pitchfork has been around longer than most of the people on this site have been listening to music, and they're a good resource for keeping current. The 100-point scale they use is kind of arbitrary and weird, and sometimes BNM seems like it's being handed out at random. But the fact remains it is a solid day-to-day resource.

Most of us have lukewarm feelings toward Pitchfork. But there is a very loud and very vocal keyboard warrior minority on /mu/ that *really* doesn't like that Pitchfork gives good scores to rap albums sometimes and *really really* doesn't like that Pitchfork admires socially-progressive black artists. These people have an ax to grind, so they tend to flood any discussion of Pitchfork with insults and mockery in the hopes that they will be able to get people to stop listening to rap and caring about black people.

^3/10 post

>>71029505
Pitchfork shill please go, it's starting to backfire now. The fact of the matter is Pitchfork is no longer relevant in 2017, evidenced by the TMZ/buzzfeed-tier clickbait headlines and SJW-ness, and obsession with all things pop culture, which is their desperate attempt to remain relevant. Actually, perhaps they are relevant, just not when it comes to music, music discovery, or music reviews.

File: bbb.jpg (3KB, 97x95px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 97x95px

>>71029401
You mean Conde Nast?

Corporate Garbage.

Fake news.

>>71029583
This, Reddit LITERALLY owns Pitchfork

>>71029564
Exactly, but if you're just dying to know what unbearably white indie stars are fighting against LGBTQ discrimination at the behest of their masters, or are dying to read yet another article on the internet about the Adele/Beyonce Grammy "controversy"... Pitchfork is the site for you my dude.

OP here, i've seen some pretty fucking mixed reviews, incoherent even, and i don't know if i can trust it it or not.

>demon days 6.7
>3 10's on beatles albums
>thee oh sees aren't that good and have 2 albums above 8
>nonagon infinity above im in your mind fuzz

what makes you "itchy" about pitchfork?

I agree with >>71029505 by and large /mu/'s taste aligns with p4k. It's a decent enough resource for keeping up with newer releases if you're lazy or haven't been paying attention to the release cycle. Anything that gets BNM still gets buzz despite it being handed out seemingly at random

Then there's people >>71029564 who hate pitchfork, but still nut-hug their reviews so they know what is edgy to hate.

File: 3mages.png (6KB, 264x191px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 264x191px

>>71029698
p4k isn't even about music anymore.

It's CNN-tier muckraking and propaganda.

FUCK THEM.

>>71029401
p4k is pretty accurate 2bh.
people give them shit because it's cool to hate mainstream publications.
only things they're inaccurate with are a select few holy grail artists (radiohead) and many black artists.
on a whole i still hate music critics though. and i hate people who read reviews before they listen to the damn album.

File: 1482861807370.jpg (13KB, 480x480px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 480x480px

>>71030051
>p4k is pretty accurate 2bh.

>>71031040
that's the ugliest cat i've seen in my entire life.

File: fmages.jpg (2KB, 98x94px) Image search: [Google]

2KB, 98x94px

>>71030051
>p4k is pretty accurate 2bh.
shill, plz

>>71031169
fuck off frog

it's fucking trash, and i'm glad they don't influence people anymore, or at least not that i know of.