Cuckedfork

>>71065211

dubs have been gotten

they praise white male will toledo tho

>>71065283
>and Radiohead and Swans
>literally the three exceptions tho

>>71065300
and david bowie

Owned by Condé Nast (who owns Reddit). Surprise surprise.

Cuckedfork indeed.


Literally every 0.0 given is a white artist.
http://rateyourmusic.com/list/VelvetDarkness/every_album_to_be_rated_0_0_by_pitchfork_media/

>>71065300
>>71065306
They can't be too obvious about it. They know their primary audience is still white (nu)males, and these types of redditing "men" still enjoy music made by white males from time to time.

>anco babies upset their favourite band is goofy garbage now

Nobody sincerely takes pitchfork seriously here you /pol/ nerd.
You gotta go back.

>>71065306
>>71065300
>>71065283
and tim hecker, and bon iver, and brian eno, and jim orourke, leonard cohen, hamilton leithauser, nicolas jaar, nick cave, the avalanches, james blake, whitney, kevin morby, arca, SOPHIE, Oneohtrix point never, neon indian, sufjan stevens, vampire weekend, pinegrove

i mean when will they praise a white male musician?

I'm waiting.

>>71065414
>Pitchfork employees literally THIS offended by valid criticism of their joke of a website

Shouldn't you be writing "articles" about how far along in her pregnancy Beyoncé is so far?

>>71065483
lmao i literally hate pitchfork, this is just one of the least valid criticisms of their website

just read the quietus, its literally better and more expansive than pitchfork in every possible regard

Anyone care to guess what the CEO of the company that owns P4K's last name ends in? First one gets a (((You)))

>>71065532
are we actually already at pitchfork gave sampha bnm because of the global jewish conspiracy stage? thirteen replies in?

jesus christ dude get a fucking life

>>71065537
you shouldnt be surprised by the autismos here anon

>>71065369
see link in
>>71065317

>>71065414


>you actually took the time to type out this list of people pitchfork hasn't praised in years
>wow

>>71065574
all of those except for like two or three earned BNM in the last year or made their top 50 year end list, and it literally took me like three minutes.

>being invested in a washed-up adventure time fan blog's conspiracy against le oppressed white men

>>71065537
>>71065556
>oh shit they know, better tell them to get a life and call them autismos to save face and hopefully rescue our ever-sinking reputation

>>71065574
Pitchfork has employees who defend and promote the site here, anyone who thinks otherwise is delusional.

>>71065604
do you genuinely believe process got bnm because jews run the media

Have you guys just considered that music made by non-whites is just more popular now than it used to be, and you're just imposing your personal narratives onto a bunch of different authors with differing opinions and tastes?

>>71065603
>>71065603
I think you missed the point - that anon simply called out your list-making autism which is a waste of your time on 4chan.

>>71065603
>three minutes

Three less minutes to work on that next novel of yours.

>>71065631
my bad dawg, ill try to use 4chan for more productive and non-autistic purposes in the future, as intended

>>71065615
who ever claimed that? Stop strawmanning, faggot. You think they can't occasionally recognize truly good music while still promoting an agenda?

>>71065624


Did you even fucking see the list of the P4K top 50 albums of 2016? It's a fucking joke.

>>71065624
I can accept that though it feels like a lot of the time these publications are being disingenuous in their praise.

File: Pitchfork 2009 to 2015.png (1MB, 1007x1976px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1007x1976px

what did they mean by this?

>>71065659
i actually think process is a bad album but

>are we actually at the sampha got bnm because of global jewish conspiracy stage?
>oh shit they know
>stop strawmanning when did i say i thought that

>>71065624
>popular
>better
>same thing

>>71065695
it's almost

it's almost like

pitchfork didn't used to cover almost any non-white artists at all since their main genre of interest was indie rock which is white as fuck

and now they're (poorly) trying to review hip hop and jazz albums, giving them excessive praise when they think they'll be the next big thing bc pitchfork always wants to have a good review on the next big thing, and the next big thing is frequently by a black artist since thats whats popular

or its jews run the media and the jewish owner of conde nast comes down and whispers in ian cohen's ear every morning to depreciate the value of white artist's reviews

>>71065695


cucked management

>>71065727
>white knighting a shitty click bait website that tries to influence taste
Please tell me you work for them because otherwise...whew

>>71065768
are we actually at the point where saying something isn't an anti-white jewish conspiracy is white-knighting?

>>71065768
how is that white knighting? it doesnt paint them in a flattering light, and it makes more sense than the protocol of the elders of zion theory /pol/pals have cooked up.

>>71065783
You brought up conspiracy theories not me. A common tactic, paint your opponent as something he's not. Jews can have things and mentalities in common without it being a conspiracy. :-)

Besides Jewish influence or not, Pitchfork really, really likes women and black people these days (and HATES Trump, cis males, people who do not bow down to Queen Bey, men who do not put women on a pedestal, etc!)

>>71065819
you're really struggling to understand why a blog dedicated to artists who are predominantly liberal, read by young, wealthy-skewing music fans who are predominantly liberal, is catering to liberal viewpoints? The only way this can make sense to you is to imagine a Jew behind the curtain? call it a conspiracy theory or not, it's a fucking conspiracy theory dude.

>>71065716
I'm not saying that, it goes without saying that magazines, award shows, etc. praise popular works more, which I think is not great. I thought that was a given. It's just that the percentage of the works they praise might be more non-white because more non-whites are more popular than they used to be. But magazines praising popular works and magazines praising non-whites more are two separate issues; you can have one without the other.

Also, I think people might just be selectively choosing to look at non-whites and get triggered by them because it suits their narrative, same way feminists might look at the same list and get triggered because there aren't "enough" women.

File: IMG_7359.jpg (75KB, 600x359px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 600x359px

>>71065211
>it's a /mupol/ episode