This is what happens when you let women review music

Imagine you are the head of an online publication that writes reviews on a form of media. The type of media is inconsequential: whether it's film/theatre, music, interactive; it 's all applicable. Since you are the head of an online publication, you have access to analytics and metrics which can often be quite comprehensive. You can also likely see how people use your website, how they migrate from one article to the other.

You want to increase readership, and thereby worth in your website. However, this requires the antithesis of what the idea of a "critique" is. Instead of impartial analysis, you must impart guided advertising. Rather than opinion, you express manipulative rhetoric. There's an easy way to do this: have the media creators or curators pay for positive reviews. But that's too blatant, too messy: if word were to get out about the pay-to-play method of your publication, serious ethics complaints would afflict your organization.

So complete advertising, devoid of critique is not practical if you want to increase value. But remember: you have the gift of analytics!

Overwhelmingly, the readership prefers Hip Hop over Rock, Social Politics over Meta-Drama, or Action-Adventure to Real-Time Strategy. An album to get high marks prompts much more clicks and certain writers get greater public reaction than others. This data is very important: with it, you can make seemingly innocuous opinions into dangerously marketable pieces. Oftentimes, you can catch people into cycles of habitually returning to your website simply because you've catered to the way they browse the most.

Seems fine to me

>>73408207
TL;DR It's the Jews

This album is one of the best things to happen to pop lately.

>>73408168
What does that have to with anything? Because her opinion differed from yours and you're just going to use her gender as a bullshit way to invalidate her view?

>>73408271
yes

>>73408283
This is 4chan

>>73408168
>better score than Crack Up

WHITE
MALE
INDIE
BTFO

>>73408168
This is .2 lower than Rock Bottom by Robert Wyatt
poptimism was a mistake

>>73408271
No. Jews have nothing to do with Pitchfork.

>>73408283
>>73408331
why do you always have to white knight poptimist shit? i haven't even listened to this album yet, and i'll give it a fair chance, but you do it in every thread.

>>73408356
>Samuel Irving "Si" Newhouse Jr. (born November 8, 1927), is an American heir, business magnate and philanthropist. Together with his brother Donald, he owns Advance Publications, founded by their late father in 1922, whose properties include Condé Nast (publisher of such magazines as Vogue, Vanity Fair, The New Yorker, etc.), dozens of newspapers across the United States (including The Star-Ledger, The Plain Dealer, The Oregonian, etc.), former cable company Bright House Networks and a controlling stake in Discovery Communications.
>Newhouse was born Solomon Isadore Neuhaus in a tenement on the Lower East Side of Manhattan, the eldest of eight children born to Jewish immigrants.[2]

>>73408361
Oh I'm so sorry for liking things you don't. I enjoy music, even if it's pop.

>>73408390
Pitchfork was advancing social justice and hip hop for years before Conde acquisition

poptimism is a plague.

>>73408414
like

>>73408414
like

i kinda like lorde desu

>>73408414
Did you read the review? It's flattering beyond any realm of reality. It reads like a fucking press release from Lorde's parents.

>>73408400
>i'll give it a fair chance
i liked her debut, i will probably like this as well, but that doesn't change the fact that you're still obnoxious with the constant poptimist crap

>>73408283
fatso

>>73408168
could be way worse. Could be a shitty indie rock record

>>73408324
Yeah! They couldn't even get that right. Rock Bottom should be at least 4.0 points lower. Haven't listened to Melodrama, but it's probably far superior.

>>73408713
damn...

>>73408499
I don't care if you don't like what I like, stop being a closed minded dickhead.
>>73408518
Oh no I've been found out

I'm not impressed with anything Lorde has done recently. Her first album was likely a fluke.

>>73408726
>stop being a closed minded dickhead
>i'll give it a fair chance
i like lordes music you fucking retard. i just don't like your white knighting. why do you constantly do it on an anonymous image board?

>>73408414
like

>>73408755
Like what I said wasn't legitimate? It you did start the thread and want to give it a chance, then what the fuck are you complaining about?

>>73408414
upboat

>>73408801
i didn't start the thread. i opened it, saw you were being a white knighting poptimist again and asked why you always do it. even when i agree with you, you're annoying about it

>>73408308
>This is 4chan
>It's ok to be misogynist

Nah

>>73409014
>This review is even more bullshit than a long, long list of bullshit pitchfork reviews
>It reeks of manufactured adulation
>But that's ok because Lorde is a girl!!!
>I'm mad about misogyny on the most misogynistic part of the internet

>>73409014
Hello newfag

Try to understand your ever-changing physiology, then have a porcine politician insist that it’s not yours to protect. And the growing pains feel endless; while it is horrible to be a teen girl who isn’t taken seriously by society, it’s even worse being a young woman unsure what to do with the autonomy that threatens it.

I don't give a fuck about pitchfork. It's 2017. Pitchfork is more significant as a music festival than as a publication. It hasn't been a tastemaker since like two years before conde nast bought it. Seriously, stop talking about it. It's almost as bad as Rolling Stone at this point. I think the album is really good. I think it's beautifully and smartly written, I think the vocal performances are nimble and arresting, and I think the sleek, subtle production lets the raw emotion hit really affectingly. Do you disagree? If so, why? Let's talk about it. Why do you give a fuck about Pitchfork?

>>73409087
He's not saying the review is ok, he's saying your fucking blaming females for every problem on that list is fucked up and irrational

It's like you guys have never read a Pitchfork review before. They don't talk much about the music because, guess what, you can fucking listen to it yourself. Pitchfork reviews, for the past 8 years now, have primarily been thinkpieces about how the metanarratives surrounding an album work in the context of the album itself. I don't care for Pitchfork, but what the fuck else would you prefer them to write about? "Oh man she has such a great voice oh wow that's a good lyric that's a good lyric aren't these chords moody"?

>>73409275
Who gives a fuck if it's fucked up and irrational?

A bunch of adults arguing about some bratty teenager from New Zealand is irrational and stupid too.

>>73409387
She's a really good songwriter. This isn't some hollow Halsey album. It's some of the best pop songwriting, especially lyricism, in years.

They vote on the score if I'm correct. Though it does make me wince seeing "hedonism of a young woman" but that's simply because I'm an outsider on most social norms so the joys of the mass make me upset.

>>73408168
>stacey
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

>>73409387
he did. so he told em. idyet

>>73409413
Is it really though?

>>73409623
it's all subjective m8 but in my opinion it is and maybe in yours it isn't but I feel pretty good about my opinion