- Restaurants |
- Nightlife |
- Shopping |
- Movies |
- All
Pitchfork Media
Rating Details »
Category: Print Media
Neighborhood: Wicker Park1834 W North Ave
Ste 2
Chicago, IL 60626
(773) 395-5992
- Nearest Transit:
-
Damen (Blue)
16 reviews for Pitchfork Media
I just moved to Chicago earlier this year, after many years of desperately trying to escape Michigan, and I am fiercely proud of my new home and things that are native to it.
But Pitchfork... not so much. I would think they are all on hallucinogenic drugs based on their largely incoherent reviews and taste for complete noise -- if they didn't sound so damn miserable all the time.
We thought about going to the Fest this year, but then tickets sold out, and then we decided we'd rather lay around at home and watch Six Feet Under on DVD. We had a good time - probably better than we would have had there, Craig Finn or not.
Pitchfork has enormous cultural influence right now. so i read their crap online site just to see whats the status quo. I dont get their taste. what the f are they talking about? its mysterious....
right now they are doing an extended multi day feature on the Beatles. THE FCKING BEATLES.
The first year I went to the P4K Festival I paid $35 and was exposed to live acts I'd never seen, at least 5 - 10 of my most well-loved musicians, sunburn, independent merchants of food and other consumer culture commodities. In short, one unique perspective which brought me joy, annoyance, fellowship, physical discomfort, music, new experiences and of course stories. I went again the next year. And I skipped the following year. I would go again. But all in all, http://pitchforkmedia.com, pitchfork the cultural entity, P4K the annual event, all these things constitute one perspective, like one multi-faceted person, and I take away from it what I will, I shrug some of it off, and I accept it as is.
It's a lot harder for me to accept as is comments like, "you wouldn't know good music if it slept with your girlfriend" or "I would still beat your ass, fuck your girlfriend and go home to my very decent record collection I made without your help" because of the archaic, elitist, white, male perspective that has pervaded our (still) repressive patriarchal-defined society. How can I get any more genuine perspective or new thought out of a statement that objectifies and trivializes women like this. It sounds as if my opinions don't matter, and that music and culture are made to belong only to men, and cruel ones to boot. Why y'all gotta hate. You like some music, you don't like other music, you're more open-minded in some genres than others, and the writers for pitchfork are likewise with different tastes. How is it that you think you should critique Pitchfork's overarching elitist, didactic writing tone with your own? You are Pitchfork if you do that. You are just as marginalizing.
I encourage you to think about the consequences of Eugenics. Then I encourage you to forgive yourself for what you said in the past and aid the incorporation of many different points of interest. Do better than what you hate. Be better. Think harder. Have more empathy. Because the negation of these values made the Holocaust.
Or shrug it off and pretend what you say really doesn't matter.
It's called "conflict of interest" you pandering, soulless hype machine. You can't "discover" the band, overexpose them, book them at your festival and then write articles about it. Especially when they suck.
The sheer pretension of assigning a numerical value to music would be merely laughable if you were still just indie rock snobs with a blog, but the fact that you review Young Jeezy and Lightning Bolt side by side like you have some sort of quality-of-art meter shoved up your gaping, money-hungry, hipster-baiting asshole is just plain amazing.
You are not an authority on anything except using hype to fleece a nation of sad, skinny-jeans, fixed gear dipshits out of money, dignity and, best of all, taste.
As a big boy, I have the ability to listen to a record and make up my own mind whether or not it is good.
If any of you pussies wanted to wax philosophical on the merits of Rick Ross and/or Dan Deacon and/or [insert bad band] in public, at a bar, instead of hiding behind your monitors acting like you matter I would still beat your ass, fuck your girlfriend and go home to my very decent record collection I made without your help.
Oh, and please keep shit talking bands you overhyped in the first place because that's always good for a laugh.
Christ I hate Pitchfork.
There are artists, people who decide to pour their sweat into making something out of nothing in the face of 99% of people not giving a shit. Some of those get recognized, some don't, and this occurs regardless of those efforts being good or bad. This means that some folks come along who really like whatever the art is, and want to spread the word to their like-minded friends.
Next come the folks that are more concerned with the trappings of art than the art itself, the ones who take stock of what bands will make the best impression on partygoers in their CD collection, the ones who actually sit and think about which T shirt to wear on a night out.
Pitchfork is the latter. Fuck you Pitchfork.
Ugh, all of their reviews sound like graduate theses written by cocaine addicts who've had PBR cans shoved up their asses for a decade. The place for aging hipsters and yuppie poseurs.
POSTSCRIPT, 02/15/2008: As if P4K couldn't get any worse, I just saw an ad for John McCain's campaign on their website. VOMIT.
You suck, Pitchfork. Seriously. I mean, like, seriously. I would ask how you got so overrated, but I already know that the answer lies in the small minds of hipsters and their ever-going quest to be exactly the same as the next hipster. If Pitchfork says it's cool, it is! Hark! All hail Pitchfork and tight jeans!
The reviews on this site are idiotic. I know they try to sound so elite, but they are idiotic. The people that write for this wouldn't know good music if it slept with their girlfriends. It's all about hype here, folks. If the email box has been saying an album is going to be good, or Hipster Hank has been talking it up, Pitchfork says it's good. No thought involved. Gee, the new Band of Horses got a rating of 8 trillion. That's about as surprising as the kid over there in the sweater vest and black-rimmed glasses saying his favorite album of all time is Pinkerton.
I seriously am getting angry just writing this review. I hate Pitchfork that much. And what's up with the crappy festivals you jokers keep throwing? Oooo, how avant-garde. Not only did they get crappy "rock" bands to play, but they got insanely bad faux hip-hop artists as well! Is that some sort of a DJ I see up there? That's just cool in itself because I actually know nothing about electronic music, and in fact was ripping on people that listened to it a few years ago, but it's cool now! Thanks Junior Senior!
As someone that listens to many, many different styles of music (hip-hop and electronic as well as rock, metal, blah blah blah), I can say this site is a huge joke and I can't believe there are still chodes out there that take it seriously. Although, I am sure most are already "Pitchfork Conditioned," so they don't even realize what they are doing when the load up their iTunes to buy the new Spank Rock and wear neon clothes.
Blah.
Thoughtful and insightful reviews. Good writing. Very good at exposing new music!
Only downside is that if you see an album get a bad rating, you should take it with a grain of salt. There's some stuff I've seen on here that I think deserves a much higher rating, but some dork got their American Apparrel underoos in a bunch that day and took it out on the artist.
I also really enjoy the irony of finally getting to rate Pitchfork! If I could, I'd give them an 7.3, because their first album was way better...
As Mr. Food would say...
"Ooh its so good."
One stop shop for those indie elitists.
Based in Chicago. Not Austin or NYC thank you very much.
pitchfork media
whatd you do to my hardcore
friends, they got bad taste
seminal drummer
of chicago hardcore band
now sucks pitchfork dick
your festivals suck
your carpet bagging new york
'tude makes me vomit
I peed on your door
once and I'll do it again
haiku says fuck you
Hands down, the funniest reviews for Joan of Arc EVER:
Joan of Arc make unlistenable faux-art records
Joan of Arc Makes Believe they are another band
My favorites shots have to be 'Men in Peacoats Eating Baguettes' and 'Lesbian Guerillas Confront Drummer of Bread Cover Band'
-1 star for glowing reviews of Junior Boys and The Walkmen
There are way better alternatives to reading about new music than Pitchfork. Read their site once in a great while, but I wonder why I even bother with it.
Metacritic beats their site by miles, plus I love how its nowhere near as elitist as Pitchfork is. This site lists other decent alternatives to Pitchfork: http://www.last.fm/gro...
One extra star, above the 1-star I would've given it otherwise, if it wasn't for Pitchfork's annual summer music festival in Union Park, since I'll give them credit for booking decent bands since they recently started their annual festival(and often better + more interesting than the ones Lollapalooza books).
Shit Sandwich.
http://www.pitchforkme...
THE source of music news for indie rock snobs.
Overrated. I've been told by several people that different people rate and review the albums, which is why they frequently don't match up. I don't know if that's true, but I do know that their reviews are seldom on point, and the writers frequently seem conflicted. The news is pretty good, but the only reason to read them for music news and not some other site (Stereogum?) is Chicago pride. Maybe snobbery.
pretty honest, usually well written music reviews. often stuff i haven't heard about before, and i consider myself to be fairly knowledgeable about music jams. that being said, i've found some new bands from their reviews. the occasional columns such as 'Show No Mercy' which delves into metal, are fairly in-depth and thought-out. They do go a little too nuts about some groups though, which tends to be a bummer.