Pitchfork is Officially Over: Publication Set to Merge with GQ Magazine

[jimmytimestep 2,453]

2 hours ago, BUtterfield 8 said:

Only reason I like pitchfork is because I was able to find new artists through their reviews, so I do hope they stay intact.

On the other hand, the site  was so f*cking pretentious with its reviews of mainstream artists. 

This is perfectly said 

[Magic Mike 2,657]

Ah yes Pitchfork. When giving 6.0875 out of 10 was considered normal so they could be coherent to a richly written review 

[PartySick 144,830]

22 hours ago, Rocketno10 said:

Outsold pitchfork

Oh shiiiiiit

[King of the Fall 3,778]

The thing that always bothered me the most about Pitchfork was that a review from them always seemed to carry much more weight than others for some weird reason when their opinion is only one of many. Like an album could be sitting in the 80s on metacritic and receive praise from tons of publications but if Pitchfork gave it a less than flattering review, that will always be the thing people cite.

[bionic 41,919]

At long last they can hang up their pitchforks

[Auther 22,081]

14 hours ago, BUtterfield 8 said:

Only reason I like pitchfork is because I was able to find new artists through their reviews, so I do hope they stay intact.

On the other hand, the site  was so f*cking pretentious with its reviews of mainstream artists. 

I strongly suspect they did that on purpose. Their best reviews are about the music nobody knows about / you have to go looking for. Writing scathing reviews full of pretentious commentary increases engagement, which drives traffic to their site, especially when fans of mainstream artists find out about the review, so they go to read it, which increases profits since more people are viewing the page and seeing the ads on the page. From a business marketing perspective, anyway.

Edited January 18 by Agunimon

[Ladle Ghoulash 16,210]

15 hours ago, StarstruckIllusion said:

Hot take but I don’t think music journalism is a legitimate thing.

Maybe in the 80s when companies sent records early to journalists to describe the sound with bias and backstory… but that’s so irrelevant rn with simultaneous releases.

Why would I waste my time reading 10 paragraphs of a stranger’s “educated” opinion on an album when I literally have my own perspective and can very easily and affordably listen to albums on my own?

This isn’t breaking real world news. I would’nt even put music reviews on the same level as video game reviews. 

If I want background on a song, I’ll look up lyrics and read quotes from the artist themselves, which is usually found in a tweet or video interview. If I want to know an albums’ genre, I can quickly look that up too.

P4K’s overrated discourse online has been sooo annoying the past few years, and while my heart break for those being laid off, clearly their talents and experience will land them a new gig with ease.

So again, good riddance 

 

Eh, I think the main issue is that people put too much stock in the opinions and lose their **** if they disagree. I actually think music criticism is interesting and part of the fun is that you can agree or disagree and that it sparks conversation 

[StarstruckIllusion 49,550]

1 minute ago, Ladle Ghoulash said:

Eh, I think the main issue is that people put too much stock in the opinions and lose their **** if they disagree. I actually think music criticism is interesting and part of the fun is that you can agree or disagree and that it sparks conversation 

They do because pitchfork was sold to us as a professional review authority who only hires smart and well educated people who’s opinions are essentially better than ours… and I just don’t think that translates to music that well ☠️ Id much rather converse w my friends about music…

[Luv u Sum 2,291]

NO i love pitchfork