oh deeply but to me that's dismantling the whole system kind of stuff that I think goes beyond the question of whether or not this is a good review
y’all really don’t have to give that website as much real estate in your daily lives as you seem to. if it constantly bothers you so much, its very easy to block websites.
I mean that’s not really fair considering that was a completely different era of the website with a completely different style and normalized review culture. The last two JEW albums got decent reviews.
I literally just said in the killers thread like two days ago I wish people would stop posting their reviews lol but clearly people are going to talk about it and I’m going to voice my opinion on what I found to be an extremely unfair review for extremely laid out and defined reasons I went into detail on for a band that is extremely important to me. If that bothers you the block button works or whatever lol
They have gotten slightly better over the years, but I think the Foxing review highlights a lot of the same problems that people used to complain about. It still comes off as very holier-than-thou.
well like I said, they’re not doing important work by taking a struggling indie band down a few notches. but to each their own I guess.
idk I'm kinda struggling with the fact that it's just "one guy's opinion" but that also happens to be published on the most relevant music site.
Yeah, ultimately it doesn't matter much. I'm used to them shitting on albums that I like. That's why I keep coming back here.
I mean don’t writers at pitchfork have to pitch their review and the editorial board says yay or nay to your take? More or less?
it could possibly have been that they pitched the review before they've heard it? I am not sure what a successful p4k pitch looks like but for reference I signed up to review the Manchester Orchestra album for Slant before I had heard the whole thing, knowing it's a record I'm interested in and will have a take on. I did not expect to not care for it, but that was what happened and I wrote the review because that's what I signed up to do.
As much as I agree that people should care less about Pitchfork in general (fwiw this is somewhat randomly the first p4k review I’ve read in years), or at least more evenly distribute their attention, it doesn’t really change how little this writer actually said about this album in particular. Just feels like he didn’t make an attempt to engage with it once he decided on a few loose sonic comparisons. I don’t think it’s poorly written or a hit job, just a very limited assessment. And that’s not to say a more thorough assessment would mean this reviewer would “like” the record more, but at least it would give me more of a reason to consider their opinion
People should probably care about Pitchfork less, but the reality is their reviews hold a lot of weight in the music review world, and I think it's okay to be angry when they write a review that is poorly written and overtly/needlessly critical.
Anyone remember when Pitchfork reviewed Diet Cig's first album and the review was straight up awful? It's kind of shocking that a publication this popular is able to release reviews that are so...critical and even in some cases mean-spirited.
responding to reviews of your own work is pretty lame I guess it's not as bad as asking for the building to be bombed for a score higher than the one for this album though.