Pitchforkmedia -- as stuck up as their reviewers are
I don't know if you guys have ever heard of the music review site Pitchfork Media but overall it's a decent review site.
It's a large "underground" music review site, which is a blessing because MSN music and most of the other review sites like to review things I don't care about (a la the latest Linkin Park album) and don't touch on the obscure bands, and the other review sites that review obscure bands have just as much of a chance of not reviewing the obscure band you like. Pitchforkmedia usually catches them all.
Anyways, I HATE their reviewing system. Their reviewers are a piece of crap. If they're a fanboy, they will rate it high or low, and either talk about how a band is so great, or how a band can never reach the pinnacle they reached with (insert album name here).
They have the habit of throwing out 0's and 10's as often as they can, and everything else hits around a 6 or 4. Californication review "6.8". Radiohead's Ok Computer and Kid A. Both 10's.
Flaming Lips' Soft Bulletin = 10. (Read the review, you will learn NOTHING about the album, only something about how the reviewer broke up with some girl, and somewhere in there he listened to the album and really liked it). Flaming Lips' Zaireeka? 0. WTH?
I like reading Amazon.com and Epinions.com for album reviews, because they usually have several people saying why they like it or why they don't like it, but sometimes I just want a professional, streamlined opinion. I don't get that from Pitchforkmedia. Beautiful site, nice spectrum of reviews, horrible reviewers.
It's a large "underground" music review site, which is a blessing because MSN music and most of the other review sites like to review things I don't care about (a la the latest Linkin Park album) and don't touch on the obscure bands, and the other review sites that review obscure bands have just as much of a chance of not reviewing the obscure band you like. Pitchforkmedia usually catches them all.
Anyways, I HATE their reviewing system. Their reviewers are a piece of crap. If they're a fanboy, they will rate it high or low, and either talk about how a band is so great, or how a band can never reach the pinnacle they reached with (insert album name here).
They have the habit of throwing out 0's and 10's as often as they can, and everything else hits around a 6 or 4. Californication review "6.8". Radiohead's Ok Computer and Kid A. Both 10's.
Flaming Lips' Soft Bulletin = 10. (Read the review, you will learn NOTHING about the album, only something about how the reviewer broke up with some girl, and somewhere in there he listened to the album and really liked it). Flaming Lips' Zaireeka? 0. WTH?
I like reading Amazon.com and Epinions.com for album reviews, because they usually have several people saying why they like it or why they don't like it, but sometimes I just want a professional, streamlined opinion. I don't get that from Pitchforkmedia. Beautiful site, nice spectrum of reviews, horrible reviewers.
1 Comments:
Wow, the reviews suck hard. I searched for a band I've heard before (Weezer) and read the green album review. It was 90% about the author's life and how early Weezer influenced him. 10% was devoted to album analysis and how it's not on the same level as Pinkerton. Then he concludes with the general "This isn't the same band I grew up with" criticism.
Then I read a review for The Hive's Veni Vidi Vicious. This one sentence left me dumbfounded: "The Hives are as tight as their groupies' pleather miniskirts, and they run as smoothly as a Japanese sports coupe: zippy, efficient, and they never need to go in for repairs."
WHAT THE FUCK DOES THAT MEAN!?!?
By
David, at 4/19/2006 11:45 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home