Leebo33 wrote:GTHobbes wrote:Pitchfork (which I had never even heard of before)
I never heard of it either. I can understand why someone who used to work there would read it but I don't understand the appeal otherwise. At least I made it through this review before becoming totally lost and uninterested in what they have to say (as I have with a few other reviews that have been linked here), but a 46? That's f*cking ridiculous.
Plenty of critics like the album. Not that I really care what the critics say as I enjoy it, but since we have a link to a poor review I thought I'd post the metacritic link. "Universal acclaim" rating despite the idiotic 46 weighing the average down a bit. "Different strokes" I guess?
http://www.metacritic.com/music/artists ... backspacer
Like I said before, love or hate, pitchfork is the most powerful music site currently on the web. Labels esp will kill for a good review from pitchfork, as it can literally make bands. I don't think it can break bands (I think Kings of Leon, Jet, & Ryan Adams will be just fine without their love), but a good review can turn a young band's world upside down over night. Bands like Arcade Fire, Clap Your Hands-Say Yeah, and others have credited Pfork for their population explosion. Arcade Fire was a cool moment because even the indie snobs didn't know who they were when Pfork gave them the "Best New Music" stamp.
Some friends of mine have a band that got a 7.2 review of their new album on pfork, and that morning they went from about 20 song streams a day on myspace to 5,000+ a day for about two weeks. 4 weeks later they were touring all over north america with Tokyo Police Club.
So whatever that all means, but pitchfork is more powerful with the "coolness factor" then rolling stone or any other traditional magazine at the moment. Trust me, if you think pitchfork is full of sh*t and a bunch of music geek snobs, they're still doing their job (because they are geeks, snobs, and full of sh*t)...