god i ****ing hate how lame and pretentious the reviews are there. who else feels this way?

for example, one of my favorite bands is Goldfrapp. like every indie poser pitchfork raves over how amazing Felt Mountain is (which it rightfully deserves) but then the review of Black Cherry, an equally fantastic album is given a wretched review for no apparent reason than for the band changing its musical direction. Also, i love Martina Topely Bird and her recent album The Blue God was one of my favorites of the last decade, let alone year, and their review of it trashes it.

i just hate how pitchfork basically ***s in their pants when they even hear that Animal Collective is releasing a new ep or album of mushed up garbage (which i admittedly like about 50% of) and then hates on other bands who actually change it up.

Who's with me!?

I'm with you
they are so ridiculously pretentious- but it sucks because their festival usually has a pretty killer lineup

i hardly ever read or listen to reviews of anything. as long as i like it, that is all i care about. i mean. i will read things on places like here or discuss things in real life with people. and agree and disagree and value that.

thanks for offering nothing to the actual discussion.

Pitchfork are away with the fairies. Along with having virtually no journalistic skills, most of the contributors seem to think that they're the only ones who understand the album they're "reviewing".

Take this review of Relationship in Command by ATDI for example, which takes the format of a debate between George Bush and Al Gore:
Relationship of Command | Pitchfork
This reviewer takes pretentiousness to a whole other level