More Annoying Critic: Rolling Stones vs. Pitchfork

[Hizaki]

First: Yes, I know I made a typo in the title. It should read Rolling Stone and not Rolling Stones. Although I'm sure Mick Jagger would have some interesting responses if he were to start critiquing.

The two critics seem to be the two that suffer the greatest amount of criticism and backlash in response to what they publish. Which of the two is more annoying to you?

Rolling Stone
Form: Magazine
Founded: 1967
Offenses: Dismissing albums that end up being extremely popular and well-received as well as retroactively altering reviews of these albums, utter bias for anything over 30 years old, completely ignoring hard rock and heavy metal during their emergence, straying away from a focus on music.

Pitchfork
Form: Website
Founded: 1995
Offenses: Being pretentious, focusing on obscure indie rock bands nobody except their slavishly devoted fans have heard of (and sometimes not even them), skipping over anything popular, using superfluous metaphors to display their writing talent, comparing everything to Radiohead, giving a Bjork album a rating of 9 point freaking 9.

Personally, I can't stand Rolling Stone, they are seen as some giant that holds ridiculous influence over pop culture yet they're most obsessed with how many pre-1975 songs they can compile into massive lists that have no relevence. Additionally, for a magazine supposed to be the pinnacle of pop culture, they often overlook giant albums of the times.

Don't get me wrong, Pitchfork is so trapped in it's arrogance and followed by "trendy" kids of scene-such-and-such it's hard to discern what's what on the site, but Pitchfork is hilarious. Whether they're legitimate in their humorous critique a la Ben "Yahtzee" Croshaw or Charlie Brooker, or just ranting senselessly a la Bill Cosby, it's enjoyable to read. They berated Muse's HAARP and Black Holes and Revelations, and while I thoroughly disagree, it was fun to read. Additionally, you can make a drinking game whereupon everyone drinks everytime they mention Radiohead in a review that's completely irrelevant to Radiohead. Anyone who manages to remain upright after more than 3 reviews wins.

[afterstasis]

i refuse to read anything from either one, though i disagree that pitchfork focuses on obscure stuff...
otherwise, i'd probably care about them.

[cdestey]

I'm gonna have to go with SPIN.

I remember a review of A Perfect Circle's Mer de Noms in Spin. The reviewer basically didn't like it because the lyrics were like DIO, and he said the only reason anyone likes Tool is because Maynard has a feminine voice and liking Tool makes up for liking overly-masculine, nu-metal bands.

[thedoorsdk]

All mainstream music press is ******ed.
And yes, as much as the indie kids who have a new favorite band every week would love to argue with me, Pitchfork is mainstream.

[Hizaki]

I'm gonna have to go with SPIN.

I remember a review of A Perfect Circle's Mer de Noms in Spin. The reviewer basically didn't like it because the lyrics were like DIO, and he said the only reason anyone likes Tool is because Maynard has a feminine voice and liking Tool makes up for liking overly-masculine, nu-metal bands.

That's pretty bad. But then again, not many people pay attention to SPIN anyway.

[TheMeatball]

Pitchfork is disgustingly pretentious and somehow simultaneously fails to take itself seriously. They often review the band instead of the album.

Rolling Stone is usually just too generous with reviews, but they have some great articles that make up for it. I mean, who reads music reviews anyway?

[polishdog90]

Pitchfork is disgustingly pretentious and somehow simultaneously fails to take itself seriously. They often review the band instead of the album.

Rolling Stone is usually just too generous with reviews, but they have some great articles that make up for it. I mean, who reads music reviews anyway?

I agree completely

[Alright_Computer]

Rolling Stone actually has a few interesting articles every once in a while. Plus the lists are often pretty good. I hate Pitchfork SO much because it's pretentious, condescending, and closed-minded, and I even like Radiohead.

[instantdeath999]

I haven't read either one of them. Is that good or bad?

[afterstasis]

I haven't read either one of them. Is that good or bad?

you're not missing much.

[Runesmith]

Pitchfork, hands down. Hipsters...*head shakes*

[Alright_Computer]

The fact that Rolling Stone is losing saddens me.

A magazine that lost its relevancy and sold out a long time ago is still better than a magazine full of hipster elitist douchebags.

[afterstasis]

i'm not sure i've ever talked to a bonafide hipster...
i just see them on the internet and i used to wade through their posts on hipinion.

does tennessee even have hipsters?

[Alright_Computer]

i'm not sure i've ever talked to a bonafide hipster...
i just see them on the internet and i used to wade through their posts on hipinion.

does tennessee even have hipsters?

If Tennessee has coffee shops, chances are they have hipsters. Also, the ratio of hipsters to normal person (H:NP) goes up dramatically if you have one or more university in your town.

As a college student myself who likes an latte now and then, I unfortunately know this.

[afterstasis]

If Tennessee has coffee shops, chances are they have hipsters. Also, the ratio of hipsters to normal person (H:NP) goes up dramatically if you have one or more university in your town.

As a college student myself who likes an latte now and then, I unfortunately know this.

of course i've run into snobs, pretentious types, and fashionable turds who know nothing about the bands they're name-dropping but i always thought a hipster was more or less someone who blatently and proudly follows trends, makes snobbery/ignorance into a statement, and so on...

i hate coffee, by the way. yuck.

[Hamsterhitman]

I like Rolling Stone. Yes, their lists are sort of... flawed, but I think they back up their arguments well and have some interesting stuff. Never read Pitchfork.

[Hizaki]

of course i've run into snobs, pretentious types, and fashionable turds who know nothing about the bands they're name-dropping but i always thought a hipster was more or less someone who blatently and proudly follows trends, makes snobbery/ignorance into a statement, and so on...

I think hipsters are more the ones who actively try to find something before it's a trend so that they can go around talking about how they liked it when it was underground before it was popular and then seem hip when the popularity grows. And if you read Pitchfork, nearly everything they rate well is not popular in any way, shape, or form; making it lovable for hipsters.

[defenestrater]

Which Bjork album did Pitchfork give a 9.9? I'm not saying she's perfect, but I wouldn't fault a critic for giving Debut, Post, or Homogenic ridiculously high ratings.

I don't care for Rolling Stone or Pitchfork, but I'll occasionally read Pitchfork simply because sometimes they can be kind of funny. They're both a little too impressed with themselves to take seriously though.

[Hungryfreak]

I say Rolling Stone, if only for the fact that they've become one of the most relied on source of music reviews by the unknowing public. They rate Jonas Brothers albums higher than things like Number of the Beast.

[wrldindstries302]

Pitchfork reviews are usually too long and rambling, but 9 times out of 10 their general number rating is pretty accurate.


They berated Muse's HAARP and Black Holes and Revelations

they gave it a pretty good rating.


And if you read Pitchfork, nearly everything they rate well is not popular in any way, shape, or form; making it lovable for hipsters.

http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/article/record_review/38447-justin-timberlake-futuresex-lovesounds

http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/article/record_review/43672-the-white-stripes-icky-thump

http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/article/record_review/45490-kanye-west-graduation

http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/article/record_review/19968-modest-mouse-good-news-for-people-who-love-bad-news

http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/article/record_review/50566-nine-inch-nails-the-slip

[Alright_Computer]

^They gave Justin Timberlake an EIGHT?!?! I hate Pitchfork even more now.

[thedoorsdk]

Pitchfork reviews are usually too long and rambling, but 9 times out of 10 their general number rating is pretty accurate.


So Vampire Weekend deserved an 8.8?
That review is the perfect example of why Pitchfork is nothing but indie kids jerking eachother off.

[wrldindstries302]

^They gave Justin Timberlake an EIGHT?!?! I hate Pitchfork even more now.

Have you listened to that album?

Seriously it's probably the best (mainstream) pop album of the last 10 years.


So Vampire Weekend deserved an 8.8?
That review is the perfect example of why Pitchfork is nothing but indie kids jerking eachother off.


Pitchfork reviews are usually too long and rambling, but 9 times out of 10 their general number rating is pretty accurate.




Also, I forgot to mention in my first post that you may not like their reviews but as a news & media site they are second to none. They have interviews practically every day, they cover a wide range of bands for tours, new albums, and info in general, and they have a great mp3/video section. Pitchfork.tv is ****ing awesome.

[defenestrater]

^They gave Justin Timberlake an EIGHT?!?! I hate Pitchfork even more now.

Getting an eight in Pitchfork is like getting four stars someplace else, and four stars seems reasonable to me for that album. There's nothing wrong with pop music when its well made.

[Runesmith]

Have you listened to that album?

Seriously it's probably the best (mainstream) pop album of the last 10 years.


I'm gonna lose my street cred when I say this, but I agree with you. Pop music is not a crime, especially when it's edgy.

[Hizaki]

they gave it a pretty good rating.

6.5 and 4.2 are not positive ratings.

[defenestrater]

6.5 and 4.2 are not positive ratings.

Well you're half right. On a scale of one to ten a 6.5 works out to above average, which is certainly positive, and pretty generous when the reviewer is clearly of the school of thought that says live albums are unessential.

Also I noticed they gave Showbiz a 6.7 which is pretty decent for such a mediocre release. So for the three Muse releases that Pitchfork has reviews for two are positive. Clearly they like Muse, just not as much as you do. What's the problem? :p

[Alright_Computer]

Getting an eight in Pitchfork is like getting four stars someplace else, and four stars seems reasonable to me for that album. There's nothing wrong with pop music when its well made.

Four stars is a bit much, but frankly, I'm not sure how they could give Timberlake an 8 while giving plenty of respectable other albums much less than that. Most of the time, I wonder if they even listen to the music before writing the reviews instead of writing it completely on bias.

[DesiredFX]

I agree with SPIN. They cornered the market on pretentious years ago when they decided their readers, instead of wanting to hear information about the band, would prefer to hear the writer's experiences of hanging out with and interviewing the band.

[Hizaki]

Well you're half right. On a scale of one to ten a 6.5 works out to above average, which is certainly positive, and pretty generous when the reviewer is clearly of the school of thought that says live albums are unessential.

Also I noticed they gave Showbiz a 6.7 which is pretty decent for such a mediocre release. So for the three Muse releases that Pitchfork has reviews for two are positive. Clearly they like Muse, just not as much as you do. What's the problem?

The average Pitchfork rating is 6.7. Ergo, 6.5 is below average, and 6.7 is merely average. Showbiz maybe the weakest album, but it is not average.

[defenestrater]

The average Pitchfork rating is 6.7. Ergo, 6.5 is below average, and 6.7 is merely average. Showbiz maybe the weakest album, but it is not average.

I think the fact that Pitchfork hands out a lot of 6.7's says that either they find most music they come across to be of above average quality, or that their reviewers are lazy when it comes to handing out a numerical score (which is probably more likely).

I don't think it means they're using a scale of measurement that places average quality work at a seemingly random number like 6.7. Especially when common sense for a ten point system is to place middling material right in the middle of the scale.

We'll have to agree to disagree about Showbiz. Muse is an awesome band but I still find that cd to be aggressively mediocre.

[wrldindstries302]

The average Pitchfork rating is 6.7. Ergo, 6.5 is below average, and 6.7 is merely average. Showbiz maybe the weakest album, but it is not average.

That review is in line with what other reviewers gave the album. You're just upset because they don't love Muse as much as you do.

Muse is a good band, but they're nowhere near the best, and Muse on Showbiz is quite clearly a band trying to remake OK Computer.

[Alright_Computer]

Muse is a good band, but they're nowhere near the best, and Muse on Showbiz is quite clearly a band trying to remake OK Computer.

Which is probably why they liked it so much, over their more original later albums.

Also, the average score per Metacritic of Black Holes and Revelations was 7.5, a whole point above Pitchfork's. By that measure, they certainly didn't rate it accurately.

[afterstasis]

guys, there are so many better reasons to hate pitchfork than their point-ratings for albums.

[Grimlouis]

I'ts like videogame magazines, sometimes i wonder if the reviewer actually enjoy video games.

[Alright_Computer]

guys, there are so many better reasons to hate pitchfork than their point-ratings for albums.

Completely true. Stupid hipsters...

[Hizaki]

I think the fact that Pitchfork hands out a lot of 6.7's says that either they find most music they come across to be of above average quality, or that their reviewers are lazy when it comes to handing out a numerical score (which is probably more likely).

I don't think it means they're using a scale of measurement that places average quality work at a seemingly random number like 6.7. Especially when common sense for a ten point system is to place middling material right in the middle of the scale.

It may seem random, but average is a numerical calculation. It takes into account all the ratings they've meted out, and from that it averages out to 6.7, which means that they actually rate more positively than the average person, and something below that average of 6.7, while most likely above average for the average person, is not above average for them. Consider a movie critic who hates every movie put out with ridiculous zeal. If he were to say a movie were average, it would be far different than a normal moviegoers concept of average, because the relative scale is different.


That review is in line with what other reviewers gave the album. You're just upset because they don't love Muse as much as you do.

Muse is a good band, but they're nowhere near the best, and Muse on Showbiz is quite clearly a band trying to remake OK Computer.

Quite obviously an ad hominem attack. I never said I was upset or complaining about their rating, merely that they berated it, which is just an observation, in the same way that I can say certain music enthusiasts harshly dislike the band KISS without either agreeing or disagreeing, or offering support in the positive or negative direction, it is just a statement. I never expressed any problem or insult, I actually said that despite ranting about how much they disliked it, it was funny. And with whatever numerical comparison you want to use with Metacritic or whatever, anyone who can read and actually process information can understand from the review of Black Holes and Revelations that they did not like it. All the words they post support this fact.

And while vaguely related, Radiohead Muse and too dissimilar for comparison. Surely, Pitchfork loves to do it, but being a part of a similar genre, or "sounding like they're ripping it off" isn't always a valid means for comparison, in the same way that Black Sabbath isn't often compared to Dethklok, despite the fact they're both metal, or that Coheed and Cambria isn't compared to Iron Maiden despite the fact Coheed has says that they "really like them."

[Buneroid]

Rolling Stone ftl.

[defenestrater]

It may seem random, but average is a numerical calculation. It takes into account all the ratings they've meted out, and from that it averages out to 6.7, which means that they actually rate more positively than the average person, and something below that average of 6.7, while most likely above average for the average person, is not above average for them. Consider a movie critic who hates every movie put out with ridiculous zeal. If he were to say a movie were average, it would be far different than a normal moviegoers concept of average, because the relative scale is different.


Determining an average is a numerical calculation but it has nothing to do with looking at a given scale of measurement and saying "this spot right here is the middle of the scale, therefore we should put middling, or average quality work right here." I guess it depends if you're using the word average in a numerical sense, or in a sense pertaining to quality. We're clearly working with two separate definitions of the word here. I'm sure we can all agree that arguing these kind of semantics any further is going to be pretty boring for everyone involved, and I think afterstasis has a good point that there's better reasons to be annoyed with Pitchfork so I'll drop the subject. :D

[Hizaki]

Determining an average is a numerical calculation but it has nothing to do with looking at a given scale of measurement and saying "this spot right here is the middle of the scale, therefore we should put middling, or average quality work right here." I guess it depends if you're using the word average in a numerical sense, or in a sense pertaining to quality. We're clearly working with two separate definitions of the word here. I'm sure we can all agree that arguing these kind of semantics any further is going to be pretty boring for everyone involved, and I think afterstasis has a good point that there's better reasons to be annoyed with Pitchfork so I'll drop the subject.

I can agree with that.

[TopazDolphin]

Rolling Stone
Form: Magazine
Founded: 1967
Offenses: Dismissing albums that end up being extremely popular and well-received as well as retroactively altering reviews of these albums, utter bias for anything over 30 years old, completely ignoring hard rock and heavy metal during their emergence, straying away from a focus on music.


Oh, wow. I used to love Rolling Stone, but that's just not proper journalism. Then again, what is "proper journalism"?

The magazine's also getting a little too political. Nothing wrong with a dose of social issues, but they're overdoing it.

The cincher for me was when the Jonas Brothers appeared on the cover. At the bookstore I work at, we couldn't keep the dang thing in stock. It irked me to no end, it was like the Twilight on EW's cover thing... good Lord. *facepalm*


And that's why I switched to Blender. I just ignore their stupid covers... <_<;
at least those guys review music and do it with sarcasm!

[Gowienczyk]

Pitchfork > Rolling Stone


Fact.

[Alright_Computer]

Pitchfork > Rolling Stone


Opinion.

There, fixed it for you.

[Nourez]

RS is annoying in that they don't stick to their original verdicts when albums become popular. But it's not nearly as bad as Pitchfork Media. If a review is the same a comparison to other media, then I must have been failing english for the few years. Honestly, if you are a totally unknown indie band, they give you sympathy points, and if you aren't, they're complaining about how you aren't Radiohead (Hands down, the most overrated band EVER). Add to that the only is the stupidity of their content. I mean, they complained that Green Day sounded middle aged on Bullet in a Bible and American Idiot. Did they not get the memo? All the members of Green Day are, believe it or not, MIDDLE AGED! They then state the amazing. Green Day fans will like this album. No really??? Fans of a band liking an album by that band. Top that off with all of their POINTLESS metaphors, and we have the most pointlessly biased music review site ever. If I had to pick a site for reviews, I would either go for AbsolutePunk or AMG. APs never been the most accurate review source, but they exceed in their community ratings. AMG is great in that it tends to have the reviewers review albums in the mindset of someone who would like the genre, not to the extent of reviewing in the mindset of a fan of a band. This is great as most people won't be looking up New Wave reviews if all they listen to is punk.

[instantdeath999]

Guys, no need to fight. They're both terrible.


I'ts like videogame magazines, sometimes i wonder if the reviewer actually enjoy video games.

I feel the same way, especially about video game magazines.

*sits down

"Okay, let see all the flaws I can find with this game".

[wrldindstries302]

RS is annoying in that they don't stick to their original verdicts when albums become popular. But it's not nearly as bad as Pitchfork Media. If a review is the same a comparison to other media, then I must have been failing english for the few years. Honestly, if you are a totally unknown indie band, they give you sympathy points, and if you aren't, they're complaining about how you aren't Radiohead (Hands down, the most overrated band EVER). Add to that the only is the stupidity of their content. I mean, they complained that Green Day sounded middle aged on Bullet in a Bible and American Idiot. Did they not get the memo? All the members of Green Day are, believe it or not, MIDDLE AGED! They then state the amazing. Green Day fans will like this album. No really??? Fans of a band liking an album by that band. Top that off with all of their POINTLESS metaphors, and we have the most pointlessly biased music review site ever. If I had to pick a site for reviews, I would either go for AbsolutePunk or AMG. APs never been the most accurate review source, but they exceed in their community ratings. AMG is great in that it tends to have the reviewers review albums in the mindset of someone who would like the genre, not to the extent of reviewing in the mindset of a fan of a band. This is great as most people won't be looking up New Wave reviews if all they listen to is punk.

First of all, they did not complain that they sounded middle aged. They said that their old songs don't sound right coming from guys their age, and that their new music isn't up to par, two very valid points. But they gave American Idiot a good review (not to mention Nimrod and Kerplunk), so I don't know what you're complaining about. They closed the Bullet In A Bible review not by stating that Green Day fans will like it, but by saying that the new fans that came from American Idiot's success will buy it, not even knowing they're listening to a band well past its prime.

It's not anymore biased than any other review site. Can't you folks think of any better examples? The problem is most of you that hate it so much aren't using it for what it's intended to be, which is an indie music review site. Even the fact that people are saying they only like "unknown" bands shows that you shouldn't be going to the site. If anything, they tend to really like more mainstream indie (stuff like New Pornographers, Of Montreal, Spoon, Shins, Modest Mouse, etc.). Stop bringing up examples of them saying that bad mainstream albums are bad just for the sake of pointing out they don't like mainstream stuff. It's not even hard to point out specific instances of bad reviewing (Louis XIV and Jet spring to mind).

Anyway, I'd rather a music review site be bad because they always compare music acts to other music acts than be bad because they say that the band would be better if they had more songs about liberal propaganda.