Deerhunter are alright. I prefer Deerhoof.

for the mighty good reason that they haven't. Arcade Fire receive most of their "journalistic fellatio" from elsewhere. Pitchfork saw Neon Bible as a step down and an inferior record to its predecessor (it got an 8.4).

Radiohead are overhyped across the board. Like your previous example, the Arcade Fire.

The purpose of the thread was to talk about Pitchfork's quite specific pet bands that only really have any recognition at all because of Pitchfork. Bands like Arcade Fire and Radiohead owe very little to Pitchfork and an awful lot to their wider audience.

I didn't. Read the title. "Most mediocre, awful, worst" etc... NOT the "most". Bring on one of *their* bands (rather than bands that are the darlings of all critics), and there'll be a ground for discussing it. I'm sure you don't think Arcade Fire and Radiohead are seriously worse than a pile of steaming poo like Deerhunter.

She's another for whom much of the acclaim lies outside of Pitchfork. Even some staunch prog/art rock oriented critics went mad over Ys.

Yeah. And most it has come from that stupid jackass Brent DiCrescenzo who used to write for them. That guy was the worst reviewer ever.

Rightfully so, too. I think the problem here is Win Butler being overhyped, not Arcade Fire. Rolling Stone had him in a feature article along side Bruce Springsteen for chirst sake. I don't think the comparison fit nor was it necessary.

Didn't he do the Kid A review? Insane man.

It's easier to just agree that anything that gets a good review from Pitchfork is probably gonna get overhyped.

Yeah i agree!

I think y'all are TOTALLY underestimating the degree to which Pitchfork (OFTEN) actually just give good reviews based on what they expect the general level of hype to be from other major critics. The indie critics play off each other in this way. Pitchfork don't exclusively control taste, they are not its sole arbitrators. More than half the time they rate stuff as they expect it to be generally received. This allows them to "get it right", so to speak. Conversely, other indie sites rate stuff according to how they expect Pitchfork to receive it. This is how the indie hype machine works. Follow carefully you will see how this is the plain truth.

On the topic of Brent DiCrescenzo, you might not like what he says but he's an exceptionally skilled music journalist with some of the highest quality writing you are likely to find within the field.

I personally think Fleet Foxes are a derivative (and irritating) pile of poo. That band's a perfect example of the indie hype machine licking its own a$shole. Pitchfork's responsibility for them, again, stops at them merely singing the collective tune.

Yup. I've never seen a reviewer who talked so much about himself in his reviews.

LOL. What? No. I'm sorry but no. He's a terrible writer who spends way too much time coming up with little stories about himself and not enough time actually, you know, reviewing the albums he's supposed to be writing about. Then of course there's the fact he only seems to offer one of two opinions about the music he reviews: it's either a flawless instant classic or it's the worst piece of garbage ever recorded. No middle ground, no nuance whatsoever. I normally don't have particularly strong feelings about reviewers but DiCrescenzo is awful.

I thought the new album was actually good.