Pitchfork
 

POLL! 2 answers, yes or no. When the option comes up, I vote yes! There is absolutely no justification for the hyper-positive criticism directed towards either Deerhunter of Bradford Cox's other project, Atlas Sound (which is much much worse).

They're hyping Deerhunter now?

Thats a shame I quite liked them.

To answer the question i'd say no. I don't listen to a lot of the shit they hype but of what I have heard i'd say Sufjan Stevens is the biggest pile of shit that site is responsible for.

I don't go near Pitchfork so overhyping usually goes over my head.

Spin did some over extensive article on them as well, it wasn't even focused on their music, it was mainly about how awkward Bradford is and how he wears dresses onstage.

I have Cryptograms, nice enough, nothing enormously special though. Yeah, pretty overhyped i'd say.
Are Okkervil River hyped by Pitchfork? I'd give the award to them.

DH are pretty much their pet band for the last 2 years. Anything related immediately gets a best new music nod. I'd say DH owe 90% of their recognition to Pitchfork. I actually don't hate them as much as I made out, but I don't think they're really good enough for the kind of widespread acclaim they've garnered.

I never saw Okkervil as one of Pitchfork's pet bands and believe their recognition has been quite widespread. Also, they're a well good band! You disappoint me, Luke! Have you heard The Stage Names? The lyrical imagery is astounding

Heard a few tracks off of it, wasn't impressed. Just reminds me of the sort of bands you'd find on an OC soundtrack, it's not a good trend. Maybe i'll give them a bit more of a listen.... maybe...

Their new album leaked the other day though, you might be interested to hear.

I'd certainly suggest giving Stage Names a proper go - it unravels its mysteries and deeper qualities slowly but surely. Certainly some of the most profound lyrical imagery I've heard captured in music.

I agree with RJ, Okkervil is a pretty good band and stage names, while not my favorite has held up well for me. It took me awhile to get into the whole lot, but I have to admit I really appreciate their style. Don't put the on the OC PMO please...

Also I have no opinion on Deer Hunter (inside thread joke)

How does Okkervil River sound like a band you'd hear on the OC? They're far too rootsy. Anyway I've never really had a problem with Deerhunter I just don't like them very much.

I saw them live having not heard anything by them. They were all right but didn't really grab me. Plus they were followed by Liars!

Joanna Newsom, someone rip her vocal cords out please.

^Amen.


p.s. end of world soon me and booboo agree on something.

Not only most mediocre but slightly unique and somewhat at the pinnacle of their careers. Whoever Deerhunter is.

I have "Cryptograms" and shit was it overhyped. It's just some band trying to do something unique and it ends up being mediocre and boring. So they are pretty much like all other Pitchfork pet bands out there.

I didn't think it was that overhyped...it got an 8.9, there have been FAR worse albums than "Cryptograms" that have recieved above a 9 on pitchfork.

And nobody mentions the Arcade Fire being overhyped?! I like them but they have recieved by far the most journalistic fellatio by pitchfork since "Funeral". And what about Radiohead? Also overhyped a ridiculous amount by pitchfork. I don't think Cryptograms on the whole is an 8.9 record-the second half definitely is-but to say they are the most overhyped band on pitchfork is absurd.

Fleet Foxes?

Gyah, what? I wasn't aware that they were overhyped by anyone. It is the best record of the year (so far).

It's easily the most hyped album of the year, everyone's banging on about it (not here really though).

I had no Idea it was overhyped...I thought it was ok but not great.

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.

Really good. Post-punk remastered for the 21st century.

Agreed. Also I will be seeing them in Houston in December I'm looking forward to it.

Jesus Christ man, how many bands are you going to knock off in one sitting? Do you have anything GOOD to say about bands that get generally good reviews?

There are indie artists that receive way, way, WAY too much hype for mediocre albums (Band of Horses and My Morning Jacket come to mind as of now), but when good artists like Fleet Foxes and Bon Iver come along you shouldn't automatically reject their music because of some idiotic presumptions you have about listening to what the critics have to say. Fleet Foxes were critically praised across the board, not overhyped by Pitchfork and indie mags. And their debut album was impressive by any standards. If you don't like it, that's fine, but it wasn't fuckin' overhyped by Pitchfork. They gave it a good review, but they stopped short of calling it an American classic (which The Guardian failed to do) and they certainly didn't herald it as an album of the year (which plenty of other sources chose to do).

Please, if you're going to trash these bands, find a legitimate reason -- not your hatred for Pitchfork.

Its really odd, every music site Ive been to everyone ****s all over pitchfork specifically. Maybe its because its probably the biggest indie record review site, but still, I dont get it.

If pitchfork rates an album well, and its a genre Im a big fan of, 98% of the time when I pick up the record, Im not dissapointed. When they give a record a great review and its a genre Im NOT familiar with, I download some stuff first, and then decide whether or not to actively listen to them. Using this system pitchfork rarely fails me (not that I only go to pitchfork for record reviews, mind you, although I feel it is one of the most in tune with my tastes) and I have nothing but praise for a website that introduced me to LCD Soundsystem, Deerhunter, Battles, Art Brut, No Age, and ****tons of more bands I may or may not have winded up listening to.

Yes. All the ones that I like.

Which idiotic presumptions? You probably don't have a clue who you're talking to. I'm practically a PITCHFORK FANBOY~! Get it? FANBOY! I visit the site religiously every working day of the week. I download all of their best new music recommendations. The whole f'cking lot. 90% of my favourite albums in my top 20 for this year I heard about first from Pitchfork. It is my favourite indie music news and reviews site bar none. But if I feel that either THEY or the generality of reviewers get something wrong, then I will goddamn say so.

In fact you misunderstand me to such an extent that the fact is, I'm MORE likely to like something if it DOES get good reviews and IS critically acclaimed. That might be a bad approach, admittedly, but it is how my personality works, and above all it goes to show just how poorly you've managed to judge me on the basis of a mere couple of comments.

I know. That's what I find so abominable. If it were just Pitchfork I probably wouldn't have said anything. It's the point that they have been so widely praised that annoys me so much.

That is, by any low standards.

It was. It received a 9. 9 or above is an extremely rare occurrence on Pitchfork. I should know. I had the geekiness to follow them for so long.

So others hyped it more than Pitchfork did. Whoop-te-do. What does this prove? Only that the indie hype machine's been licking its own a$shole pretty damn ferociously lately.

Seeming as we've now established that your supposed premise of mine was not entirely accurate, I'll end by saying that I DO have a perfectly legitimate reason for trashing Fleet Foxes: it's just not a particularly good album. Good for a debut, maybe. Signs of promise, perhaps. But much good in and of itself? Surrrrre.

That's hard to say.

Although it's pretty obvious I misunderstood why you hated the Fleet Foxes' debut, that's a great way to pigeonhole your tastes in music.

Hmmm... Let me get this straight: You're willing to listen to what Pitchfork says, but when an album is critically acclaimed across the board, you feel it necessary to claim that they suck? Now that's just downright illogical.

That is, by YOUR low standards. You don't represent everyone.

Huh? I think that number is a nine.

The indie hype machine? It was critically acclaimed across the board! Or is that what all music reviews are called now, "the indie hype machine"? I must have missed a memo.

Which is your opinion, and doesn't serve to support any derogatory comments you made.

That is, my tastes in modern indie. I really cannot be arsed to go to all the sites, so if one indie-oriented site captures a fairly broad range of what is coming out, and without any shadow of a doubt Pitchfork does do at least that, then I'm happy with that site. Of course, ultimately if I don't like something then I don't like it, simple as that. But I'll at least give it a good listen.

That's obviously not what I meant. What I'm saying is that if I personally think a record is unspectacular and bad from the get-go, I would not be particularly bothered by just one critic (such as Pitchfork) thinking that it is good. I would be more bewildered and riled at finding that the whole spectrum of music journalists think it's the best thing since sliced bread. And it follows perfectly logically that the wider a certain viewpoint on something, the more worthy it is of being commented on and discussed.

Me claiming that it's a good album by "low" standards is no more presumptuous than your own claim that it is a good album by "any" standards.

Clap clap. Re-read what I wrote. I typed 9. If you have an issue with recognizing that a 9 followed by a period, a space and then a new sentence also beginning with "9" does not equate to 9.9, then you should brush up on your comprehension before trying to expose some error. To make it simpler: a NINE or above is a very rare grade on Pitchfork Media. It is uncommon for any more than say 5 or 6 albums to get that in any one year. It practically guarantees that the album will be in their yearly top 10.

You may or may not be all that familiar with the main body of music journalism these days (I am not judging, I don't know), but you ought to have noticed that reviewers in the main are disproportionately much kinder to indie/alternative music than they are to virtually all else. The compendium site Metacritic provides the best evidence of that. Albums with meta-averages of 80 or more are completely overwhelmingly albums of indie rock/alternative bands. Why is this? It's because the main body of widely-read music journalism these days is fairly heavily indie oriented. When albums like Sound Of Silver and Person Pitch get incredible averages, that's the indie hype machine at work.

Actually, you know what, this is quite a pointless argument. I cannot believe for one single moment that you would deny the existence of the indie hype machine. It basically refers to the collective excitement of indie mags/webzines and their readership about one particular artist or new album, that to a lot of people outside of the readership circle appears to be nothing particularly great, at least not what is being made out. Jackhammer and I, for example, and a number of other people I know, both agreed on The Field's From Here We Go Sublime being way way overhyped by the indie music journalists. Other examples that were discussed by a number of people on these boards earlier on in the year were the Arcade Fire's Neon Bible and LCD Soundsystem's Sound Of Silver, both of which were VERY widely felt to have had their value well exaggerated by the generality of journalists. I'm not sure what you are saying, Sam. Are you making out that I am saying something controversial here, because I assure you that is not the case. People have been sick and tired of the overhype that comes out of indie music journalism for years, and I say that being a person from among the readership.

Let's settle this here and now: what I express is my opinion, and I am entitled to it. If I see fit to speak of an album in highly negative terms, then that's my right. Of course I'm not saying that everybody should agree with me - it's not for you, however, to be telling me that I am doing this, that or the other, throwing all sorts of baseless accusations, when all I'm really doing is: expressing my intense dislike for an album.

What exactly is so great about Fleet Foxes anyway?

A folky jangly indie band , well whoopie f*cking sh*t it must be at least 3 minutes since the last one of those came along.

Exactly, I mean, they're barely even doing anything original within the niche. Far as I'm concerned, "derivative tripe" was an understatement. Hell, I'd rather go round my dad's and listen to America.