How do they act like snobs? Is it because they generally use colorful vocabulary? Or is it because they give a lot of "mainstream" artists bad reviews (which they deserve 99% of the time)?

I do not think it is the actual site that is the problem, just the majority of the people who pop up who just agree with everything... instead of just coming to their own conclusions, they seem to just agree with everybody elses.

I do not get that type of thing, like people who won't go to a movie cause Roger Ebert said it sucked.

I just look at that site as a source of entertainment. some of their stuff is well written, and reeks of retro teenage angst a lot of the time. It is like a review site for the jaded, made by the jaded.

I do not mind Pitchfork, but I find 99% of people who I have met who frequent it obnxious.

Maybe it's because they're guilty of what so many other music reviewers are; getting behind an artist just so they can be remembered as the source that broke the artist through. Not as bad about this as NME, per se, but still. They also try to appeal to a certain audience, which I guess is ok if you're the audience they reach out to. Plus, one need only look at a Brent DiCrescenzo review to see why pitchfork is trash.

allmusic is the one and only professional review site I trust remotely, and even then they can be a bit loopy. Sometimes their scores and reviews don't match up at all, probably has something to do with how ridiculously large a database they have.

Oh and I love people who equate reading reviews to jeopardizing your personal tastes. I don't know about you but I have enough self control to read critics' reviews and not let them decide for me whether I like something or not. Mostly I use them to discover music I haven't yet heard anyways.

I occasionally go to sputnikmusic or amazon when considering to look at an album. Gives you a more accurate idea of how the album is by the number of viewers who contribute to those sites.