-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Pitchfork slate Halsey's new album. She responds by wishing their building collapses. That building? One World Trade Center, NYC
- Thread starter painey
- Start date
Actually Pitchfork puts on the best music festival in Chicago each summer. Pretty good for an amateur organization considering they go against Lollapalooza, which has become stale and stagnant.
Pitchfork music fest had Charli XCX and Robyn back to back last year. They did that.
Yeah, im not saying they are. Im saying thats what her joke is implying.
Pitchfork does indeed suck though....and I'm sure she doesn't literally wish for the actual World Trade Center to collapse.
I hope people realize that they don't have to blow this out of proportion or make a show of how incensed they are.
Really funny, but hopefully no one is actually angry at her.
This too.
As always Pitchfork can eat the pavement, they're not as awful as they once were and they've done good things but jeez are there a 1000 other, much superior resources for music reviews, news and discussion. It was an honest mistake from Halsey but the biggest L for her was responding to a review at all, it's always the wrong choice.
If you want some Pitchfork laughs, this video is fun -
On that note, Crash also reviewed Halsey's new album and I pretty much agree with everything he said -
If you want some Pitchfork laughs, this video is fun -
On that note, Crash also reviewed Halsey's new album and I pretty much agree with everything he said -
I don't care if it was a joke or not, you don't wish that the fucking WTC collapses because they gave your shitty album a 6.5. I don't even know how you can come back from something that evil, professionally or personally.
Pitchfork sucks, Halsey sucks for jokingly wishing a place that gave her an ok review to collapse š¤·āāļø
Yeah I dislike the publication/reviews but the festival and concerts they help setup are great
Honest mistake.
Also, Pitchfork pretty much specialised in elevating amophous pop this decade, so maybe they panicked and picked an album at random to relive the "serious" 6.8 glory days.
Also, Pitchfork pretty much specialised in elevating amophous pop this decade, so maybe they panicked and picked an album at random to relive the "serious" 6.8 glory days.
Total non-story. That said, the only good tracks on this thing are Graveyard, 3 AM and 929. The rest is just empty sentiment with cutesy production meant for mood boards sang with the same "Blink-182 but make it a woman" inflection that she's been milking since Hopeless Fountain Kingdom.
Pitchfork Gives Music 6.8
Music, a mode of creative expression consisting of sound and silence expressed through time, was given a 6.8 out of 10 rating in an review published Monday on Pitchfork Media, a well-known music-criticism website. According to the review, authored by Pitchfork editor-in-chief Ryan Schreiber, the popular medium that predates the written word shows promise but nonetheless "leaves the listener wanting more."
"Music's first offering, an eclectic, disparate, but mostly functional compendium of influences from 5000 B.C. to present day, hints that this trend's time may not only have fully arrived, but is already on the wane," Schreiber wrote. "If music has any chance of keeping our interest, it's going to have to move beyond the same palatable but predictable notes, meters, melodies, tonalities, atonalities, timbres, and harmonies."
"Music used to be great, but let's be honest, it's a 6.8 now at best," said Los Angeles resident Lowell Radler, 23, who admitted that he just looked at the rating rather than reading the whole review. "I seriously might never listen to music again."
Music, a mode of creative expression consisting of sound and silence expressed through time, was given a 6.8 out of 10 rating in an review published Monday on Pitchfork Media, a well-known music-criticism website. According to the review, authored by Pitchfork editor-in-chief Ryan Schreiber, the popular medium that predates the written word shows promise but nonetheless "leaves the listener wanting more."
"Music's first offering, an eclectic, disparate, but mostly functional compendium of influences from 5000 B.C. to present day, hints that this trend's time may not only have fully arrived, but is already on the wane," Schreiber wrote. "If music has any chance of keeping our interest, it's going to have to move beyond the same palatable but predictable notes, meters, melodies, tonalities, atonalities, timbres, and harmonies."
"Music used to be great, but let's be honest, it's a 6.8 now at best," said Los Angeles resident Lowell Radler, 23, who admitted that he just looked at the rating rather than reading the whole review. "I seriously might never listen to music again."
Pitchfork is owned by Conde Nast, there's nothing amateur about it.
I had no clue that's where Pitchfork was. One could easily assume it's behind a vegan restaurant in Portland.
Pitchfork is and always has been trash. I remember some people online were exposing how a lot of their scores and reviews are basically payola. If you kiss their ass and provide free early copies of records and things like free concert tickets you'll probably at least get a 7 lol. Every review is just masturbatory ego stroking word salad.
6.5 ain't bad for Pitchfork.
Pitchfork is and always has been trash. I remember some people online were exposing how a lot of their scores and reviews are basically payola. If you kiss their ass and provide free early copies of records and things like free concert tickets you'll probably at least get a 7 lol. Every review is just masturbatory ego stroking word salad.
6.5 ain't bad for Pitchfork.
That was my first thought. For an established artist, a 6.5 is probably about average. Seems Pitchfork does 0-5.9 for bad albums, 6-8 for solid albums from established artists, and 8.1-10 for great debuts and classic albums from artists.
As a frame of reference:
Newest Charli XCX - 7.8
Newest Taylor Swift - 7.1
Newest Banks - 6.5
Newest Carly Rae Jepsen - 7.3
Newest Lizzo - 6.5
So a bit on the low side, but not terrible.
Last edited:
Isn't Pitchfork the place that has one person write the review and then another person assigns the points?
That would explain the difference in score relative to the tone of the tweet.
That would explain the difference in score relative to the tone of the tweet.