Pitchfork.com

bronsd11 said:

Pitchfork is undeniably the most influential music site today, and just might go down as the most influential ever. I remember reading an article about how a single "Best New Music" can lead to a band signing million dollar deals and receiving $10,000+ for a show just based off that ONE review [EDIT: I believe they were referencing that after the Weeknd's "House of Balloons" got a high score, he was being offered thousands of dollars just to play one show]. The site hosts their own music festival in two different continents, while they also have their own sponsored stages at other major festivals (Primavera, SXSW, etc.). To act like Pitchfork is irrelevant is ignorant. They are arguably the most popular trendsetting website, period.

With that said, everyone knows the site isn't perfect. I mean, jesus, what would YOU do with that much power? They are literally molding people's artistic tastes because of their recommendations. That's a lot of power. & I truthfully believe that Pitchfork tries to remain impartial and give the music they actually like "high scores" and the music they dislike "low scores", just as you & everyone else would likely do. I really would hate to think that they take bribes or money to help promote particular acts with good scores & more news coverage, but that doesn't really sound all that unlikely either. As it stands currently, Pitchfork covers some great, sometimes challenging music. I don't agree with about 50% of the things they say, but their eye for talent is undeniable. And truthfully, if it wasn't for Pitchfork, I likely wouldn't have stumbled into some of my favorite bands of all time.

Click to expand...

sharky said:

this. but the sad part is most of the dudes writing for pitchfork i'm gonna guess are white indie music lovers. so when it comes to hip hop they gain an authority that i don't think they deserve.

Click to expand...

bronsd11 said:

Pitchfork is undeniably the most influential music site today, and just might go down as the most influential ever. I remember reading an article about how a single "Best New Music" can lead to a band signing million dollar deals and receiving $10,000+ for a show just based off that ONE review [EDIT: I believe they were referencing that after the Weeknd's "House of Balloons" got a high score, he was being offered thousands of dollars just to play one show]. The site hosts their own music festival in two different continents, while they also have their own sponsored stages at other major festivals (Primavera, SXSW, etc.). To act like Pitchfork is irrelevant is ignorant. They are arguably the most popular trendsetting website, period.

With that said, everyone knows the site isn't perfect. I mean, jesus, what would YOU do with that much power? They are literally molding people's artistic tastes because of their recommendations. That's a lot of power. & I truthfully believe that Pitchfork tries to remain impartial and give the music they actually like "high scores" and the music they dislike "low scores", just as you & everyone else would likely do. I really would hate to think that they take bribes or money to help promote particular acts with good scores & more news coverage, but that doesn't really sound all that unlikely either. As it stands currently, Pitchfork covers some great, sometimes challenging music. I don't agree with about 50% of the things they say, but their eye for talent is undeniable. And truthfully, if it wasn't for Pitchfork, I likely wouldn't have stumbled into some of my favorite bands of all time.

Click to expand...

Black Jerry Maguire said:

pitchfork is irrelevant for hip hop

Click to expand...

bronsd11 said:

I think we have differing ideas of "irrelevant" then. Their co-signs of Lil B, Odd Future & Curren$y have helped their popularities so much, especially Lil B. They also helped break Das Racist, Action Bronson, & tons of others get a lot more national attention and coverage. Are you saying you just think they don't know what good hip hop is? Because you can't just say their opinion on hip hop is wrong because YOU believe it. It's an opinion. You may not like their opinion, but how does that make them irrelevant? They're still setting off tons of rap careers, even if they don't get play on urban/mainstream radio.

Click to expand...

Black Jerry Maguire said:

Oh i'm sorry Das Racist is relevant now? Pitchfork did not help kick start Currensy's career . Odd Future blew up from that Jimmy Fallon show. No hip hop head takes Pitchfork seriously, just like we don't take random newspaper reviews seriously. And i'm interested to hear which "tons" of successful/influential rappers had their careers started by a Pitchfork Review.

Click to expand...

bronsd11 said:

First of all, I think you're misunderstanding me. I never said "What Pitchfork says is law, and they know what is good." I said they're influential and yes, important. They're important because what they say in their reviews has impact in the world (whether you want to believe it or not).

Das Racist is relevant, you kidding? Obviously they're relevant enough to go on a full-scale tour and play major music festivals across the country. They are popular enough to be playing bigger venues than Kendrick Lamar is at this point (headlining shows, that is). & they have some finest wordplay in rap music. I love Kendrick too, but if you think Das Racist shouldn't be taken seriously, then god damn, who should?!

I never said they MADE Curren$y popular. But they definitely opened him up to a newer audience. When I saw Curren$y, he had a predominately white crowd. You don't think that crowd was somehow influenced by the nonstop Curren$y coverage Pitchfork had in 2010? Of course it did. & for Odd Future, Pitchfork was covering them long before the Jimmy Fallon show. "Bastard" was in their top albums of 2010. Sheesh.

Also, I'm a hip hop head and take Pitchfork seriously. I find Lil B insufferable and also disagree with their views on Waka Flocka, but that doesn't mean they're irrelevant.

Click to expand...