Tuesday, April 10, 2007

Top 3 Reasons That Pitchfork Should Not Be Taken Seriously

Definitely not the only reasons... Just the top 3.




So completely ridiculous.

Sorry, I don't have a real post for today. I have something planned for tomorrow, though.


Anonymous said...

here, here!

Brittany said...

damn straight!

Oz said...

4) http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/article/record_review/38447/Justin_Timberlake_FutureSex_LoveSounds

Andy said...

My friends and I were discussing Pitchfork recently and came to the agreement that anything they rate around a 5 is pretty kick ass. Anything above that is - more often than not - no good at all.

Anonymous said...

gotta love the pretensious bastards at pitchfork.
"is it from canada?"
"okay, automatic 7 out of 10"
"is it from the south"
"gotta give it 6 or less"
eff pitchfork

Anonymous said...

Pitchfork is full of the most pompous deluded "writers" who write what their reviews because they must read them out loud once completed and say, "oh, I sound so intelligent."

James Jr. said...

Typical. Most of the music mags spend too much time comparing new bands to bands from the past. But when those older bands came out, they got blasted too when compared. In 5 years, we'll be reading pitchfork saying how great KOL was and no one will ever be as good.

Pinball said...

The above review on Coke machine Glow represents how I feel about the album for the most part. I've had the KOL album for the better part of 3 months now and it is an album that I can't seem to untangle. By all accounts it sounds and feels weak alot, but something deep inside me tells me this is a far better album than that. The review hits on a few notes I've been thinking but unable to vocalize. Although the reviewer's reference to Blink 182 does make me question his credibilty.

Anonymous said...

I could NOT agree more that pitchfork should not be taken seriously.
What a douche.

Danielle said...

I completely agree, KOL kick major ass. I came across a real review at Mr. Mughead Review