Here's a quandry for all of you/us ~
A label leaks a single early, to generate momentum for a new release. Pitchfork lists said single as "BEST NEW TRACK"....then a few months later, gives the album a poor review. Interesting....kinda like saying that the sample of the food was delicious, but the rest of the exact same food was not.
Rather than subscribe to the Rolling Stone model where a reviewer builds a following of their own, I'm confidant that Pitchfork purposefully assigns reviews to a broad spectrum of writers, so that one writer will not form a cult of personality around themselves....which I think is quite good, actually, but....I'm confused as to how they justify a BEST NEW TRACK on an album that was reviewed poorly on their site.
I like some of their writers but I find it's best to never think of the opinions expressed on that site to be attributed to Pitchfork. The thought of Pitchfork as this single entity of criticism is what makes their whole vibe pretty douchey.
ReplyDeleteI've always found it useful to be able to follow a particular writer's criticism. Knowing their likes, dislikes, and quirks allows me to be a better judge of whether I need to check out the album, regardless of if the reviewer actually likes it or not.
ReplyDeleteone great track does not a great album make
ReplyDelete