8.5.06

Pitchfork reviewed

An analysis of 8468 reviews on Pitchforkmedia.com

6 comments:

hein said...

Very interesting. Although I can understand the need to dislike pitchfork, I'm just to old to hate something just because it's popular. Also, I'm pretty sure there aren't more than 20 South Africans reading pitchfork, so whilst it may be a global phenomenon, it certainly ain't a South African one.

You see, I am special in my own little way...

nico said...

Pitchfork is imo still the best way to learn about new music.
I also read the online Stylus Magazine each week. And I check the ILM forums now and then.

Where else do you guys get information on songs to download?

b said...

Interesting exercise, but I don't think it proves much. The only meaningful number is the 6.7 (or what was it) average score. It shows to an extent that their reviews are balanced. But I don't think it can be disuted that they generally review artists that they like, it's not like Celine Dion is under any of they zero-rated albums. But who cares? Their ratings can only ever be interpreted within the universe of artists that they review. Why exactly is Miles Davis reviewed, but not Bruce Springsteen (I assume that is the case), for example? But I'm speaking with very little actual knowledge of the site, so perhaps I'm completely missing something obvious to you guys.

nico said...

They tend to review non-mainstream artists. That's why there's no Celine.

b said...

Yes, but their selections are still heavily filtered by their personal taste.

Anonymous said...

I really enjoyed looking at your site, I found it very helpful indeed, keep up the good work.
»