Pitchfork Scandal

I am with you on number 3. If too much creed is taken with their reviews, you need to step back and realize, it's just a review, not a ticket to fame for the band. If the labels are stupid enough to give them money, good for them, they need to pay the bills some how. As for PF, I stopped reading their reviews a long time ago. I would rather read reviews that do not rely on a rating system.

Great website, by the way. I've been a regular reader since I found you.

Funny, I always thought Pitchfork reviewers went out of their way to denigrate artists they think are too big for their britches.

Or maybe that was their way of getting back at labels/artists who didn't pay Pitchfork's bills.

In response to your #2; of course the ads are going to be consistent with the best-of list. If site A gives my album a good rating and site B gives it a bad rating, I am going to advertise my album on site A.

Secondly, you say that any site with ads from the labels cannot be 100% legit. Most pitchfork writers have no contact with Pitchfork itself. They just write their review, and then email it off to Chicago. Do you really think that because certain labels advertise on the site, the site will call up a writer and tell him what opinion to take on that label's album?

The thing is, there are a high number of lesser-known publications that would just love to see Pitchfork go to shit. After all, why wouldnt they? Pitchfork rules the indie music landscape. Whenever any organization gets too much power, things like this happen.

I strongly doubt that Pitchfork is up to anything like they are being accused of. First of all, no label would pay for high album ratings. Secondly, I think that P-fork does a nice job of giving high ratings to innovative, deserving bands.