The Village Voice has the most half-baked stream-of-consciousness rock criticism I've ever read. Here's a vote for Pitchfork.

Rob Harvilla is a former Pitchfork writer.

I'm glad someone finally realized how shitty and arrogant a site Pitchfork really is, but I agree with the last poster. The Voice blows too, they've been elitist pricks for like the past 30 years.
They practicaly invented the "Indie Rock Snobbery" they claim to despise. Meanwhile, Pitchfork has the audacity to talk about how "indie" they are, yet they just reviewed the new Pearl Jam LP! They're about as "indie and hip" as Starbucks. There's 50,000 Records released every year, and Pitchfork reviews roughly 960 a year, (at 20 a week) and they have the audacity to NOT Review SELF-released albums, or they do at the rate of "2 a year" according to one of their writers. We need more music sites out there. To get on Pitchfork you need Argyle, you need to be able to 'barely play your instrument', you need to be on Subpop and/or live in a van playing to 30 or 40 hipsters a night. They know about music like Britney Spears knows about raising a kid. IE not much. ;)

Yeah, but just like Britney, they've got a great pair of tits.

the voice's music critiques are bad, but their film reviews are the biggest joke of all. it's as if the writers get paid per thesaurus use and obscure reference.

Um, deb, calm down.

First off, when has anyone from Pitchfork ever talked about how indie they are? Secondly, Pitchfork also reviews albums by Radiohead, who can pretty much sell out any huge stadium in the world. Also, you criticize them for reviewing an album by Pearl Jam, but then turn around and claim that to be reviewed on Pitchfork, you have to "live in a van playing to 30 or 40 hipsters a night." Well, which is it?

And why should they review more self-released albums? Is it really a display of audacity that they don't? How many serious book critics review self-released books? Have you ever thought about the fact that a lot of bands that self-release albums are not on labels because they are just not making very interesting music?

Pitchfork welcomed a refreshing change to a lot of the music zines that were being published through the years that basically gave a free pass to every band or label that sent them an album to review. Pitchfork came along and was willing to suck the piss out of all that. Ryan also had the foresight to devlop a model (i.e., devoting a site to indie rock) that has now been ripped off all over the place. You can't blame Pitchfork for influencing the music industry in a way that no other web site, magazine or blog can match righ now.

keep in mind that the more you mention Pfork, the more money it ultimately makes, as its business model is completely dependent upon site hits stemming from word-of-mouth mentions of the site and its reviews

if you really hated Pfork, you wouldn't mention it at all, and you can't complain that the site keeps thriving, as you're part of the reason why.
I hate liver, but i don't go around telling everyone i know and posting on the internet about how much i hate it

"keep in mind that the more you mention Pfork, the more money it ultimately makes, as its business model is completely dependent upon site hits stemming from word-of-mouth mentions of the site and its reviews"

Yeah, I bet there are a LOT of people reading Brooklyn Vegan who have NEVER heard of Pitchfork before.

Get real.

Harvilla did Pitchfork news-reporting for a while, and he ended up doing one album review (the last Blood Brothers album). About a million freelancers write or have written for both the Voice and the Fork. As far as Voice writers go, I get the feeling that Christgau has more of an issue with Pitchfork than anyone else. Oh, and they both fired my boy Nick. I'm happy to generate incomprehensible and pretentious bricks of text for anyone who can pay my bar tab.

Z misses bigger pictures

Suck my taint.

Suck my taint.

why do you assume I hate Pitchfork?

Look. PFork is the ultimate love it or hate it because its subjective material! Are they guilty of blowhardedness and crafting creative writing pieces under the pretense of an album review? Yep, sure are.

This doesn't change the fact that the consistency and regularity of every single day there being new music to read about on Pfork.com is a wonderful value to music fans.

As for the major/indie/unsigned/whatever points, and I use points very lightly, who cares? I'm sick to death with fans knocking bands on majors like Tool or Pearl Jam and then professing undying love for Radiohead. You can't have it both ways.

The "sell out" or "major" vs "indie" distinctions are dated, irrelevant and nothing more than a great way to have a circular arguement.

We get it, not everyone likes the same music. Get over it.

that bit above about "giving a free pass" to every band who sumbitted to local zines...pitchfork sucking the piss out of that."
you SUPPORT this idea?
who gives YOU the right, while claiming to be supportive of the meritocracy model, to assume that bands shouldn't have the right to be exposed in local media (that they often help support)?
this free pass you talk about- at odds with how self-released bands aren't making interesting music-
there are MANY self-released bands making way more interesting music than on VICE or 679 or whatever the fuck is coolest at the time.
where's the meritocracy in that?
couldn't afford 3 months of pr? actually spent money on living rather than a lifestyle?

you, you pretentious fuck, are the prime reason why the attitude of apapthy surrounding the demise of independent music culture has died in the very place it helped build.
there's no independent bands getting anywhere in nyc.
if they do, it's a fluke. and don't reference that CYHSY bullshit. everyone knows the backstory on that "no PR miracle" that pitchfork raved about.

once again, you'll take what pitchfork hands you, or even insert *most* of the blogs of mention at the moment, and they all revolve around the same 10 buzz bands.

a. little good music is exposed *(but plenty is made)* and b. how little the 'journalists' seem to know about thier history or music in general.

Most people who regulary read pitchfork come across reviews that infuriate them. I know I have.

But there is no way to make a review that everyone will like. It's impossible.

Consider your music taste over the course of your life. Have your tastes changed? Would you have given a record a great or poor review way back when, and given it a different review today? Of course. So if you can't be consistent with your OWN taste, how can you expect to always agree with a reveiwer who you've never met?

That having been said:

I could do without the creative writing aspect of their reviews.

And yes, sometimes probably the review is more of an allagory on the creative writing skills, and super taste of the reviewer, than about anything else.

And yes, there are massive inconsistencies between various reviewers. What's great for one band is the bad thing in another.

And yes, sometimes a reviewer is clearly out to spite something or someone. I mean, "rush of blood to the head" doescn't "lack memorable songs". Jeez, comon guy. Don't be such a tit.