n.c. wrote:The truly dangerous thing about Pitchfork (and this will probably only be true for another 1-3 years) is that they are seriously shaping the face of music. I don't want to get into why I know this, but a really good Pitchfork reveiw instantly translates into sales and people going out to see the band reveiwed.
Like, a lot.
Don't get me wrong LOTS of other factors play into this. But when Pitchfork gives you anything above an 8.5 you are golden. What other single 'publication' has that effect? Rolling Stone? nope, Spin? nope.
Recently some freinds of mine The Dead Science were reveiwed on Pithcfork and the entire reveiw was about how The Dead Sciene were a Xiu Xiu band. That Xiu Xiu had defined a genre and The Dead Science were a band in that genre. Okay, then they neglect to mention that several members of The Dead Science have played on several Xiu Xiu records and have been in touring line-ups of Xiu Xiu. They also neglect to mention that The Dead Science SOUND ABSOLUTELY NOTHING LIKE XIU XIU. Aside from the fact that they have a singer/guitarist, there are NO similarities in sound.
Anyways, The Dead Science's new record "Frost Giant" is one of my top 5 of the year.
AOL News did an article about this recently. The record i think got the biggest raw deal (or, the "rawest deal") was Travis Morrison's solo album
Travistan. Now, I have not heard this album, and maybe it deserved the 0.0 Pitchfork gave it...but it was essentially dead in the water from day 1 since Pitchfork published their review the day before the record came out. I even saw an ad for a Travis Morrison show that mentioned the 0.0 review! Of course, several writers at Pitchfork probably wrote reviews for the album, and they chose to publish the 0.0 since thats the most sensational, and totally fucked any chance Travis (even if its a bad album) may have had. Blah blah blah beating a dead horse. I'll stop.