Nobody is saying they should "please everybody." What I'm saying is that more often than not their reviewers fail to think for themselves. Too often they hype or pan based on trends -- they follow commonly-held "backlashes" and hype the same-old-same-old, and fall so often into patterns. You can PREDICT their reviews based on what you'd figure any hipster dufus would think. Oh, its the band's second album? BACKLASH TIME, baby. Yawn -- its like reading reviews generated by a "hipster generator".
That's their schtick. If you don't like Big Bird, don't watch Sesame Street.
The big deal is that, as witness by this very thread, lots of people do follow their advice.
I think everybody on this thread actually said they hate pitchfork and don't follow their advice...
That's great when it means checking out new bands. But how many people were steered clear of those great albums they panned and *utterly missed the point*?
Two people? Very, very impressionable people, I might add.
That's when Pitchfork sucks, and that's why I think that they need to up the ante of the reviewers they hire. These ones care too much about hipster cache.
Again, that's like asking Hooters to hire overweight men as waiters.