>Fantano Appears to care more for the context of an albums creation than any actual artistic merit. Alot of his scores are knee jerk reactions to the legitimacy of the artists motivations. Will also forgo technical and creative achievements if they appear 'pointless' to him. The best example of this is Dark fantasy vs ye/KSG. As for some reason the latter is considered to be a more legitimate artistic statement, despite the complete lack of effort or substance found in these albums. Prone to backpedalling, especially due to the rat race of releasing a review as close to release as possible, its better to backpedal than be stubborn however. Scoring system makes no sense, gives out far too many 7's 8's and 9's.
>Christgau Is more of a culture critic than a music critic, reading his reviews he seldom talks about the actual content but the ethos that goes behind it. Christgau is more in love with rock and roll nostalgia and sentiments than the medium itself. A perfect example of this is his distaste for Tim Buckley and King Crimson (who show full artistic pretension on their sleeve) but his strange love for Nikki Manaj and Elvis (Surely Cultural icons more than any musical merit worth saving). Also, his 'scoring' system is fucking stupid
>Pitchfork As most critical 'journalism' businesses, most of their scores are built around a self made narrative of cultural zeitgeists and what should be considered 'meaningful'. Remaining consistent with your scores is impossible when your work is so fragmented, so they leave their higher ups to give the number score to appear 'consistent'. This is why their reviews (which I believe go often unread, even by fans) read more like think pieces than a actual assessment, and in doing so never actually appear critically consistent despite their best efforts. Ultimately, they are a business who is more interested in PR and clicks than anything else.
>Scaruffi Has an obvious bias against anything that was made after the creation of his website (1999 and onwards). Scaruffi is easily the best of these critics because he is the only one who tries (and for a good portion, succeeds) to be objective, even given the impossibility of doing so. He has numerous strange outliers, but still acknowledges music that he personally doesn't have an enjoyment for (He has been very vocal about his dislike for Bjorks singing, for example). Extra points for being the only critic here whose scoring system isn't complete bunk
John Myers
>succeeds at being objective hahahaha
Evan Gutierrez
Christgau > Pitchfork > Scaruffi > Fantano
Justin Jenkins
where did you find that pic of scarfufi? he looks disgusting, matches his personality
Pretty spot on. Scaruffi has always been my favorite of these (even though he’s a fucking idiot as well) because his opinions are at least interesting and original and well-thought-out a lot of the time. Christgau is all style and no substance - as in, I think he’s a legitimately good writer but he has fucking retarded shit taste like giving Joanna Newsom and Bjork low grades but then giving Cardi B and Taylor Swift like As/A minuses. He’s an enemy to good music as a whole. But if he were a real writer instead of a music critic he’d probably be good
The fact you are even posting about these hacks says that you care about them. Immature teenagers.
Cameron Torres
based
Thomas Stewart
Fuck yeah inb4 pol though
Chase Miller
>caring about what critics say You guys are retarded
Leo Garcia
Friendly reminder that Pitchfork is objectively the best music review site going
Gabriel Johnson
Pretty accurate. I would rank them: Scaruffi > Fantano > Christgau > Pitchfork >Pitchfork ranked higher than anyone Lmao, what are you doing? Scaruffi and Fantano have their flaws, but at least they aren't corporate drones. The hacks who write for pitchfork just mindlessly follow trends. I would rather listen to a random guy on the street than Pitchfork. At least the random guy will give me his honest opinion, whereas Pitchfork only care about selling you a product.
Cooper Fisher
>objectively I'll bite, what makes pitchfork better than Rolling Stone, NME, and all of the other popular music sites?
Jayden Morris
>Pitchfork only care about selling you a product. based. who needs corporate shit
Ayden Gray
It's almost like music is subjective or something
Charles Gomez
Off topic but anyone got that picture of the staring baby with "Yea Forums" that says something like "i let the baby judge my music for me" Think its originally from a gunshow comic
Hudson Brooks
So music thats good by poplar opinion is just seen that way cause of group mentality and/or pure chance? Music quality clearly has a definite objective aspect, which critic is meant to dissect from his subjective experience
Sebastian Morgan
Their 100-point rating system is ridiculous
Landon Sanchez
what "experience" does baldie and that Italian fuck have, i can use my own. it can be interesting to read reviews sure, but i'm never letting them change my opinion on an album or completely deter me from listening to one i had an interest in. nor would i just blindly listen to something i have no interest in just cause some random tells me to
Levi Carter
Scaruffi > Pitchfork when it's one of the few good writers > Fantano like 8 years ago > Christgau > The rest of p4k > Fantano now > Your opinions on music.
Leo Phillips
I think it should be noted that Scaruffi is the only one of the four who hasn't caused damage to music as an artform. Christgau paved the way for poptimism, and Fantano and pitchfork are currently the biggest advocates of poptimism.
Hunter Richardson
Let's get a few things straight:
Comparing your Fantanos/Christgaus/Scaruffis to Pitchfork is autistic because Pitchfork is an army of writers and so they can cover more work in greater depth and detail
Also your assessment of Pitchfork stinks
>critical 'journalism' Pitchfork is music journalism whether you like it or not, don't be a smarmy cunt >a self made narrative of cultural zeitgeists Give evidence — what narrative exactly? What are some of the cultural zeitgeists that comprise this narrative? Just name some for Christ's sake — also every reviewer's career is affected by zeitgeist depending on how they react to it >what should be considered 'meaningful' What should be considered meaningful in your opinion? >Remaining consistent with your scores is impossible Proof please — you're not making any sense, in your ideal world you would have a one-size-fits-all approach to critiquing and appreciating music, albums vary therefore scores vary — Name some staff on Pitchfork who are inconsistent with their scores and give the respective reviews. >they leave their higher ups to give the number score to appear 'consistent' Do you hear yourself? You sound like a conspiracy nut — give proof or fuck off. >their reviews (which I believe go often unread) Textbook use of wild unsubstantiated generalised assumption to segue into your warped agenda — if people aren't reading their stuff why would they introduce a paywall to make it even harder for people to read their stuff? They know lots of people are reading reviews and they know these same people are willing to pay for professional comprehensive and accurate music journalism
Zachary Howard
So how do you find new music? You just pick random things on a streaming service? If you listen to social media, Yea Forums or your friends you are still taking into account someones opinion on an album.
Also I never said anything about changing your opinion, your inserting that in entirely yourself
Truth
Leo Cruz
How much is Condé Nast paying you?
Christopher Brown
Is it just me or has Scaruffi posting and support become more popular lately? Could it have something to do with Fantano's selling out and Christgau's 'dark prog' bullshittery?
continuing from>read more like think pieces than actual assessment Jesus Christ, do you even know what a think piece is?
think piece noun noun: think piece; plural noun: think pieces; noun: thinkpiece; plural noun: thinkpieces —an article in a newspaper, magazine, or journal presenting personal opinions, analysis, or discussion, rather than bare facts.
>presenting personal opinions, analysis, or discussion rather than bare facts >rather than bare facts >bare facts
bare /bɛː/ adjective
without addition; basic and simple. "he outlined the bare essentials of the story"
Therefore >rather than bare facts means >rather than basic and simple facts without addition
So think pieces can include some facts (and they naturally always do, go read any think piece and you will find at least several facts, typically used to back up opinions, analysis)
>read more like think pieces than an actual assessment A THINK PIECE IS BY DEFINITION A FUCKING """ACTUAL""" ASSESSMENT YOU DUMB FUCK
>never actually appear critically consistent despite their best efforts Jesus Christ, you do realise this is because Pitchfork is an actual music media publication with an army of staff writers, right? People can assigned albums to review and they go away and write well-worded reviews referencing context and the sound of the album and everything, it's way better than Fantano and because these are ordinary music-loving individuals and not just bygone old men who have built careers on stylising their opinions (see Scaruffi, Christgau) they are more honest >Ultimately, they are a business who is more interested in PR and clicks than anything else Tell that to junior staff writers who love music, get told what to write about, go away and listen to and write passionately about it — of course it's a fucking business, it's owned by Condé Nast, theneedledrop is also a business but in his case the brand is inseparable from the reviewer, so it's even worse
Brandon Gonzalez
>Pitchfork is music journalism whether you like it or not, don't be a smarmy cunt The exact same thing could be said about Rolling Stone, NME, and every other corporate rag that pretends to give a shit about music. You're being intentionally obtuse. >Give evidence — what narrative exactly? What are some of the cultural zeitgeists that comprise this narrative? You seriously need an example? It's common knowledge that Pitchfork is pushing poptimism. What is poptimism? The belief that corporate-made pop music is a valid form of art, and that belief is just as absurd as trying to argue that James Patterson is just as much of an artist as James Joyce.
Joseph Moore
The only thing I'm going to bother replying about is the fact that several pitchfork writers have stated (Meaghan Garvey on twitter when she reviewed ye off the top of my head) that they send in their writing, they don't even know what the published score will be untill it goes up on the site
In Meaghan Garvey's review she completely slams ye, but then it gets a 7.1, a average score by p4k standards. Seems strange given their overblown praise of every kanye album leading up to it
Jackson Johnson
Fuckin lol I regret replying to you now
Julian Myers
Jesus Christ. Go back to writing articles for your hipster shithole.
Jacob Hall
>muh junior staff writers >theneedledrop is worse Lmao. Before when I said "How much is Condé Nast paying you," I was joking. However, now I'm convinced that you're a shill. Only a shill would so adamantly defend something as soullessly corporate as Pitchfork.
Jose Price
I hope the paywall kills your shitty website, you rat.
Kayden Garcia
I found it from digging through his website a few years ago
obviously i factor in the opinion of some people and media, but never -solely- for a specific public personality or publication. being a "FAN" of a critic is just....why? there are tons of tools at your disposal with the internet, and even back in the day there was TV and magazines which gave me an extremely varied taste. i got into japanese music when i was young and over the years was able to find dozens of artists i love without reading one review, it isn't that difficult.
fantano is extremely consistent imo->gives a viewer a clear idea of whether they should give the album a listen based on how their tastes typically align with fantano's. Pitchfork is just funny/fun for approaching music like a sport (exciting when your fav artists win, just as fun complaining when they lose).
t. I'm not a robot
Isaiah Lee
Listen up, zoomers.
The fundamental problem with Fantano, Scaruffi, and Christgau, is that, because they are the sole operators of their individual projects, their criticism is inextricably linked to their brand and PR, and this line is often blurred, so they end up reviewing with their brand in mind Also because they are each only one person with finite time and energy to spend reviewing albums, they can't cover all the great released so they have to prioritise the ones that will get the most traction with their respective audiences
Pitchfork is the better platform because their PR/brand initiative is separate from the actual music criticism
They have op-eds and Levels and 'Over/Under' etc but all that stuff employs a different set of people and therefore is separate from the reviews section
Look at their masthead: pitchfork.com/masthead/ They have editors, staff writers and contributors, all writing reviews Meanwhile they have social media managers, audience directors, video producers, business execs etc keeping the brand going
just think about it
William Torres
>Pitchfork is the better platform because their PR/brand initiative is separate from the actual music criticism thinking this, the hottest drug on the street right now
Austin Evans
Been thinking this for a while
Fantano is both the guy reviewing the music and the guy keeping the brand alive
It's a conflict of interests
Grayson Adams
I would say the meme three are better than Pitchfork cause they don't use literal paid shills to defend them.
Owen Clark
HOLY FUCKING BASED user
Angel Ramirez
>hurr-durh you're a paid shill because you rationally defend Pitchfork against blind wannabe-hipster contrarian hate and unsubstantiated bullshit >y-you're a paid shill Nice argument — any hard evidence? No?
Good, fuck off.
Noah Murphy
>an actual pitchfork apologist in 2019 How do you make it through life?
Andrew Fisher
nah, they're tendfags and it shows blatantly in their reviews and scores. Any retard could see it's more image than critique with Pitchfork than any other meme critic entity. No one would so vehemently defend them on a sockpuppet forum without major autism or a vested interest.
Samuel Adams
With logic and reason, unlike you.
Kayden Mitchell
*trendfags
Ryan Lewis
The point of a critic is to give an opinion on something. Why does it matter to anyone why they give that opinion. If the context of an album makes him enjoy it more or less that is still a legitimate reason to judge the album. Critics are for people who want to hear a justified opinion from someone else on something they care about.
Wyatt Ortiz
>he is the only one who tries (and for a good portion, succeeds) to be objective At least 90% of his Beatles essay is him just talking out of his ass and passing it off as documented fact.
Christopher Gutierrez
I’ll tell you fuckers what. Christgau can at least be funny. Those others fuckers can’t (scaruffi has some extremely funny shit, but it reads as accidental).
Mason Bailey
>Why does it matter to anyone why they give that opinion Because some opinions are founded on flimsy evidence and vague assessment, such as Anthony Fantano's, and history shows that unsubstantiated opinions are dangerous because they oversimplify and generalise and pervert the truth
Puja Patel —Editor-in-Chief Matthew Schnipper —Executive Editor Amy Phillips —Managing Editor Ryan Dombal —Features Editor Jeremy Larson —Reviews Editor Timmhotep Aku —Senior Editor Stacey Anderson —Senior Editor Jillian Mapes —Senior Editor Evan Minsker —News Editor Matthew Strauss —News Editor Marc Hogan —Senior Writer Quinn Moreland —Staff Writer Alphonse Pierre —Staff Writer Sam Sodomsky —Staff Writer Noah Yoo —Staff Writer Eric Torres —Web Producer Michelle Kim —Associate Staff Writer
————Contributors————
Jayson Greene —Contributing Editor Jenn Pelly —Contributing Editor Philip Sherburne —Contributing Editor Sheldon Pearce —Contributing Writer Braudie Blais-Billie —Associate Staff Writer, News Madison Bloom —Associate Staff Writer, News Jazz Monroe —Associate Staff Writer, News
All of the above have written multiple multiple reviews
What's more likely, that all these people are trendfags, or that Anthony Fantano — who is chief music critic as well as PR + brand manager (conflict of interests) — is a trendfag?
Honestly, fucking state of zoomers ruining Yea Forums
Aiden Williams
>Christgau is all style and no substance - as in, I think he’s a legitimately good writer How about not?
>The fundamental problem with Fantano, Scaruffi, and Christgau, is that, because they are the sole operators of their individual projects, their criticism is inextricably linked to their brand and PR, and this line is often blurred, so they end up reviewing with their brand in mind >Also because they are each only one person with finite time and energy to spend reviewing albums, they can't cover all the great released so they have to prioritise the ones that will get the most traction with their respective audiences That can very well explain the axe Christgau has to grind with metal. His New York-centered readership is generally not the kind of audience that listens to the stuff. One could very well say that Sonic Youth are more relevant to his readers than Pantera.
Brody Flores
>Is more of a culture critic than a music critic, reading his reviews he seldom talks about the actual content but the ethos that goes behind it.
I was surprised that this was one rare instance where he mostly discusses the music/performances.
Yeahyeah it's just like Chris Ott. He reviews mostly 80s-90s alternative rock because that's what his audience likes. It's also possible that Eddie Trunk may like stuff other than metal but he has an image/brand to keep up.
Oliver Nelson
Scaruffi stands somewhat apart because he didn't really start following pop music until his 30s. His childhood music was mostly classical and opera along with whatever Italian pop he heard on the radio. He doesn't have the nostalgic or cultural/scene ties to the music like the other two.
Christgau's Consumer Guide columns usually cover about 20 albums each so he would naturally have to be a bit selective about what he decides to review.
Jonathan Russell
>Christgau >Is more of a culture critic than a music critic, reading his reviews he seldom talks about the actual content but the ethos that goes behind it. Christgau is more in love with rock and roll nostalgia and sentiments than the medium itself. A perfect example of this is his distaste for Tim Buckley and King Crimson (who show full artistic pretension on their sleeve) but his strange love for Nikki Manaj and Elvis (Surely Cultural icons more than any musical merit worth saving). Also, his 'scoring' system is fucking stupid He's more interested in rock stars than rock music. That's why (for example) he had trouble dealing with Smashing Pumpkins--Billy Corgan really isn't a compelling figure the way Kurt Cobain was.
Evan Ross
>Billy Corgan really isn't a compelling figure the way Kurt Cobain was. sure he is. had pretty interesting life story and all even though he didn't an hero
Benjamin Garcia
Christgau basically rates music on how black it does or doesn't sound. So he doesn't like Joanna Newsom, James Taylor, U2, or anything else where there's no element of blues, soul, or R&B in it.
William Gonzalez
How does the number of people reduce the likelihood of them being trendfags? I'm sure they have some pretty big overhead costs. If you think a big, for-profit organization like that is less likely to be full of trendfags than some self-employed chucklefuck on youtube, you're dreaming. Hell, It's probably a condition of employment.
Tyler Wilson
Scaruffi and cokemachineglow were the only good review sites
Adam Taylor
Scaruffi might be funnier if English were his first language.
Henry Price
>he is the only one who tries (and for a good portion, succeeds) to be objective
>Appears to care more for the context of an albums creation than any actual artistic merit This is actually Pitchfork. Fantano gives too much importance to lyrics and the way the artist's personality is conveyed in the music. For him "sonwriting" is the most important part. Music that is less straight forward and with more subtle approach usually goes over his melon
Scaruffi by all means overrates innovation. Not every album has to reinvent hot water or the wheel, for fucks sake.
Carter Scott
Id describe Scaruffi more as savage than funny, the humor comes as a result
True, I feel like it is one of the times where he goes full on culture commentator. But then again half the point of what hes trying to say is that they are more cultural influencers than musical ones
Christian Wood
>Fantano The noun is adjective >Christgau Ambitious music bad >Pitchfork Identity politics/10 >Scaruffi Zappa-esque music good
John Wright
>Christgau >White music bad Fixed.
Daniel James
best opinion here
Isaac Ortiz
>>Christgau >Ambitious music bad nah, he likes Ornette Coleman
Ayden Gutierrez
>Not a huge loss for music.
Samuel Bennett
its the best best writers and best users
Asher Jackson
He doesn't mind jazz doing it, he just thinks rock should sound like bad garage rock Chuck Berry ripoffs.
Angel Williams
ratings, like decibels, should be on a logarithmic scale
Michael Morgan
>he just thinks rock should sound like bad garage rock Chuck Berry ripoffs. Nah, he likes Henry Cow. just have shit taste
