Worst Pitchfork Reviews
I remember hearing it claimed that Pitchfork often goes for unpopular opinions pretty much for the sake of it. What would you say of that?
Easily one of the best albums of all times, and they give it a 1, just for the sake of going against the grain.
Considered by almost every single critic as one of the greatest albums of the 2000s, however, Pitchfork was more negative about it. I tried to find why they gave it such a low score, but the review is so sarcastic and ambiguous that it makes no sense.
I think they must know something I don't because this album doesn't live up to the hype they gave it, in my opinion.
This one was right after Pitchfork started to get more friendly with modern hip-hop and rap, and it is amazingly bad how they overrate this album. What is even worse is that it will probably end as their pick for AOTY, which is not only unfair but not true in any sense.
This gets an 8.7 and the award-winning PJ Harvey album, Stories from the City, gets a 5.5? Screw yourself, Pitchfork.
Same with Lateralus, apparently, Pitchfork has something against The Mars Volta. Most of their albums have always had a pretty low score, and Frances the Mute is by far their most ridiculous and undeserved one.
The whole review is easily what every other person has said against Panic at the Disco. Most of the time, they cry about the album not being emo or say that the emo genre has lost its way with this music. They keep saying things like lack of originality and stuff like that, which is unfair because they give higher scores to other albums that are even less original than this one.
Jeez. I mean, I used to love this album and while over the years I have seen the flaws hidden within it, I do think it deserves more than that. It's almost become a cult classic with the 'emo crowd' and while messy, it is full of really interesting and dynamic songs.
I seriously don't get it. This is from the same people that reviewed The Chainsmokers, Maroon 5, Imagine Dragons, and other crappy pop bands dressed as "rock" acts (talking about Maroon 5 and ID). And THIS is the album that they consider embarrassing? I admit I wasn't particularly hyped with this one, but the fact that they give more mediocre albums a higher score makes me question the credibility that this site has.
Not a pretty negative or controversial review, but kind of unfair to the importance this album has.
What doesn't bother me isn't the score itself. What bothers me is how friendly they were at the end of the year. While other albums like Atrocity Exhibition by Danny Brown, Skeleton Tree by Nick Cave, or Blackstar by David Bowie get higher scores than this one, they didn't appear in the year-end list of best albums as this one did. Maybe it is Beyonce's best, but it is not that special.
One of the most mediocre scores to one of the most mediocre albums ever. Were they scared of Eminem's reaction if they were harsher to this?
It should be higher. And Eminem needs to stop dissing everything.
Anyone with a good attention span and a thing for wordplay would agree it's amazing.
Now I know what you are thinking: "A 10/10 to one of the greatest albums of all time is bad?" No, in fact, it is the score that it deserves. But the reviewer, instead of talking about why the album is good, goes full pretentious and attempts to make it sound like a weird fanfiction. So, imagine how bad you must be as a critic to make one of the best albums of all time sound unappealing.
As a guy who loves Radiohead and really appreciates Kid A for what it is, this particular review is completely ridiculous. The text looks as if the reviewer looked up every single word in a thesaurus and replaced them with their more "sophisticated" counterparts.
Absolutely unbearable writing. No attempt to understand what the album is all about. Why should we care about what car you're driving? Also, attacking the audience of an artist is not great review material. It's very poorly written and immature.
I might be a bit biased as it's one of my favorites of all time, but this review was god awful. There was no attempt to understand the album at all or analyze the production, singing, or songwriting. Instead, it just calls it emo and says that it's not heavy or loud enough, and it makes weird references to Korn and nu-metal.
The Newcomers
OK, Make Believe is easily one of Weezer's worst albums, if not the worst. But a 0.4/10? That's a bit harsh. There are some great tracks on here.
This review proves my point with the Greta Van Fleet review. No matter how awful a hip-hop album can be, they are going to be more lenient with it than a rock album, apparently to show that they aren't that "harsh" with whatever the hell is on the charts.
Anything above a 1 for this album is just straight up wrong.
The New Abnormal was the first album from The Strokes in a long time that almost everyone loved. It just seems like they're trying to have an unpopular opinion.
Arguably one of the greatest albums of the 2000s, which was so different from anything else at the time and so influential on the British music scene, you think you'd give it a bit more appreciation.
Funny fact, Coldplay's highest-rated album on Pitchfork is Mylo Xyloto.
This is the best trap album of all time.
As much as I personally love Kanye's music, this review really overrates the album just because it was experimental. Keep in mind it's experimental for Kanye. Besides a few songs, this album is not that great.
The really impressive thing is this is the highest score Pitchfork has given a Chainsmokers album. They gave Collage a 3.5 and Sick Boy a 3.1.
The exact same reason as Lil Xan, giving awful albums a score that should be lower.
This album is a 10/10 in my opinion. Maybe Eminem's best. Almost every track is filled with great lyrics, flow, passion, production, and excellent choruses.
Although this album isn't awful, it was pretty mediocre for me. It deserves at least a 5.0, which is the score Revival has.
It's an 8.6 now, how funny is that? They upped it by over 1400%. Gold Pitchfork moment.
They just showed a picture of a monkey peeing in his own mouth.
How can they give such an influential and vulnerable album anything less than an 8? I don't know, kind of weird.