my friend brian sent me this link this morning about this band called the high strung that posted an open letter to pitchfork on their myspace. not only is the letter amusing and incredibly well-written, it calls out quite a few of the points about pitchfork that we bitch about here on superstarcastic. what criteria do they use to pick “the next big thing?” and if their reviews are all personal opinion journalism, why can’t they just come out and say that?
anyway, yay for the high strung for being witty while self-promoting. and for donating their van to the rock and roll hall of fame at 2:00am. you should read their letter. then you should check them out.
2 Comments »
i avoid pitchfork like the plague. the last thing i ever saw was a friend’s link to a jet album review where it was a video of a monkey pissing into its own mouth.
hardy har har pfork…
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Comment by hotshotrobot — January 23, 2008 @ 10:41 am
Hmmm.
4.) albums have been reviewed by other landmarks: Rolling Stone, Entertainment Weekly, Spin, Playboy, Blender, Stuff. If it’s validation yr after… can’t some of it be found there?
5.) A song of ours was named runner up for SONG OF THE YEAR in The Washington Post. NPR named our first album one of the top ten of the year. Even if you totally didn’t agree with this… shouldn’t it warrant a review?
Those are some pretty sweet claims to fame. So why do they care whether or not Pitchfork reviews them? Other than the whole “a 9.0 and Best New Music guarantees a slot at Coachella and Pitchfork Fest and lots of indie rock douchebags buying your record” rub, i guess.
I visit Pitchfork maybe once a month–if that–these days. Yeah, maybe not the best thing to brag about when you’re a “music writer,” but i don’t see the point in rewarding a site that by and large promotes music that either 1) i can’t stand or 2) really doesn’t need Pitchfork coverage (is a good Pitchfork review really gonna help line Springsteen’s wallet?) by assigning it even more “validity.”