A word in defense of Pitchfork

Jared Hemming

I know, I know; nobody wants to read an annoying blogger defend another annoying blog. Then again, who knows? Perhaps some of you are riveted imagining the sounds of a blogger at work at his desk, furiously punching the keys to form these words that you hear in your brain right now.

 

Regardless of your opinion on blogging, most of you reading this arts and entertainment-centric blog probably have a staunch opinion (for better or worse) about Pitchfork Media, the independent music news aggregate and review site.

 

The critiques against Pitchfork are valid; at times, the reviews are grotesquely pompous, and the reporting has been known to be decontextualized clickbait.

 

All pretensions aside, Pitchfork, in its better times, has published some insightful reviews, and depthful columns like contributor Lindsay Zoladz’s Ordinary Machines more than make up for lists that attempt to analyze and canonize music released in a decade before it even ends.

 

I’m not saying Pitchfork isn’t annoying. However, if you’re looking for the first responders to news about Mac DeMarco’s jail-worthy stage antics while delving deeper into how DeMarco crafts his gold-toned indie easy listening, Pitchfork is, whether you like it or not, an indie fan’s Rolling Stone.

 

Pitchfork must be considered the same way any publication (especially in music journalism) should: with case-by-case, take-it-or-leave-it critical thinking skills. If you hate something Pitchfork is shouting about, just ignore it.

 

But if you can gain a different perspective on Grimes’ 2012 modern classic “Oblivion” from what Pitchfork wrote about it in their year-end review, the website shouldn’t be ignored.

Whatever your opinion, I’m still going to be swaying to DeMarco’s woozy “Chamber of Reflection” video, regardless of whether Pitchfork tells me to.