Wow that’s rough 

Idk why it’s become so “cool” to hate on Pitchfork. Reviewers are dying in general, there’s no reason to flood into every thread to complain about a publication that has minimal relevance these days, especially in defense of Morgan Wallen of all people.

1 hour ago, Sept said:

Please u know damn well they got a copy Midnights or any high-profile albums days or weeks before the actual release

 

Articles are not written in a single day, as they have to go through the whole process of editing/approval. All these reviews sit on the desk of the Chief Editor days before it's supposed to go out. They just choose which day to publish it for maximum publicity/exposure

It's not that complicated

 

when an album is from a big mainstream artists (adele, taylor, beyonce, gaga) they wait days so people wait for them, it'a way to get more prestige to their brand.

 

No one of their readers or Wallen fans are waiting for their reviews of Wallen so the day 1 is ok to jump to the  bandwagon of hate.

 

In both cases what matters more is to maximize the clicks. 

1 minute ago, vale9001 said:

It's not that complicated

 

when an album is from a big mainstream artists (adele, taylor, beyonce, gaga) they wait days so people wait for them, it'a way to get more prestige to their brand.

 

No one of their readers or Wallen fans are waiting for their reviews of Wallen so the day 1 is ok to jump to the  bandwagon of hate.

 

In both cases what matters more is to maximize the clicks. 

Quote

They just choose which day to publish it for maximum publicity/exposure

Literally what I said  

Should be 1.4

1 hour ago, Rotunda said:

Idk why it’s become so “cool” to hate on Pitchfork. Reviewers are dying in general, there’s no reason to flood into every thread to complain about a publication that has minimal relevance these days, especially in defense of Morgan Wallen of all people.

The way you are twisting the problem with no shame  if anything, it’s Pitchfork who think it’s cool to hate on artists no matter what they release 

Aw cute 

4 hours ago, vale9001 said:

People always talks about him and nobody is talking about Elton John's Diamonds. I mean i'm his biggeer fan as yoU can say for my avi but DiamonDs it's on top 20 on BB200 after 276 weeks. Not only it's gonna stay there forever cause 54 tracks but he always put the new material in the album (the dua lipa and britney duet).

 

Definitely BB needs to make new rules. Not counting certain tracks after a frame of time, you can't add new tracks after one year (elton is adding new music to a 2017 album) and so on.

 

 

 

Well that’s a greatest hits album

 

theyve always been long like that. It’s not Elton’s fault he has a massive catalog of HITS

 

I think only queen has a long GH album like that  

1.2M

5 hours ago, Donquizote said:

People are still going to stream his album regardless.

Sorry, but Pitchfork taste has been questionable lately and doesn't align with what GP want.

 

They have literally never claimed to be aligned with the what the GP wants. Some of yall takes are

44 minutes ago, Squall said:

The way you are twisting the problem with no shame  if anything, it’s Pitchfork who think it’s cool to hate on artists no matter what they release 

No I just think it’s exhausting that every week someone posts a thread about a Pitchfork review and every week people rush into to complain about how pretentious/disingenuous Pitchfork is. 
 

Like, we know. 

Do yall think a single Morgan Wallen fan is reading Pitchfork? This was an attempt at getting clicks by appealing to his hipster haters who read Pitchfork.

And before I get dragged, I have not and will not listen to Morgan Wallen, and I don't like him.

I don't think his fanbase even knows what Pitchfork is. So basically, who cares.

I objectively like the album - and the first 12 of it is my favorite and songs from the last 12 I also really like. But half of the songs are not doing it for me and I am inclined to skip them.

Anything above a 6 is too generous, so I think they got it right.

Edited March 3, 20233 yr by Gladiator

should’ve been a

 

 

While he is indeed a dumb redneck with generic music, it's interesting reading the comment about authenticity and the amount of writers on each track. They wouldn't dare say the same thing about certain other artists like [REDACTÉD].

5 hours ago, Walk_Away21 said:

Do yall think a single Morgan Wallen fan is reading Pitchfork? This was an attempt at getting clicks by appealing to his hipster haters who read Pitchfork.

And before I get dragged, I have not and will not listen to Morgan Wallen, and I don't like him.

No but he is becoming so huge that he's crossing over to other demographics outside of country. This review is a notice to the pretentious hipster world he's not OK to like. It's like a pre-emptive strike.

36 songs??

12 hours ago, vale9001 said:

i really doubt his team sent to a pitchfork journalist the album weeks before 

labels send advance copies to major publications all the time? pitchfork is owned by conde nast. its not a small blog lol

Edited March 3, 20233 yr by yonsé

I don’t really understand why they bothered tbh it’s not like they review a lot of lowbrow country pop.  But like they probably just wanted to drag a racist but if that’s true the score  should be lower.  

6 hours ago, Rotunda said:

No I just think it’s exhausting that every week someone posts a thread about a Pitchfork review and every week people rush into to complain about how pretentious/disingenuous Pitchfork is. 
 

Like, we know. 

They haven’t even been as snobby as people claim them to be in decades.  
 

they go after low hanging fruit now.  They dragged Harry in an article but were honestly too afraid to give him below a 7.0 in the album review     If anything they are too nice and conformist now.  I liked reading their snobby contrarian takes.