I don't know it doesn't seem like that big of a deal

You know what that means right? It's how they label their trivia videos. It's a five-minute video with some background information about the album.

Can you believe a media company did some forward promotion of their own content? Let's all laugh at pitchfork indeed.

Well, I dunno how common that is, but writing news articles about future articles they're gonna write is a little weird. No? Isn't that what social media is for?

Yeah you're probably right. I didn't actually see what they did.

I'm a little offended by this exchange.

This one is pretty bad:

The Fun Years
Heroes of the Second Story Walk Up
BY: GRAYSON HAVER CURRIN

The new album from the ambient baritone guitar and turntable duo is the most fully formed and expressive to date. Its recurring themes and phosphorescent textures evoke an engaging kind of ambiguity.

Haha, the second sentence sounds like a mad lib

I've felt some tension with Jorg lately, so this is an encouraging development...

Go fuck yourself

That has literally never happened in the history of RM.

How did everyone's OK Computer week go?

Not the worst I've seen, but pretty clunky:

Arca
Arca
BY: KEVIN LOZANO

The more Alejandro Ghersi gives of himself, the larger his music as Arca grows. His latest feels both intimate and expansive, a connection between his melodic past and a chaotic future.

I mean...that one seems fine to me...

I found it funny because it's full of paradoxes yet gives zero indication to what the music actually sounds like.

Is that the whole review?

I believe these are blurbs that precede the full review. There are some where I see Trag's point, where bad writing can be easily identified. But then there are others that I'm fine with, and some that I actually like. Like the very first one in the thread.

Same.

Also, I think the posting of the blurbs rather than the whole review is part of why I take issue with the premise of this thread sometimes. Anything can be stupid out of context. Doesn't mean we can't all have a good laugh. Just saying. It's a weird mental block for me for some dumb reason.

Stumbled across this and found it interesting -- a former Pitchfork contributor giving some insight into how ratings are determined on the site:
http://no-trivia.tumblr.com/post/646605 ... s-at-p4k-i

Who knows how true any of it is, but if it's accurate it goes a long way toward undermining the editorial integrity of the publication in my eyes, at least in terms of their reviews.