so here's the thing: As much as I hated Pitchfork for what they were, I gradually came to respect what they more recently became, which was an evenly-tempered, easy-to-navigate source of music discovery. The big shift towards bonafide stars like Taylor Swift and Olivia Rodrigo dispelled their hipster baggage, and for every "9.6 for this compilation of Knoxville, TN glam-rap circa 1992-1993" there was a steady stream of insight into current sub-genres/cult followings that I otherwise would've missed. Records by Chat Pile, Turnstile, Radian, and lots more all came my way via their reviews, which I still visited daily.

Only a handful of albums I've found there have stuck with me over time, but I have yet to find another site that is quite so digestible. Only at Pitchfork could I spend 90 seconds to quickly identify if there was a new band worth checking out; and I could simultaneously trust that when Shellac finally announced their new album, I'd hear about it on Pitchfork.

It traded all its sardonic bite and highfalutin think-pieces for a balanced ha, grazable take on what was going on in music sub-genres not only right now, but also 20 years ago. So I do mourn the loss of that, because no way am I about to start watching Beato videos.

But I'd take smug old Pitchfork over bland new Pitchfork any day. Trag is on crack.

yes we need another 2000 worder on why Kevin Drew deserves a Nobel Prize

but yet you'll gladly read stip's much more verbose write-up on lightning bolt . . .

one of the things I've always liked about pitchfork was there were at least one or two contributors whose tastes aligned with mine, and once in a while they'd review something that I could gamble on that was normally outside of my wheelhouse.

Posts about shitting, obviously.