I found myself quite offended at the excuse of a "review" that is Pitchforkmedia's take on the new Metallica album, St. Anger. Let me reiterate that I don't care how they feel about the album - everyone has a right to like or dislike something. What I take offense at is the off-hand, immature approach taken to the review. On a site that advertises itself as a portal of "independent music" a review of anything by a mainstream act like Metallica is questionable, and once read it is obvious that the critic simply used the opportunity to make jokes and feel superior. Below is my response, and I'm posting it to Blogcritics because I feel that all critics, amatuer or professional, owe it to themselves and their audiences to be as fair as possible under all circumstances. (My review of the album makes it clear that I enjoy the album, but I approached it with caution and tried to be fair because I actually assumed I wouldn't like it at all. If I hadn't liked it, I wouldn't have posted a review at all, or if I had I would have been fair about why, instead of insulting readers the way this reviewer does.)…
Article comments
26 - Cliff
Pitch 'reviews' are not incomprehensible to me; they're actually transparent. I would hardly commit the act of calling it the ArtForum or something of music (though both are completely conservative, nay, reactionary, the latter sometimes has a trace of intellectual substance).
Who ARE these people? I've never heard of any of them.
Radiohead (et al)? I think Pitchfork Media is not nearly elitist or snobbish enough. They just sound like some self-fancied bureaucratic appointees of amnesiac Kool that too happily fulfill the indie stereotype - because the mainstream needs something to walk on, right? (Yikes, that was close to being Pitchfork-esque.)
Besides it being utterly institutional and clone-producing, I can never decide what powers this contraption - corporate greed or complicit fame (it's always that toss-up, isn't it?). Or maybe just general dead boredom. Simply, I feel sad for music.
Pitchfork is over.
27 - Tony
I know I'm several years late, but I have just recently discovered Pitchfork and its criticism.
I will begin by saying that I am not a Metallica fan. Indeed, I am not a metal fan. It's virtuosic guitars/bass/drums simply does not appeal to me. I am an indie fan.
That being said, I will now say that I cannot stand Pitchfork. It's reviewers rarely know how to write. They attempt to show how "clever" they are by doing things such as comparing Metallica to communism, all while pretending to be stuck in the Mid-East. But for some reason, it seems they forgot to say anything about the music. And in doing so, they forgot their reason for existing. The point of a reviewer is to give readers a clear opinion. The opinion must be earnest and the reviewed object at hand must be approached with an open mind. The reviewer should not have any preconceived ideas or biases. Otherwise the truth will be at stake.
Unfortunately, Mr. DiCrescenzo seems to have come with those biases. And almost as unfortunate, he was unable to shed them. And most unfortunate, he could not justify his opinion.
28 - Ryguy
Word.