Like most things hipster in the late 2000’s/early 2010’s, it was really cool to like pitchfork, and then it was determined that too many people liked pitchfork, so to prove you really liked music you had to say you didn’t like pitchfork.
I appreciate the compliment, but I think your “look don’t touch” comparison is even more appropriate haha. There was definitely a culture of “you’re not allowed to enjoy anything“ that came with being a hipster. You “appreciate it,” you discern from one album to another and you just reject certain elements.
God forbid if you just like one song by an artist. Don’t even bring it up lol
Haven’t they also had some wild hot takes on certain albums? Maybe it should come down on the specific reviewer but I think Pitchfork took the reputation of being kinda off its rocker.
Media has always had a long history of getting people to look by stirring the pot a little bit. Pitchfork indulged to varying degrees. But in many ways, they were just responding to what hipster culture demanded. Hipsters consider themselves discerning, able to see “beyond” what the masses see. They have a high opinion of their intelligence and assessment. So pitchfork, as an outlet catering to hipsters, couldn’t just go with the flow and agree. They needed to say something that made them look discerning or intelligent. Which often came out as bizarre.
Unfortunately, the easiest way to look discerning is to say something is bad when everybody likes it. The far braver stance is to throw your weight behind a piece of media that most people don’t like (not for no reason of course, otherwise you’re just being contrarian in the other direction). And hipsters are rarely brave enough to do that.
Add comment