It’s impossible to pinpoint the moment it happened, but Pitchfork Media has become the ultimate barometer for what is and isn’t quality independent music, with many people considering it to be the most credible, influential voice in indie music critiquing – something that obviously has fantastic repercussions for any bands that Pitchfork scores highly (they’re credited with “breaking” bands like Arcade Fire and Clap Your Hands Say Yeah!). However, the consequences for bands that score poorly are potentially damaging – lowered albums sold, fewer ticket sales, etc.
Deer Tick is an American indie folk band who, after receiving one too many mediocre reviews from Pitchfork, has struck back via a sarcastic piece of hate mail directed toward the reviewer, Zach Kelly, who scored the band’s latest album a 5.6 out of 10 (Pitchfork have previously scored Deer Tick’s other albums 5.8 and 5.3). The piece written by the band and posted on the Deer Tick facebook page parodies the tone and style of Pitchfork reviews and plays on the stereotype that online music reviewers are fat losers working from their mum’s basement (which, to be fair, is often the case).
Not taking into account the fact that Deer Tick aren’t particularly special (although a good band) do you think Pitchfork is really the be all and end all of indie music criticism? Do you think they are just a bunch of indie snobs with English degrees? Do you think it’s great and at least they’re not as bad as those jerks at CokeMachineGlow? Thoughts?!?
