Must be good to be Pitchfork Media. Reviewing records whenever you want, writing overblown reviews that go over most readers' heads, applying arbitrary numbers to your reviews (even if they don't seem to match up well with the actual written words of said reviews), not really reviewing an album at all...
If you like this story, consider signing up for our email newsletters.
SHOW ME HOW
You have successfully signed up for your selected newsletter(s) - please keep an eye on your mailbox, we're movin' in!
Yup. Must be the life.
Perfect example: Pitchfork reviews Fight Bite's Emerald Eyes this morning--just four months after the band released its album nationally (which was about four months after its local release, I think). But, y'know, no big deal.
Anyway, enough Pitchfork eye-rolling, and on to the review--which, actually, is pretty decent ("we have the analog warmth of Emerald Eyes -- a perfect hibernation soundtrack -- to keep us cozy during this chilly season"). And it comes with a moderately decent numerical rating (6.7), too. Still, it's kind of annoying to see this come out four months after the fact and have it read like a combo of every other review the band's received. But, alas... read the whole thing here.
And congrats to Fight Bite for getting the write-up.