Chris N.

I've looked at Pitchfork a few times and it's a bit blah, very grey as if it were custard allowed to cool. OK< we know custard is cool, how can it not be right? But tepid custard is no ones friend and that's how I feel about this site. It's hard to see who it is written for as there is no real in depth insights into the reviews. There are no feelings behind the writing and a cardinal sin, the spelling is atrocious! It's as if there is no editor checking the work of the... I struggle to find a word that correctly describes the team as reporters, reviews or journalists seem such strong terms for something they equally fail to achieve. An editor of note may join together the articles and reviews into some sense or direction for the site but I doubt there is one or they will chuck the copy back and tell them to try autospell on their work.

The stand out hack is by far Ian Cohen, who has so little grasp of musical talent he as opted to write about it. But instead of marveling in the splendor of the art he instead brings quality music down and rips into things he does not understand.

This site does have one outstanding feature, it obviously employs those who have not found work in proper music sites. This I feel is a service to the community. Not only does this site house the complete gutter trash of the musical commentator world but it keeps the other - better - music sites clear of their inept taint.

If you take my advice, you'd steer well clear of this site until they either employ some kind of direction to their work, sake the hack (Ian Cohen) or start correctly vetting their entries before posting. If I had my guess they run this site like a blog where anyone can upload an entry without anyone reading it first.