For quite some time, I've pretty much hated Pitchfork Media. They love their snide reviews, digs at albums that may or may not deserve it, and seemingly, they live to be the ultimate musical elitists. In short, they stand for everything that's wrong with music, the polar opposite of equally wrong vapid pop stars and emo stars with swooping haircuts paired with too tight jeans.
Yet with every year I become a little more accepting of them as my tastes change. While I may disagree with their hatred of Anathallo and love of Black Kids, we do have a lot of incidental overlap. Today they released their "Top 100 Tracks of 2008" and it was a list which I looked at, scoffed, shook my head, and said "not bad Pitchfork. Not bad at all."
Why's that?
Unbelievably enough, the banes of my musical existence had two songs in their top 10 that are favorites of my own this year, not to mention three others which I really, really enjoy. Their list is loaded with tracks I quite like (or even adore in some situations).
It's just so weird, seeing their list and finding my favorite track this year (M83's "Kim and Jessie") and one of probably my top five favorites (Cut Copy's "Hearts on Fire") cohabiting their top 10. Aren't I supposed to hate everything Pitchfork has to offer?
I'm afraid to find out what is the truth - are they getting more mainstream, or am I getting more elitist?
Ugh.