<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Pitchfork Media Needs To Be Pitchforked</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.medicineagency.com/blog/archives/1977/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.medicineagency.com/blog/archives/1977</link>
	<description>fear of a democratic planet</description>
	<pubDate>Tue, 02 Dec 2008 01:33:39 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Pedram</title>
		<link>http://www.medicineagency.com/blog/archives/1977#comment-9181</link>
		<dc:creator>Pedram</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 04 May 2008 16:24:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://medicineagency.com/blog/archives/1977#comment-9181</guid>
		<description>Yes, I agree. Sometimes Pitchfork goes way too far and gives unbelievable high rates on such mediocre records and low rates to such wonderful albums. I don't know why should Tool's "Lateralus" get 1.9 while The Field's "From Here We Go Sublime" get 9!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yes, I agree. Sometimes Pitchfork goes way too far and gives unbelievable high rates on such mediocre records and low rates to such wonderful albums. I don&#8217;t know why should Tool&#8217;s &#8220;Lateralus&#8221; get 1.9 while The Field&#8217;s &#8220;From Here We Go Sublime&#8221; get 9!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ray LeMoine</title>
		<link>http://www.medicineagency.com/blog/archives/1977#comment-8601</link>
		<dc:creator>Ray LeMoine</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 Apr 2008 13:20:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://medicineagency.com/blog/archives/1977#comment-8601</guid>
		<description>I don't know if he still works there, but Pitchfork's Nick Sylvester lives upstairs from some of my friends in BK. We shld go jump him...and fuck internet indie! why is it always the safest, blandest, cutest bands that get big? oh, because honky pop tastes are bland.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I don&#8217;t know if he still works there, but Pitchfork&#8217;s Nick Sylvester lives upstairs from some of my friends in BK. We shld go jump him&#8230;and fuck internet indie! why is it always the safest, blandest, cutest bands that get big? oh, because honky pop tastes are bland.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Gnarlytown U.S.A.</title>
		<link>http://www.medicineagency.com/blog/archives/1977#comment-8595</link>
		<dc:creator>Gnarlytown U.S.A.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 08 Apr 2008 14:56:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://medicineagency.com/blog/archives/1977#comment-8595</guid>
		<description>"were" as the important word, John.  "were" was from 1998-2002.  My influence on kids' ears were fractions of fractions of what Pitchfork's influence is and has held.  And Chase, Pitchfork's loyal readers have climbed and climbed as the years have gone on.  Same with their unique visitors per month is almost at 2 million (per freakin month).  I'd say their influence is still strong.  Some of those little mp3 blogs have crept up in population, but nowhere near holding the tight grip that Pitchfork has.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;were&#8221; as the important word, John.  &#8220;were&#8221; was from 1998-2002.  My influence on kids&#8217; ears were fractions of fractions of what Pitchfork&#8217;s influence is and has held.  And Chase, Pitchfork&#8217;s loyal readers have climbed and climbed as the years have gone on.  Same with their unique visitors per month is almost at 2 million (per freakin month).  I&#8217;d say their influence is still strong.  Some of those little mp3 blogs have crept up in population, but nowhere near holding the tight grip that Pitchfork has.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chase</title>
		<link>http://www.medicineagency.com/blog/archives/1977#comment-8587</link>
		<dc:creator>Chase</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 08 Apr 2008 05:47:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://medicineagency.com/blog/archives/1977#comment-8587</guid>
		<description>Is Pitchfork still *that* powerful?  Perhaps I'm more out of touch, or have simply decided to focus on other music sites, but I didn't think Pitchfork held the attention of the entire indie-world anymore... 

I fully agree that Pitchforkmedia blows in general.  Lame hype, bad reviews, focus on bands no one cares about... that said, I think Arcade Fire is pretty good.  But "Grizzly Caribou Yeah Yeah Choir &#38; the Shout out Loud! Band"?  I'll pass....</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Is Pitchfork still *that* powerful?  Perhaps I&#8217;m more out of touch, or have simply decided to focus on other music sites, but I didn&#8217;t think Pitchfork held the attention of the entire indie-world anymore&#8230; </p>
<p>I fully agree that Pitchforkmedia blows in general.  Lame hype, bad reviews, focus on bands no one cares about&#8230; that said, I think Arcade Fire is pretty good.  But &#8220;Grizzly Caribou Yeah Yeah Choir &amp; the Shout out Loud! Band&#8221;?  I&#8217;ll pass&#8230;.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: John LaCroix</title>
		<link>http://www.medicineagency.com/blog/archives/1977#comment-8585</link>
		<dc:creator>John LaCroix</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 08 Apr 2008 05:16:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://medicineagency.com/blog/archives/1977#comment-8585</guid>
		<description>you were music coordinator for On Video!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>you were music coordinator for On Video!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
