5 Times Anthony Fantano Slammed Pitchfork Reviews

Anthony Fantano, the internet's busiest music nerd, has built a reputation for speaking his mind and sharing his genuine opinions on music. As the founder of The Needle Drop, a popular music review YouTube channel, Fantano has become a trusted voice in the music criticism community. However, his outspoken nature often puts him at odds with other prominent music publications, including Pitchfork. Here, we'll explore five instances where Fantano slammed Pitchfork reviews, highlighting the differences in their opinions and critiquing the review process.

1. Tame Impala's "Currents" (2015)

In 2015, Pitchfork awarded Tame Impala's psychedelic rock album "Currents" a score of 9.3, praising its "sophisticated" and "mature" sound. However, Fantano disagreed, giving the album a score of 6/10 on his channel. He criticized the album's over-reliance on psychedelic clichés and Kevin Parker's vocal delivery, which he found grating. Fantano also accused Pitchfork of giving the album a high score due to its trendy sound, rather than its actual quality.

The Art of Subjective Reviewing

This disagreement highlights the subjective nature of music reviewing. While Pitchfork saw "Currents" as a masterpiece, Fantano heard a flawed but ambitious effort. This disparity in opinions showcases the diversity of perspectives in music criticism, reminding us that reviews are ultimately personal opinions.

2. Kendrick Lamar's "To Pimp a Butterfly" (2015)

Pitchfork awarded Kendrick Lamar's critically acclaimed album "To Pimp a Butterfly" a perfect score of 10.0, praising its " groundbreaking" and " revolutionary" sound. Fantano, on the other hand, gave the album a score of 8/10, praising its ambition but criticizing its occasionally meandering song structures. He also felt that the album's production, while innovative, sometimes overshadowed Lamar's lyrics.

Overhyping the Hype Train

Fantano's review sparked controversy among fans and critics, who felt that he was nitpicking a masterpiece. However, his criticism also highlighted the potential dangers of overhyping an album. By acknowledging the album's flaws, Fantano encouraged a more nuanced discussion about its merits, rather than simply praising it as a unanimous classic.

3. Bon Iver's "22, A Million" (2016)

Pitchfork awarded Bon Iver's experimental album "22, A Million" a score of 9.0, praising its "innovative" and " boundary-pushing" sound. Fantano, however, gave the album a score of 4/10, criticizing its inaccessibility and lack of cohesion. He felt that the album's experimental nature made it more of a novelty than a genuinely great listen.

The Line Between Innovation and Alienation

This disagreement raises questions about the role of experimentation in music. While Pitchfork saw "22, A Million" as a bold step forward, Fantano heard an album that prioritized novelty over listenability. This disparity highlights the challenges of balancing artistic innovation with audience accessibility.

4. Radiohead's "A Moon Shaped Pool" (2016)

Pitchfork awarded Radiohead's album "A Moon Shaped Pool" a score of 9.3, praising its " beautiful" and " haunting" soundscapes. Fantano, on the other hand, gave the album a score of 5/10, criticizing its overly familiar sound and lack of surprises. He felt that the album relied too heavily on the band's established formulas, rather than pushing the boundaries of their sound.

The Comfort Zone of Familiarity

This disagreement highlights the tension between creative risk-taking and artistic comfort zones. While Pitchfork saw "A Moon Shaped Pool" as a welcome return to form, Fantano heard an album that played it too safe. This disparity raises questions about the importance of innovation in music and whether it's necessary for an album to be truly great.

5. Arca's "Mutant" (2015)

Pitchfork awarded Arca's experimental electronic album "Mutant" a score of 8.4, praising its " impressive" and " visceral" sound design. Fantano, however, gave the album a score of 3/10, criticizing its lack of coherence and meandering song structures. He felt that the album's experimental nature made it more of a curiosity than a genuinely enjoyable listen.

The Limits of Experimentalism

This disagreement raises questions about the role of experimentation in electronic music. While Pitchfork saw "Mutant" as a bold and innovative effort, Fantano heard an album that prioritized novelty over listenability. This disparity highlights the challenges of balancing artistic experimentation with audience accessibility.

These disagreements between Anthony Fantano and Pitchfork demonstrate the complexities of music criticism and the importance of diverse perspectives. By embracing these differences, we can foster a more nuanced and engaging discussion about the music we love. So, which side do you agree with? Share your thoughts in the comments below!