Well, who am I to argue with them? ;)

It's true, it can be a good source for discovering artists, but I also never said Pitchfork was worthless to begin with- just that the ratings are worthless… and that the magazine is pretentious. You can't deny that.

Good question - Either:
1. They're in absolutely no danger of being labeled a hipster, or
2. They're hipster wannabes that aren't trying hard enough (which would make them meta-posers, which is even worse), or
3. They're 50

At first, I looked at your methodology and thought that it was flawed: you're using Pitchfork's grades as a measure of quality. "Real" music connoisseurs consider Pitchfork a pretentious rag, and ignore their ratings- thus their assessment of quality has no real correlation with actual quality. Then it hit me- this…