<?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"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Myusings on Pitchfork</title>
	<atom:link href="http://myusicinmymind.com/2009/02/18/myusings_pitchfork/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://myusicinmymind.com/2009/02/18/myusings_pitchfork/</link>
	<description>Yup. One more music blog.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 24 Sep 2009 14:06:09 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: mwm</title>
		<link>http://myusicinmymind.com/2009/02/18/myusings_pitchfork/#comment-41</link>
		<dc:creator>mwm</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 19 Feb 2009 15:34:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://myusicinmymind.com/?p=187#comment-41</guid>
		<description>as one of jon&#039;s friends who has that feeling about pitchfork, i&#039;ll comment.  i don&#039;t think, at least for me, the issue is basic negativity.  it&#039;s more a certain selectivity in the reviews.  i think the perception is that music that&#039;s popular and mainstream tends to get more negative reviews while pitchfork likes to write rave reviews about a certain genre of hipster-loved bands that pitchfork can lay some claim to having discovered.  i&#039;m sure that perception doesn&#039;t totally jive with the truth if someone were to run the stats.  i think it&#039;s more the pretension that people have an issue with.  there&#039;s a feeling that pitchfork wants you to like what they tell you to like and is not-so-quietly mocking you if you like what they don&#039;t.  again, i&#039;m sure reality doesn&#039;t match perception.  to be fair, i read pitchfork sporadically at best, so it could be like so many things that a few highly influential or controversial reviews have colored my, and many other&#039;s, opinions unfairly.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>as one of jon&#8217;s friends who has that feeling about pitchfork, i&#8217;ll comment.  i don&#8217;t think, at least for me, the issue is basic negativity.  it&#8217;s more a certain selectivity in the reviews.  i think the perception is that music that&#8217;s popular and mainstream tends to get more negative reviews while pitchfork likes to write rave reviews about a certain genre of hipster-loved bands that pitchfork can lay some claim to having discovered.  i&#8217;m sure that perception doesn&#8217;t totally jive with the truth if someone were to run the stats.  i think it&#8217;s more the pretension that people have an issue with.  there&#8217;s a feeling that pitchfork wants you to like what they tell you to like and is not-so-quietly mocking you if you like what they don&#8217;t.  again, i&#8217;m sure reality doesn&#8217;t match perception.  to be fair, i read pitchfork sporadically at best, so it could be like so many things that a few highly influential or controversial reviews have colored my, and many other&#8217;s, opinions unfairly.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
