ToonSpork

I should've explained why exactly I don't consider Pitchfork to be as good as Allmusic. There are a few reasons:

first of all, they don't cover as much ground as Allmusic (who is only 6 years older), may it be stylistically (let's be honest: they review hip music) or chronologically (they refuse to review albums that haven't been issued or reissued during their relatively short existence).

second, Pitchfork doesn't provide as much connections between artists as most review websites do. The internet allows you to put artists just a click away from each other, why would you not use that option? Being someone who uses review websites primarily to find similar musicians/read biographies, Pitchfork is more of a well designed distraction than anything useful.

third, they may offer fancier things than Allmusic, such as countless lists, videos... but in the end, its all pretty much fancy nonsense: lists are good mostly for late night friendly arguing (have you ever honestly agreed on a list with someone else?) and video streaming is painful (might be my connection - still, painful).

Three problems with me trashing Pitchfork and comparing them to Allmusic:

-I still visit the 'fork regularly, meaning they're not totally uninteresting: indeed they aren't! See previous article for explanations.
-I link to their reviews: that's for you folks out there who like Pitchfork. I can respect that.
-For the sake of positivity, these posts should say why Allmusic is good, rather than why Pitchfork isn't really.

To justify myself of those decisions, these posts will be uploaded soon:

-A rant trashing the Rolling Stones
-A post concerning Allmusic

For the following respective reasons:

-As you might have noticed, it feels good to rant
-Because they deserve to be mentioned before Pitchfork on more than just Wikipedia

 Until then, do the same things you used to do before. Just listen to music at the same time. And try to make your own mind about it.

JNCT

...