I don't understand why Pitchfork couldn't write a second review, referencing the previous review's existence and adding additional thoughts on the music in question, and leave both on the site. Then the historical reality of the previous review would remain acknowledged, and also the critic's changing opinion.
I agree 100%, and if that's what they were actually going for here, I'm happy to stand corrected. This seems like a clumsy attempt to stay "hip," and ahead of the curve.
I don't understand why Pitchfork couldn't write a second review, referencing the previous review's existence and adding additional thoughts on the music in question, and leave both on the site. Then the historical reality of the previous review would remain acknowledged, and also the critic's changing opinion.
I agree 100%, and if that's what they were actually going for here, I'm happy to stand corrected. This seems like a clumsy attempt to stay "hip," and ahead of the curve.