Anti-Climacus

I find Pitchfork as mildly annoying as everyone else, but if you're going to offer criticism, it would help if it didn't apply equally to Rolling Stone, or Christgau or Lester Bangs. Or misunderstand the general nature of criticism in the first place:

When a pop critic talks about influences, he’s almost never talking about the historical development of musical forms. Instead, he’s talking about his record collection, his CD-filled binders, his external hard drive—he is congratulating himself, like James Murphy in “Losing My Edge,” on being a good fan. While Pitchfork may be invaluable as an archive, it is worse than useless as a forum for insight and judgment.

Alternatively, this functions in exactly the same way it does in book reviews: "x is like y" works both to indicate the sort of thing x is by comparing it to something more widely known, or it works for the reader to be able to identify the interests, and therefore the limitations, of the critic who is reviewing the work.