Yes I have definitely noticed this. I think they actually do have a policy against giving most metal albums Best New Music. If you look at the people that do those reviews, most of them are not staff writers, they are freelancers that write primarily about metal. My guess is Pitchfork had little to no metal knowledge but wanted to expand their coverage of metal which is why they hire the freelancers to do the reviews. But the people that run the site probably don't feel like the metal stuff has enough crossover appeal with their traditional readers to justify the BMN label.i'm def going to be slamming the usbm recommendations. i've been meaning to get around to mitochondrion and never have.
anyway: i've been reading the pitchfork song list thread. i know pitchfork is stupid but i click it anyway (i suspect this is their business model) and i'd imagine a few people in this thread do also. has anyone else noticed they appear to have some kind of rule against making sure metal albums don't get best new music? the amount of metal albums that score high 7s to low 8s is fucking insane and has to be disproportionate to every other genre.
Deafheaven and Pallbearer do have that crossover appeal they like which is probably why they were BMN. I kind of understand it but at the same time it's stupid and contradictory. The reviews themselves are pretty good though. I particularly like Brandon Stosuy's and Kim Kelly's reviewa. Their recommendations are usually spot on for me.