I've always wondered how far one could take hype, but I think there's a good chance that even the Pitchforks of the world may say "this sucks, and I don't care who likes it."
You're probably right - Pitchfork tends to generate more hype than they themselves are susceptible to. But whatever it is, it would probably at least garner a review, and therefore get exposure. A really low rating from Pitchfork would probably generate more curiosity, and therefore word of mouth (even if just a passing joke) than a middling rating.
Some kinds of suck might work better than others if you're looking to fake people out.
Yeah, it would have to sound believable enough to convince you that the artist was serious, and yet be subtly bad enough to be humorous, in that sort of way that leaves you unsure whether it's a joke.
It could be a fun experiment, but it would take a keen musical ear to pull it off - you'd have to listen to current trends, find common threads among the bad stuff, then exaggerate those without making it too obviously comedic. Or you'd just have to be really out there in a way that was perceived as "challenging".
