Alzado Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 Unlike most of you annoying twats, I don't have a knee-jerk negative reaction to the mere mention of Pitchfork. While I often think their reviews are pap, I do think they cover a pretty broad range of music and demonstrate a sophisticated understanding of not only current trends but also the trends of previous decades that have informed where music is today. But today, their review of Death's Spiritual, Mental, Physical is just too much. The review published today describes Death's 2009 release, For the Whole World to See, as having "lived up to every bit of [the] missing-link and lost-classic billing when [it] finally arrived." Having read that sentence, I was naturally curious. As a music fan, I certainly would not want to miss out on any album described as a lost classic (especially when it is favorably compared to The Stooges). That's why I was confused when I read Pitchfork's review of that 2009 album, which describes the album as "fall[ing] short of a diamond-in-the-rough-caliber discovery" and "gleefully ripping off all the obvious influences." I understand that individual reviewers have their own opinions about any given album, just like we do. But I don't go to a music reviewing publication to read random opinions that we could all come up with ourselves. I'm looking for a little institutional consistency...something that will give me the feeling that I'm being guided by an informed set of view points that keeps history in perspective rather than getting a perspective-less opinion from whomever happens to get the assignment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
remy marathe Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 they do things like that fairly often. then again, so does rolling stone, the publication i would most want to compare pitchfork to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobDobalina Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 Their are numerous instances where some reviewing publication/website pans an album on one person's initial review, only to have to backtrack when they realize other critics and/or most of their reading audience think it's great. I caught allmusic changing it's ratings a few times (IIRC they originally gave Madvillainy 2 stars or something), though I don't really go there anymore. Regardless of whatever genre it is, music criticism is always going to be accompanied by a high quotient of douchebaggery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest disparaissant Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 pitchfork actually amended their review of neutral milk hotel's "in the aeroplane over the sea" from an 8.7 to a 10.0. my problem with pitchfork is that they will review an album, list absolutely no negatives, then inexplicably give it a score in the high 7s/low 8s. then they'll turn around and actually list a few negatives for an album they score higher. their scores are tainted with bias based entirely off of hype. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Richy Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 "I'm looking for a little institutional consistency" Then I would avoid pitchfork. http://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/5804-pretty-hate-machine/ http://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/14890-pretty-hate-machine/ I usually check their best new music sections but avoid reading their reviews. I just listen to samples elsewhere and make my mind up that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Iain C Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 try sensibly rating any creative work out of 100 - it's practically impossible. don't look at the scores, read the review. also i haven't heard the new Death record but the old one was great. i wouldn't say it was a missing link though, the original review is more on the money in that sense, there's a huge vein of MC5/Stooges running through it (and of course all the older garage bands that inspired those guys, too). i think you'll find similar inconsistency in any review site/magazine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Iain C Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 I understand that individual reviewers have their own opinions about any given album, just like we do. But I don't go to a music reviewing publication to read random opinions that we could all come up with ourselves. I'm looking for a little institutional consistency...something that will give me the feeling that I'm being guided by an informed set of view points that keeps history in perspective rather than getting a perspective-less opinion from whomever happens to get the assignment. so you're saying you'd rather the guy reviewing the new record went and looked at the old review and revised his opinion accordingly? i don't think "institutional consistency" is that important - if you're even being serious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keltoi Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 this is why you should get to know the reviewers that you like/trust rather than sites/magazines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joshuatxuk Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 I'm looking for a little institutional consistency...something that will give me the feeling that I'm being guided by an informed set of view points that keeps history in perspective rather than getting a perspective-less opinion from whomever happens to get the assignment. That should be the main goal of any review. they do things like that fairly often. then again, so does rolling stone, the publication i would most want to compare pitchfork to. RS is still a far greater offender though, pitchfork has it's hipster hype, but RS is literally a payola establishment. I've always thought Pfork was like a kid brother to Spin. I caught allmusic changing it's ratings a few times (IIRC they originally gave Madvillainy 2 stars or something), though I don't really go there anymore. Regardless of whatever genre it is, music criticism is always going to be accompanied by a high quotient of douchebaggery. Agreed. And damn, allmusic.com - haven't been there in AGES! pitchfork actually amended their review of neutral milk hotel's "in the aeroplane over the sea" from an 8.7 to a 10.0. my problem with pitchfork is that they will review an album, list absolutely no negatives, then inexplicably give it a score in the high 7s/low 8s. then they'll turn around and actually list a few negatives for an album they score higher. their scores are tainted with bias based entirely off of hype. RS gave Let It Be a shit review and Nevermind 3 stars. They were 86 and 17, respectively, in the list of the "500 greatest albums of all time." I digress though, your observation pretty much nails Pfork's rating system. I don't even read a review unless it's an 8+ or below 5, b/c I'm just curious at that point. If it's ranked in the 6-7s (which 90% of reviews are) I skip it, unless I'm intrested in the artist or the genre. That's probably a factor in my apathy towards so many indie rock bands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
remy marathe Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 with pitchfork it's always been more about names i don't recognize. i find out if i like the music on my own. i will say that they embrace a very large swath of music, but their reviews and need to follow/create trends and build hype always brings the site down in my eyes. my comparison with rolling stone is based on the fact that both magazines will often completely destroy a major band's newest release simply to do it. the reviews are often comically biased with super low or high ratings that seem completely arbitrary. and then the year end lists don't reflect the review. but this is sort of the case with every review site/magazine, which is why i usually just look at a name, do a little wiki or discogs research, and find some releases i want to hear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest disparaissant Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 here's a good one: black kids - wizard of ahhhhs http://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/10743-wizard-of-ahhhs-ep/ black kids got super hyped up after this EP, which led to the release of their first LP black kids - partie traumatic http://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/11617-partie-traumatic/ LEGITIMATE MUSIC JOURNALISM!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Coalbucket PI Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 I don't have a problem with Pitchfork, they tend to have the reviews I'm looking for and I don't put that much weight on anyone's ability to describe to me how much I might enjoy music in writing (there is some old watmm quote about dancing to architecture isn't there?). Some attempt to describe the sound and variety, some of the influences or similarities and a little context; that's fine for me. Institutional consistency is a pipe dream if anyone is to have any freedom of expression. I think in a lot of cases I could read a good or a bad review of the same record and have a pretty similar idea of whether I'm interested from both. That said I normally read reviews after I've heard an album that I am curious about how others perceive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GORDO Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 But I don't go to a music reviewing publication to read random opinions that we could all come up with ourselves. I'm looking for a little institutional consistency...something that will give me the feeling that I'm being guided by an informed set of view points that keeps history in perspective rather than getting a perspective-less opinion from whomever happens to get the assignment. well that's just stupid. wait, you're joking right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest disparaissant Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 with pitchfork it's always been more about names i don't recognize. i find out if i like the music on my own. i will say that they embrace a very large swath of music, but their reviews and need to follow/create trends and build hype always brings the site down in my eyes. my comparison with rolling stone is based on the fact that both magazines will often completely destroy a major band's newest release simply to do it. the reviews are often comically biased with super low or high ratings that seem completely arbitrary. and then the year end lists don't reflect the review. but this is sort of the case with every review site/magazine, which is why i usually just look at a name, do a little wiki or discogs research, and find some releases i want to hear. i havent seen RS utterly destroy an album in a lonnnnnng time though. they seem to just go between 2 and 4 for literally everything Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chassis Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 Id rather listen to my peers then some faggot with a journalism degree (or not even one) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Deep Fried Everything Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 the only thing here that would be kinda nice would be for the later reviewer to go back and look at prior reviews and possibly reflect on the previously-stated opinions and observations from same. but i don't see how as an organization you could dictate that, it's really the reviewer's choice. i don't think you can ask for anything more than that; one person's opinion might vary quite widely from any other given person on something that is otherwise an "established classic" (or not even... just any piece of work). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awepittance Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 Any music journalism, even at its most honed and consistent, in the age of streaming albums and YouTube is like using an abacus to do math haha, true but you will find quite a few music 'geeks' who are still treating this abacus as a holy oracle. It's 'work' to go seek out music on your own these days, when obscure music is curated and served up to you on a silver platter it makes ones life easier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GORDO Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 I like some of the stuff pitchfork recommends, some of it I don't. I rarely read a whole review unless it is about something i already know, because i am interested in how other people see the same things i see. Any music journalism, even at its most honed and consistent, in the age of streaming albums and YouTube is like using an abacus to do math You read about it, then you youtube it, they compliment each other perfectly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awepittance Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 this is why you should get to know other friends and colleagues interesting music tastes that you like/trust rather than sites/magazines. fixed what i don't understand is why you would trust someone you do not know, who is receiving some form of payola (yes free cds are in small part payola) and has pressure to review only certain things over a close friend or a colleague with complimentary music tastes? I can't think of a single time where Pitch Fork has actually introduced me to any music i haven't heard of elsewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MAXIMUS MISCHIEF Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 they gave the new kanye west album a 10/10 and album of the year i think its pretty obvious theyre all total faggots Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joshuatxuk Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 here's a good one: black kids - wizard of ahhhhs http://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/10743-wizard-of-ahhhs-ep/ black kids got super hyped up after this EP, which led to the release of their first LP black kids - partie traumatic http://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/11617-partie-traumatic/ LEGITIMATE MUSIC JOURNALISM!!! Yep. They also went from hating the shit out of the show Glee to enthusiastically reporting that the Yeah Yeah Yeahs will have a song in an upcoming episode. You know they had a meeting about whether to write off the Yeah Yeah Yeahs as sellouts or support them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awepittance Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 Unlike most of you annoying twats, I don't have a knee-jerk negative reaction to the mere mention of Pitchfork. While I often think their reviews are pap, I do think they cover a pretty broad range of music and demonstrate a sophisticated understanding of not only current trends but also the trends of previous decades that have informed where music is today. But today, their review of Death's Spiritual, Mental, Physical is just too much. The review published today describes Death's 2009 release, For the Whole World to See, as having "lived up to every bit of [the] missing-link and lost-classic billing when [it] finally arrived." Having read that sentence, I was naturally curious. As a music fan, I certainly would not want to miss out on any album described as a lost classic (especially when it is favorably compared to The Stooges). That's why I was confused when I read Pitchfork's review of that 2009 album, which describes the album as "fall[ing] short of a diamond-in-the-rough-caliber discovery" and "gleefully ripping off all the obvious influences." I understand that individual reviewers have their own opinions about any given album, just like we do. But I don't go to a music reviewing publication to read random opinions that we could all come up with ourselves. I'm looking for a little institutional consistency...something that will give me the feeling that I'm being guided by an informed set of view points that keeps history in perspective rather than getting a perspective-less opinion from whomever happens to get the assignment. This is not unique to Pitchfork your critiques can be applied to virtually any music review site or magazine. For me personally i think there is something critical to be said about the art of big business music reviewing in general, the amount of money generated through advertising, the relationships places like Pitchfork strive to develop with certain labels or artists. IT makes me all kind of queasy to think about what really goes behind the scenes and what motivates their particular reviews. edit: i feel in a large sense Pitchfork aren't necessarily liars, but they are liars by omission similar to the technique used by almost every mainstream TV news channel or news paper. For instance has Pitchfork ever literally plucked an artist out of obscurity and elevated their stature from nothing to semi fame? Have they really giving something prominent attention that doesnt already have hype behind it? If they have done this on their own i can see some positive vibes coming out of it, but if all they do is regurgitate other peoples hypes and trends its the same shit as everything else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GORDO Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 uh arcade fire? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MAXIMUS MISCHIEF Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 animal collective... sadly but i think they got big by virtue of touring a whole cock load all over the place probly a mixture of the two Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awepittance Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 uh arcade fire? they plucked them out of obscurity? if you could provide examples of how they did that i would be interested to investigate. I always assumed arcade fire were just a group of really good musicians who were extremely good at self marketing. let me be more specific what i mean by plucked by obscurity is a band that barely has any fans besides maybe a small local presence being given top billing on Pitchfork. If they have done that i am not aware of it. If you are already touring across the country and getting 50-100 people to come some you at each stop i feel like you aren't really that obscure anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.