pitchfork is dumb (#34985859340293849494 in a series.)

Not to say I long for the days of 0.0 stunt reviews, those always bugged me, but I can't remember the last time Pitchfork was genuinely harsh on a record that anyone might've reasonably expected a good review of. Now that BNM is the big trophy, there are lots of those little trophies to go around to just about every team in the pee wee league. (xpost)

xpost - I know it was a joke, but seriously, some folks will seem genuinely annoyed by ratings up in the mid-to-high 7s, on the logic that they'll just get lost in the blur of "quite good" indie albums released each year.

And on the other side, reader-wise, I do think people who are in touch with the site's taste category should look carefully at ranges like the high 7s. This is not a mediocre score -- it's filled with plenty of albums that could be someone's favorite of the year, if they were up that person's particular alley. Like a 7.8 should never read to anyone as a turnoff!

Yeah...part of why I never totally fit in w/ PF I think is that I have a totally different idea of how to apply the scale of 10 to albums than most people, like maybe 10% of my reviews were an 8 or higher and many were way lower, and there are a lot of records I love wholeheartedly but would happily give a 7 or a high 6. Sometimes I'm not sure what a 9.5 or 10.0 album would sound like or if I've ever heard one.

yeah 6 and 7 = read the review and sample if it seems like something you might be into.

Sometimes I'm not sure what a 9.5 or 10.0 album would sound like or if I've ever heard one.

10 seems to be the designation reserved for reissues of classic records and shit. I don't think they'll ever pull another Yankee Hotel Foxtrot.

Ha, I'm not sure I'll ever entirely understand the dread. Hell, some folks seem surprisingly pissed that they have, say, released a record that was deemed notable, found worthy of coverage, and given a generally positive review on a well-read music website. I understand that people are going to think their records are 9.9s -- that's awesome, that's just believing in your work and caring about what you do -- but I don't know how mad anyone should get about press that says "this band's work is fairly good!"; your problem there isn't the press, it's that you're in the midst of a shuffle of SO MUCH other music that you were hoping for something more.

― oɔsıqɐu (nabisco), Monday, June 7, 2010 11:26 AM (16 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

I'm saying the "dreaded 6.0 to 8.2 zone" is basically the arena where no one pays attention to the review. if pfork gives a CD a really good review or a really bad review, it gets talked about on the internet and becomes a tiny meme in its own right. A 7.1 basically says "this record exists." It's not complaining about the criticism in it, it's complaining that no one will notice it. In a lot of ways it's BETTER for a band to get a 3.2 than a 7.8

i wonder why it seems that, generally, new albums are more favorably received than new movies. compare the top end of the metacritic scores for discs and films, and you'll see what i mean.

10 seems to be the designation reserved for reissues of classic records and shit.

yeah this is pretty reprehensible imo

pfork had the opportunity to hand a 0.0 to the latest muse album and failed to take it

i pay attention to reviews at or above 7.0, but -- like most -- i have limited time, so the samples or a given song would have to hit me pretty immediately for me to circle back and spend more time with that album.

Yeah, I'm kinda w/ ship though. At least with the 10s. What record would you give a 10 to? Toro Y Moi?? \(^o^)/

Sometimes I'm not sure what a 9.5 or 10.0 album would sound like or if I've ever heard one.

Yeah, of the couple hundred Singles Jukebox reviews I wrote over the years, the only 10 I ever gave was for "Running Up That Hill," in a special Kate Bush retrospective edition.

i wonder why it seems that, generally, new albums are more favorably received than new movies. compare the top end of the metacritic scores for discs and films, and you'll see what i mean.

― Daniel, Esq., Monday, June 7, 2010 11:46 AM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

i have a lot of theories about why the points spreads on music vs. film on things like metacritic can be pretty different, but mostly it comes down to film having slightly more objective standards of quality (in terms of acting, storytelling, visuals etc.) that make the flaws and failures harder to spin as positives in anything but a so-bad-it's-good way.

i wish PF would create a separate reissue section, perhaps with 2 separate scores for the album itself and for the quality/necessity of the reissue (giving a 7.0 to the most recent reissue of My Aim Is True just because it was kind of redundant was pretty wrongheaded), but tbh i'm just happy for the time being that they finally stopped putting 'best new music' next to reissues.

I pay a lot more attention to mentions of certain sonic aspects, influences, keywords that pique my interest related to genres I love already, etc., than the ratings themselves. Anything with keywords "psych" "motorik" "drone" "avant" "Krautrock" "metal" (the list is pretty extensive... just a few keywords there, top of mind) will get a click and I'll skim the review for more info and then search a track on YouTube if I'm feeling like it. The rating's an afterthought. I couldn't care less about a 9.0 for Ariel Pink, I'd rather search something that's described sonically as more up my alley than just listen to all the BNM recipients.

i think a BIG part of the movies/music thing is that film crits review pretty much everything that comes out. pfork/other music sites are more selective about what they cover, because there's no way anyone can review every cd that comes out every week.

in fact, i think that is the only thing.

Anything with keywords "psych" "motorik" "drone" "avant" "Krautrock" "metal"

i still can't believe you shitted on the Mike Patton ATP

10 seems to be the designation reserved for reissues of classic records and shit. I don't think they'll ever pull another any band will ever make an album as perfect as Yankee Hotel Foxtrot ever again.

^ what ksh meant to say?

i'm much more likely to give a 9 or 10 to a song (although I'm still relatively stingy) than to an album, personally -- making a 3 or 5-minute song that's pretty much perfect is a totally plausible if not easily attainable feat, but stringing together a dozen of them as a body of work that holds together as a body of work unto itself seems kind of like a crazy highwire act that's almost impossible. i love lots of albums for their missteps and flaws, and in a way i'd like to think a perfect album doesn't exist. perfection's not a quality i look for in the medium.

i still can't believe you shitted on the Mike Patton ATP

Yeah me neither. If I took a second look at that lineup now I'd probably eat my shoe tbh (esp. considering I've gone through a mini self-revival of my Patton fandom in recent months; how are those FNM records all so much fucking better than I ever rememebered them being?!?).

obviously i had a hiccup in that sentence and repeated myself, but you know what i mean.

i have a lot of theories about why the points spreads on music vs. film on things like metacritic can be pretty different, but mostly it comes down to film having slightly more objective standards of quality (in terms of acting, storytelling, visuals etc.) that make the flaws and failures harder to spin as positives in anything but a so-bad-it's-good way.

Have said this once or twice before but I think it's more to do with publications (esp newspapers) often having one film critic who does the whole spread of film reviews, and is inevitably going to think some of them suck ass - whereas music writers more often than not just get one album at a time, and usually try and write about something they like, or expect to like

as slocki more or less said

that too, same idea

yeah that too, totally. but i also think music crit leaves a lot more wiggle room in the critic being able to champion a bomb or a no-name or trash a sacred cow. you do that too much w/ movies and you get an Armond White-type reputation. you do that w/ music and you're just one eccentric/contrarian/genre specialist among many.

I'm saying the "dreaded 6.0 to 8.2 zone" is basically the arena where no one pays attention to the review. if pfork gives a CD a really good review or a really bad review, it gets talked about on the internet and becomes a tiny meme in its own right. A 7.1 basically says "this record exists." It's not complaining about the criticism in it, it's complaining that no one will notice it. In a lot of ways it's BETTER for a band to get a 3.2 than a 7.8

That's absolutely true. Publicists and label people I know dread three-star reviews, which they see as "Meh" regardless of what the text says. To them, three stars means "Fanbase only". A two or a one is spinnable - "Look! This record is divisive!"

and i mean, as someone who's reviewed 1,000 records last year, i can pretty much say that most records worth talking about prolly fall in that range anyway

'reviewed'

"ilx poster iatee"

"irl lol"

http://www.wired.com/images/article/magazine/geekipedia/fake_steve_jobs.jpg

"By the way, what have you done that's so great? Do you create anything, or just criticize others work and belittle their motivations?"

real talk i hate the #s. i wish people would just read the reviews

which, fwiw, many do.

to what degree do you guys care about people who only look at numbers having opinions about music anyway. i write so people who care about reading about music will read. im not trying to boost sales numbers at amoeba (& it should go w/out saying im sure j stalins sales numbers havent even been nudged)

u inspired me to check out the j stalin record tbh

awww, lol, they fucked over the drums (7.5 + not the lead review)

i got sick of the drums quicker than i expected

the muurrrrds

The Drums are awful, I really don't get the appeal.

7.5 -- the Drums are no longer on anyone's radar until they release another record -- best of luck next time dudes

A 7.1 basically says "this record exists." It's not complaining about the criticism in it, it's complaining that no one will notice it. In a lot of ways it's BETTER for a band to get a 3.2 than a 7.8

I get you, yes! But this is sort of what I mean. Like: a well-read music outlet paid a writer to review your record and let the world know it exists and is pretty okay. That might not be the ideal outcome, but it's pretty good! It might not attract much attention, but it's more attention than a lot of the billion other bands you're competing with, attention-wise. And hey, it's a good foundation to come out with a follow-up record that can't be ignored! (Cuz that's certainly one way to get a "divisive" and notable high or low review -- make a record that's seriously weird or brash enough for someone to hate.) I absolutely understand the disappointment of putting something out there that just gets lost in the upper-middle part of the pack, but ... it's a GIANT pack out there. You can do stuff to try and burst out of it, but otherwise, there's no shame in being welcomed into the upper-middle part of it.

That's absolutely true. Publicists and label people I know dread three-star reviews, which they see as "Meh" regardless of what the text says. To them, three stars means "Fanbase only".

it often means exactly that, but often it's that there are maybe half of it's good-to-amazing and half is boring-to-bad

a well-read music outlet paid a writer to review your record and let the world know it exists and is pretty okay. That might not be the ideal outcome, but it's pretty good! It might not attract much attention, but it's more attention than a lot of the billion other bands you're competing with, attention-wise.

Indie bands being bummed about merely being considered "good" by pitchfork is pretty fucking pathetic. What sense of entitlement do bands have these days?

They hope to sell ten copies of their record, at least. O_O

then maybe they should impress ten people at a concert.

it's not like you're without resources if pitchfork doesn't want to blow you yet!

But if you're a super tiny, ant-sized, bacterium of an indie band you'd be without a relatively big platform for getting some new fans, which is a tearful, soul-grinding truth bomb to internalize.

so's my dick

your dick's a super tiny, ant-sized, bacterium of an indie band?

ksh, how many bands that P4k reviews are at that stage in their career? I feel like most of them are working musicians of some level or another, no? (I could be totally confused about what it takes to be a working musician at this moment.)

real talk i hate the #s. i wish people would just read the reviews

― its like why GROCERY BAG and not saddam? (deej), Monday, June 7, 2010 5:10 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark

anyway, my problem with pitchfork is that it's been a quite a while since i read a really interesting or entertaining p-fork review. there just doesn't seem to be much personality, soul or fire in their writing. it's generally coherent, readable and seemingly well-informed, but i sort of miss the wacky-ass stuff they used to run in the old days. i mean, who's their lester bangs, their scott seward?

ksh, how many bands that P4k reviews are at that stage in their career? I feel like most of them are working musicians of some level or another, no? (I could be totally confused about what it takes to be a working musician at this moment.)

― Mordy, Tuesday, June 8, 2010 4:14 PM (43 seconds ago)

Probably very few. I was exaggerating w/ the 10 records thing though. My point was, many of the bands they review probably don't have huge fanbases and aren't selling tons of records. That just seems like a given.