pitchfork is dumb (#34985859340293849494 in a series.)

critics probably love having said that a band is promising but flawed on an early album, and then getting to be right when they get it together later on.

jaymc, i think the nat'l are a special case.

yeah, I'm not really touching that part, just saying it's quite common for musicians to start with "pretty good" coverage and move along to raves

this seems like a common career arc: debut album gets pretty good reviews (lots of potential); album nos. 2 -- 3 get increasingly good reviews (meeting potential); album no. 4 gets a chillier reception (burned out their sound; haven't innovated; innovated too much; become too old and comfortable). album no. 5 and beyond are the wildcards. not a guaranteed progression, obviously, but something i've seen often.

Let's monetize this thread and churn out a book, How Pitchfork Works.

jaymc, i think the nat'l are a special case.

Special in what way? Or are you just saying they're a rare exception to the way things usually shake out? (I'll be honest, I had no idea until recently that they were on their fifth full-length. I thought Alligator was their debut.)

i actually may have been driving at a point that is somewhat off-topic. i get the sense that a lot of critics felt like they underrated alligator, and made up for it with glowing reviews of boxer. my sense comes from reading a number of boxer reviews lamenting the fact that alligator didn't get due credit at the time of its release.

Here's an interesting trajectory:

The Coroner's Gambit (2000): 8.5
All Hail West Texas (2002): 8.2
Tallahassee (2002): 6.7
We Shall All Be Healed (2004): 6.9
The Sunset Tree (2005): 7.2
Get Lonely (2006): 7.6
Heretic Pride (2008): 8.0
The Life of the World to Come (2009): 8.4 (BNM)

yeah, it is. i hadn't noticed the uptick on get lonely (over the sunset tree).

here's what i consider a more traditional trajectory:

• mass romantic -- 8.4
• electric vision -- 8.1
• twin cinema -- 9.0
• challengers -- 6.0
• together -- 7.3

(and a compression of the arc where album three replaces album four. oh, whatevs.)

one of the things about making records like the National's is that the early ones might tend to get under-rated. they're the kinds of (relatively) straightforward rock albums that live or die based mostly on whether there's deep, long-term emotional attachment and communal, word-of-mouth love many months after they're released. so I think, with a lot of music like that, there's one record individual critics spend a few weeks with and say "hey, this is pretty great!," and then there's a building response over the length of the year ("it just keeps growing on me, and on everyone else, too!"), and then it does well on year-end lists, and then the next album, if it's good, is the one where this all pays off in reviews.

xpost -- are the career-tracing numbers supposed to say something about band narratives or something about reviews? don't forget to adjust for most bands being reviewed by different critics

another:

• almost killed me -- 8.0
• separation sunday -- 8.7
• boys & girls in america -- 9.4
• stay positive -- 8.4
• heaven is whenever -- 6.2

don't forget to adjust for most bands being reviewed by different critics

very fair point.

you cant make these trajecory arc assumptions on the career of a handful of bands out of the thousands that are getting reviewed though Daniel. doesnt hold up.

you're right. i'm only passing along my impression, built over the years, along with some anecdotal examples.

Metacritic scores might be more useful than Pitchfork scores if you're trying to make a general claim about the critical consensus.

good point:

• mass romantic -- 87
• electric vision -- 82
• twin cinema -- 85
• challengers -- 74
• together -- 71

another:

• almost killed me -- 78
• separation sunday -- 86
• boys & girls -- 85
• stay positive -- 85
• heaven is whenever -- 75

I'm not really into the different critics - same publication argument. If you can't expect some kind of unified vision/voice from a publication, what exactly is attracting you to read it? Like, yes, different critics reviewing different albums, but there is such thing as the P4k position on a band, album, from an institutional standpoint even if it isn't micromanaged.

If you can't expect some kind of unified vision/voice from a publication, what exactly is attracting you to read it? Like, yes, different critics reviewing different albums, but there is such thing as the P4k position on a band, album, from an institutional standpoint even if it isn't micromanaged.

― Mordy, Tuesday, June 8, 2010 6:04 PM (26 minutes ago) Bookmark

and putting that aside, there might be any number of reasons to read a much less unified critical publication. say for instance, your impression that they regularly published the work of talented writers and/or interesting thinkers.

fiery furnaces and trail of dead trajectories = </3

fiery furnaces and trail of dead trajectories = </3

alright. emeralds getting some spotlight. finally pitchfork takes notice. missed out on What Happened last year but that's fine.

is this Stars of the Lid kinda stuff? because if it is i might have to get this

alright. emeralds getting some spotlight. finally pitchfork takes notice. missed out on What Happened last year but that's fine.

Pfork actually cited What Happened in their 2009 year-end honorable mention list:

http://pitchfork.com/features/staff-lists/7745-albums-of-the-year-honorable-mention

Regardless, though, it's a fantastic album. I pulled it out last night for a spin and it is magical.

is this Stars of the Lid kinda stuff? because if it is i might have to get this

Can't speak for the new album (yet), but What Happened is perhaps *similar* to Stars of the Lid, in a way. It's coming more from the very ambient end of the drone/noise camp, as opposed to SotL's almost classical approach. But there is def. crossover appeal for fans of one or the other.

Awesome. I think I'll check this out.

The other Emeralds thing I've heard is called Solar Bridge and it's also very, very good. Haven't had a chance to delve into the big formless mass of CDr and cassette releases, but that's why we have Herman, right?

http://img535.imageshack.us/img535/1261/partialdiscography.jpg

The earlier stuff isn't as good as the later music. A band that improves greatly after each release.

with each new release

Btw, there is an emeralds thread that this discussion should be in and not this horseshit thread.

Emeralds-Classic or Dud?

I didn't see the honorable mention before. I was just being a little snarky but I am glad that they are getting some recognition. What Happened is the only Emeralds that i've heard but I really fell in love with it. I'm excited to get this one. But yeah we can move this elsewhere.

jesus christ why am i just hearing about a new emeralds album now?

Because the "pitchfork is dumb" thread is the fuckin treasure trove of pointers to the best shit extant!

Check back next week when we all genuflect before the new Extricable Ferns record! The week after: the Focused Dolphins! And even later: the Manicured Fjords!

so jaded.

j-j-j-jaded!

I used to check the site every day, then last year I started doing Google Reader and plugging in all my favorite sites, so now I only open it if there' a news item particularly interesting. Tho usually those news items are reported by other site feeds around the same time as P4K so sometimes I read about it elsewhere. I rarely read a full review unless there's a funny HRO post about one.

Also, I would definitely go back to reading every day if Mark Prindle wrote. He's amazing. I even bought some of his band's CDs (The Low Maintenance Perennials). Damn funny, damn fine lo-fi Ween-style epics!

for non-metal music writing "big" sites, i read the New York Times music section, the Village Voice music section, and, uh, Pitchfork

RIP Stylus

i some blogs and other stuff too tho

beyond that, haven't found too much that interest me in the indiesphere was far as rock writing goes

I've seen a few people suggest recently that it's in some way mean or cowardly for Pitchfork not to allow people to comment underneath its album reviews, as if (a) this is some entrenched right of the modern internet user and (b) P4K comment boxes wouldn't attract the worst people on earth

As if "Quality of the Comments" is any reason to have or not have comments on a site. Pitchfork is a business that thrives on advertising, and that's largely based on pageviews-- and I can't even begin to imagine how much they could multiply their traffic simply by sticking comment boxes on their shit. Sure, the commenters will incessantly say stupid, idiotic, worthless things, but they're also going to reload those pages thousands of times-- to see how people responded to the stupid, idiotic, worthless things they said.

Pitchfork deliberately choosing to not have comments is one of the most stubborn, boneheaded decisions they continue to make. Yes, the commenters are going to be some of the worst on earth-- but that's the case for pretty much any large site. Meanwhile, every day they go without, it's essentially money out of their pocket.

maybe they actually care about maintaing a certain level of quality on their site, and adding comment boxes would diminish that

like, as an avid P4k reader, i am very thankful i don't have to see comments boxes all over the place when i go to read their stuff

ILM rip

also, you don't know for sure whether their advertising revenue is tied to pageviews. it could be unique visits or something else

Alfred I think you should start a music criticism vlog -- see Music Criticism in Video Form for ideas