pitchfork is dumb (#34985859340293849494 in a series.)

btw redesign has introduced abstracts for all reviews, thx p4k!

I'd be like "hey good point we should probably include those summaries in the actual reviews as introductory paragraphs in boldface or smth like they do in the papers"

― niels, Tuesday, February 9, 2016 2:31 PM (1 month ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

x-post Not too surprising, as p4k tends to only review the sorts of albums they are predisposed to like (as opposed to Spin or RS reviewing Dave Matthews records and such)

yeah, that does make a lot of sense too - guess it's kind of old school to position yourself through disliking (even if any reader will get the implicit dislike in ignoring a popular artist entirely)

Bad reviews/ratings seem really scarce in the whole world of music publications, not just P4K.

That's because everything's awesome now. Right?

its that buyers guide/curatorial/RIYL thing that the internet has brought about. equal parts Amazon and insane rock list-makers. discarding/ignoring the bad stuff (or what people think is bad stuff) and focusing on whatever your niche is. makes sense with so much stuff out there. people don't want to read a ton of bad reviews they want itunes/spotify playlist choices.

there need to be more "worst songs/albums of the year" lists.

and then just for fairness there should also be like "the 20 most bleh middle of the road songs/albums of the year that were approximately a 5 out of 10"

You would think more publications would be down to review Twenty One Pilots since it can be kinda fun to write bad reviews.

where is the pitchfork version of this book?
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51WGnJIEHQL._SX314_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

i feel like in film or lit or many other mediums, getting one star or zero stars or whatever is common because there's a sense of like, this movie was botched so badly on some fundamental level that there's no audience that would think highly of it, whereas with music, i dunno, i think there's a greater sense of, we're only writing about it because somebody does like it, it holds some value for some audience, or there are good songs but as a whole it's not great.

back IN MY DAY most of my PF reviews were under 5/10, but that was when they would make people review any old garbage from the promo pile.

i've often thought that there's a niche (likely online) for eviscerating and ONLY eviscerating reviews; don't get why whiney isn't doing that

i think you kind of have to wait for bad records to come to you for it to not seem forced, if you're just doing a performative IT STINKS schtick it doesn't really have the same effect

every month i write about my 10 favorite albums that came out that month and one 'worst' record, and there've been ties when the 'worst' review will get more attention than the others, although i don't go scorched earth every time, sometimes i'm just genuinely disappointed in a record i was looking forward to.

If only Pitchfork would tackle the upcoming Lukas Graham album.

I remember when an ilxor wrote a semi-negative review on p4k and Genius annotated it to explain to her how wrong she was

she went against THE BUZZ and that's unconscionable. similar fits were pitched about their Lil Yachty review.

me and maura pitched a book like that after our F2K posts did monster traffic in 2009

http://www.villagevoice.com/music/f2k-the-50-worst-songs-of-the-00s-6629282

No one wanted it.

lol somehow I missed that there's an actual artist going by "Lil Yachty" and I was trying to figure out if that was a reference to something else

I remember when an ilxor wrote a semi-negative review on p4k and Genius annotated it to explain to her how wrong she was

Is this about Wet?

come to think of it, i haven't read a good/funny negative review in a long time.

If only Pitchfork would tackle the upcoming Lukas Graham album.

I mean there's a charlie puth review. anything is possible

I just learned that I went to high school with two of the writers of 7 Years.

@billstevejim have you seen this

http://www.amazon.com/Worst-Rock-Roll-Records-Time/dp/0806512318

i bought it for less than 3 at a waldenbooks when i was 16, and it probably changed my life.

also guys don't you know that negativity is out unless you're talking about out-of-context photos of people in embarrassing situations

is this the point where i say that I think "Seven Years" is very poignant and the right kind of saccharine sentimentality for me to unreservedly enjoy

a data-journalist should graph the evolution of the distribution of pitchfork scores to test the 'no more negative reviews' hypothesis

the end of negativity is possibly an undesirable side effect of the positive development of too much music. at one point Scott Plagenhof was on some ilx thread saying 'we genuinely prefer to review an album we like over one we don't', and as the # of albums increases if they stick to that principle the % of neg reviews should decrease (assuming music as a whole doesn't get worse). so they don't go out of their way to shit on a random indie album as much anymore (or only Ian Cohen does). but i feel like they still have some degree of integrity and if a notable album sucks they'll give it a nice salty review

I think Cohen has stepped away from that role.

I was going to mention a negative review in The Wire from a few years ago but, frankly, their house style makes negative reviews pretty boring

dry british academic voice meets salty dialogue isn't very biting

that thing Lex wrote about Future Brown last year was a good 'ah, they just don't write negative music criticism like this anymore' moment

wapo can be pretty negi at times.

If I want reviews that don't flow with the current of pop (sub)culture opinion, I wade through RYM, and various music-themed message boards/genre-specific sites. There's a lot of bad writing at these places, and I'm sure plenty of the contributors would love the exposure somewhere like Pfork would give them. However, there are also people just writing because they love the music, or they know so much about it, good or bad, they can't keep it down. Opinions about music, art, film -- hell, ANYTHING -- carry the most weight to me when people don't have anything to gain by giving them out. Business, by definition, don't fit that criteria.

while a lot of this falls on editors (in general, not at any one outlet) writers play some part -- if you're pitching a negative review of an album, unless you have a psychic link to the editor's mind and coverage plan (or an in, which means you're probably not pitching) it's a gamble with poor odds

conflicted because I really at one point did not care to read any neg reviews of anything (started writing music crit specifically because I only wanted to write about things that interested me or seem worth comment) but I do think the state of play is so different now from the pre/early/developing internet days that more pointed critical voices would be pretty welcome...but idk that it's really possible, the options are either 1) egregious hate-dishing, which is boring or 2) criticism of the "this isn't good. here's why you also should think it isn't good" variety which is more boring

still I think there's an opening for something that'd be less "here's something to help you soundtrack your days" and more "here's what this music means/is about"

I was allowed to write several long negative reviews of Bowie, etc three years ago at a certain publication; it felt particularly liberating because certain artists get piety instead of criticism.

I think successful career artists are more likely to have negative reviews published?

Hard to think of this leading a review section today.

I really at one point did not care to read any neg reviews of anything (started writing music crit specifically because I only wanted to write about things that interested me or seem worth comment)

Kinda agree with both of these, especially the latter, at least where BA is concerned; it would help if the vast majority of negative reviews weren't written from the perspective that the writer is above what he's reviewing.

Hard to be negative without losing access. Locked out of shows/interviews, can't book for lucrative festivals, etc. Also, I imagine going negative affects viewership/readership. No one likes to be told their favorite band sucks.

i am going to start publishing u2 reviews consisting of the single phrase "please stop encouraging bono"

xpost

All of that's true -- really, it's all one statement: nobody wants to hear the truth unless it validates or makes them feel good. I don't mean a singular, objective truth either -- rather, it's about being able to handle someone else's (brutal) honesty. There IS a way to write negative criticism, and still be respectful.

Reminds me of that great scene in Birdman, when the critic lays out to Michael Keaton how she's going to pan him worse than anyone she ever has, just because she doesn't like what he stands for. But really, it's because she's a bad critic with too much power. Her relationship to the shows and their stars is too close, and everyone is kind of in bed with everyone else. You can't have real honesty in that situation without feelings getting hurt, money being lost, and the whole thing unraveling. To your point Josh, why should a publication give shit if they don't get free access to shows just because of an honest negative critique? To me, that makes the band look band, not the critic (and in which case, can freely be reported the next time the band comes through town and the publication has to pay to get in) -- and emphasizes the VALUE of an independent press.

while a lot of this falls on editors (in general, not at any one outlet) writers play some part -- if you're pitching a negative review of an album, unless you have a psychic link to the editor's mind and coverage plan (or an in, which means you're probably not pitching) it's a gamble with poor odds

So you didn't have to pitch that Wet review or you did actually have a psychic connection?

Hard to be negative without losing access. Locked out of shows/interviews, can't book for lucrative festivals, etc. Also, I imagine going negative affects viewership/readership. No one likes to be told their favorite band sucks.

― Josh in Chicago, Tuesday, March 29, 2016 5:53 PM (31 minutes ago) Bookmark

eh pitchfork will still burn big acts or throw water on hyped artists they're not really feeling. (there are artists they have to or choose to "protect" but this is true for every publication that's ever existed.) this discussion is more relevant to the bottom 3-4 reviews in a given day. those reviews are more likely to have been pitched by writers as opposed to assigned by editors due to obvious importance and that's where you see the phenomenon of it being easier to land a review of something you're passionate about as opposed to something you think is mediocre or bad. "this rapper/band that most people have never heard of just put out a new album and it's not good" is an understandably hard sell!

why should a publication give shit if they don't get free access to shows just because of an honest negative critique?

Because I think the notion of an independent press has been weakened, especially in this particular field. Access to a musician is very, very tightly controlled, and without that access a publication loses the very thing that lures readers/viewers. I'd posit that the publication has more to gain from this particular contemporary symbiotic relationship at this point, which puts them in a weaker (financial, editorial) position. Now, I'm sure this isn't true across the board. A publication like, I dunno, The Wire, no one is getting rich. Few of their acts are filling giant venues and selling thousands of records. It's a labor of love. But once you start gunning for exclusives and access to bigger names, let alone page views, I suspect those publications have to be very judicious with the negative stuff, since they have the most to lose. It used to be more true that any coverage was better than no coverage, I don't think that's true anymore. From an artist/label/promotor's standpoint, it's about control/power, and the press has less than ever before.

But yeah, to be fair, writer-pitched stuff is more likely to be positive, because once you get to the lower tier/less known stuff, there's really no reason anyone would even listen to it unless they liked it! Considering most music (or anything) is pretty terrible, why waste the space on it unless it is innately newsworthy, which is to say, better known? But going negative on the high profile stuff, it's a bit of a gamble, especially for a publication with a reputation as hip, or incisive, or authoritative. (Wrong) gambles like Xgau panning Hendrix or RS repeatedly going negative of Led Zeppelin, dunno how often big fish get fried these days.

Considering most music (or anything) is pretty terrible, why waste the space on it unless it is innately newsworthy, which is to say, better known?

This I meant as a sort of corollary, why reviews might be more positive than negative.

it's about control/power, and the press has less than ever before.

ooof, yeah. This is a symptom of something, not exactly sure what. Hope it changes soon.

This is a symptom of something, not exactly sure what.

The word you're looking for might be "capitalism."

Seems to me like access is becoming less of a concern for a lot of publications. Lots of big name artists don't do interviews anymore with even the biggest pubs (hello Vogue write-around on Beyoncé), and at the lower level there's a complete glut of interview-based content that only differentiates itself through controversy or gimmick. I've actually been trying to figure out what an alternate path for an outlet that doesn't have the clout to even get A-minus-list names might be, because I do feel like there's something about the current setup that just isn't connecting with large audiences.

But yeah, to be fair, writer-pitched stuff is more likely to be positive, because once you get to the lower tier/less known stuff, there's really no reason anyone would even listen to it unless they liked it! Considering most music (or anything) is pretty terrible, why waste the space on it unless it is innately newsworthy, which is to say, better known? But going negative on the high profile stuff, it's a bit of a gamble, especially for a publication with a reputation as hip, or incisive, or authoritative. (Wrong) gambles like Xgau panning Hendrix or RS repeatedly going negative of Led Zeppelin, dunno how often big fish get fried these days.

― Josh in Chicago, Tuesday, March 29, 2016 6:36 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

yeah I was mostly talking about big-name artists here. there is also the aspect of competition -- if you're pitching a less-known artist there's probably a good chance you're the only one pitching it, but if you're pitching, idk, taylor swift then you are competing with god knows how many other people, and by the time someone tells you no it's too late to write about it for anyone

(obviously one way around that is a full-time and/or exclusive position, in the same way that one way around lifelong debt is a winning lottery ticket)

Ha you're right, but only because 99% of full time staff positions don't really qualify--they are glorified logistics jobs: proofreading, formatting, packaging, aggregating, etc