pitchfork is dumb (#34985859340293849494 in a series.)

I think another q here is that the curative sense of criticism is gone now that music's ubiquitous; I don't need you (not you-specifically: you-anybody), or anybody else, to tell me what something sounds like, because I can hear for myself. in the age of print, your review, if I trusted you or was persuaded by your writing, might convince me to spend money. your bad review of something with a big promotional push behind it might save me five bucks. reviews do not serve that function at all any more -- I can go directly to Spotify or YouTube or wherever, so when I read a review, I'm more likely seeing what somebody else thinks about something I already have an opinion about. I think that probably informs what people write to some extent - anybody who thinks "I'm describing something for a reader who wants to know what it sounds like" is kinda kidding themselves, no?

for most artists, it's still about convincing people to spend their time. like if i was to review the new k michelle album, why would i assume everyone knows what it sounds like?

it's still about convincing people to spend their time

otm

I might not care about what a particular writer thinks of an album but in atime when you can easily be subjected to dozens of new releases every day a review might help me figure out if this is something I want to listen to

The Wire is still pretty vicious at times. I guess they don't care much about the whole "access to artists" thing. They sometimes negatively review things, books especially, by writers who work for the Wire. I always wonder how that goes down. Must be a little awkward at least.

they send some really friendly email messages if you let your subscription lapse, that's for sure

reviews also use the context in which they appear to bring things to people's attention. we can't assume that everyone knows about everything all at once in real time. readers may no longer depend on reviews to explain in advance what music sounds like, but some still seem to appreciate being told about what exists and where they might care to investigate further.

Beyond that, reading description about what something sounds like is usually really boring. And most people are really bad at, opting for cliches that mean nothing at all ("synth washes", "shimmering harmonies", etc). I think some cursory information about a band's sound is absolutely necessary -- but unless you possess a gift for concise description, it's probably better to keep it pretty basic, or just compare to other bands. I mean, I'd rather read an easy band comparison than a meaningless cliche.

That said, for reviews I appreciate, there's often an effort made to draw connections to non-obvious things, or explain some part of the history of the band that had a logical bearing on why the record sounds the way it does. For example, maybe a band ditched their longtime producer, and went with this other person who produced A, B & C. Or maybe they got a new drummer, and that helps explain why they sound like Rush now instead of Flaming Lips. Or maybe they stopped touring, and that helps explain the shift in their sound, analogous to some other (otherwise totally unrelated band) who stopped touring and changed their sound somehow. I like reviews that make an effort to flesh out dimensions in sound that aren't immediately apparent, even if I *were* listening to the record.

just compare to other bands. I mean, I'd rather read an easy band comparison than a meaningless cliche.

i'm paraphrasing something maura said but band comparisons can be really rough, and more reveal the limitations of the writer's imagination and listening than anything about the band

it's true, but no more so than meaningless cliched description, and at least a band comparison lets me rely on my own knowledge rather than having to guess what someone really means by a cliche

Reviews should just be a summary of the artist's social media highlights since the last release

otm

Nick Pinkerton's negative Jurassic World review convinced me to go for a Sight and Sound subscription, here are the opening paragraphs:

Jurassic World is of a canny new breed of blockbusters, which is to say it understands that movies are to be evaluated for their served-on-a-platter issues as much as for their thrills, chills, spills etc. With this in mind, Jurassic World is liberally decorated with guidepost dialogue outlining its themes, quotes that flacks may excerpt in whole, though the most relevant to the film at hand is the familiar statement of the low-level functionary denying culpability: “C’mon guys, I just work here.”

The third sequel to Steven Spielberg’s 1993 blockbuster and the first since 2001, Jurassic World epitomises four-quadrant-striving boardroom-delegated moviemaking and the quagmire resulting from fan-expectation-driven supersizing that’s endemic to sequel-making and ‘rebooting’. What it exemplifies – the meddling of corporate suits in matters they don’t understand and the perils of juicing up a perfectly good formula – is also its subject.

people just want to know if something has the goods. quick takes. more and more people act like strict genre fans used to always act. garage fans wanted to know if there was killer fuzz. metal fans wanted to know if something was bloody enough. if you said it was bloody enough we'd probably buy it. everyone wants that now. cuz there is so much to look at online. negative stuff online just reads as trolling to people. i'm always amazed how specific people are now when they come in the store. they are looking for very specific records and sounds. no aimless wandering through the record bins. time's a wastin'! and they get that way from their online scanning. they know what they like when they see it. they are educated impulse buyers.

i'm paraphrasing something maura said but band comparisons can be really rough, and more reveal the limitations of the writer's imagination and listening than anything about the band

This can be a huge problem, especially when a writer starts rattling off comparisons-as-description that are a) full of names of bands that nobody but music critics ever listened to, thus effectively useless, or b) mired in cliched rock-critic received wisdom. (Oh, really? We're gonna compare this latest quartet of anono-twats to Pet Sounds and the Velvet Underground? Someone please inject me with an air bubble once I finish slipping into this coma, thanks.)

pinkerton is great. one of my favorite film writers.

a lot of my students have told me they read reviews after they've listened to albums in order to get context.

^^ that's how many of us became critics

^^that's always been how i read reviews, especially non-music, but i always thought no one else did!

(often with art, film or theatre reviews, i'll skim reviews/recommendations to see how much it piques my interest, and after i've seen it i'll go back and binge on every review i can)

xp

it's fun to read a good writer rip into some corny music imo, just one of the simple pleasures of reading any criticism

honestly i wish more of my favourite writers would write more negative stuff. it feels like most pro critics are very openly enthusiastic about the music they love, tiresomely vocal about ~buzz music that it turns out they don't even like that much, and completely silent on music they don't like

xpost

Yeah, I'm beginning to wish I never said that. It's really a lesser of two evils for me. To Scott's point, when I read metal reviews, and someone compares the band to Slayer -- it doesn't tell me much, but it at least means we're probably talking about straight-up thrash. This could mean it's generic, or really good. So, they have to write more, it just gets me started. However, compare that to just writing, "this band plays thrash", or even worse, "this band plays fast 80s metal". That's marginally less informative to me, because I at least have an opinion about the kind of thrash Slayer plays.

A better way might be something like, "Band X came up alongside the generation of thrash bands directly influenced by Celtic Frost, Venom and the first wave of Bay Area thrash. This means that while their music doesn't always stand out among the class '85, their use of unusual, quasi-modal chord patterns, and particularly the influence of Greek folk music in their rhythms (courtesy of main songwriter, and Greek lead singer Yoijasodfui Hoiuos) gave them a relatively unique sound." I can guess they're probably a not-necessarily-remarkable thrash band, but with undertones that give them a unique identity.

i understand the writerly objection to lazy band/artist comparisons, but a broad injunction is similar to the old saw about profanity being "the effort of a feeble brain to express itself forcibly." sometimes "fuck" is precisely the right word. and sometimes the best way to say that someone clearly owes a lot to prince is simply that.

I still get great pleasure in eviscerating bad movies. That's the genre where the culture of consensus rules supreme.

Outside of old jazz records for which I had no cultural context and needed someone to frame them for me via the allmusic guide, I don't think I ever used critics as a buyers guide. Whenever people bring up that "we don't need critics any more since we can listen to anything" argument I seriously cannot relate: the reason I was drawn to music (aside from a brief window where I felt like I was joining the Conversation in the early-mid 00s) had a lot more to do w cultural context I was in and always has, including when I was spending money on CDs.

This can be a huge problem, especially when a writer starts rattling off comparisons-as-description that are a) full of names of bands that nobody but music critics ever listened to, thus effectively useless, or b) mired in cliched rock-critic received wisdom. (Oh, really? We're gonna compare this latest quartet of anono-twats to Pet Sounds and the Velvet Underground? Someone please inject me with an air bubble once I finish slipping into this coma, thanks.)

― the top man in the language department (誤訳侮辱), Wednesday, March 30, 2016 11:22 AM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

see I LOVE a), and often it is the only way to even find out about those bands

often i belatedly find i've completely omitted any reference points at all, which i think is bc reference points that do occur to me are either a) slightly sideways and indirect and often not to do with the actual genre, or b) also make me think of all the differences and thus require an extra para of clarification. if a reference point is obvious and direct and isn't also a point of contrast then it's not really a compliment

ooh, that stings...

"Most of all, we listen for reassurance that our beloved Weezer can avoid relapsing completely into embarrassment—and by those parameters, mediocre may as well be magnificent."

http://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/21593-weezer-white-album/

not really though. now pitchfork isn't gonna get free weezer tickets!

the song's sharp commentary is overshadowed by an overwrought arrangement cribbed from Zep's "Stairway to Heaven"—right down to the acapella ending

I think I need to listen to "Stairway to Heaven" again; I don't remember an a cappella part.

I think he meant the "she's buuuuuyyying a stairway" part. I think?

That's the only a capella part of the song, so I would assume so.

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

― a self-reinforcing downward spiral of male-centric indie (katherine), Wednesday, 30 March 2016 04:20 (Yesterday) Permalink

this

Something that happens to me more and more is that I want to have lots of time with whatever I've reviewing - like weeks. I don't want to spend a week with the album PLUS (in some cases) cramming to get up to speed on a back catalogue. So generally when pitching I'm gonna pitch way in advance, which in a world full of scheduled and stunt releases, presents its own set of problems. Also: unless it's an artist I care about or it's awful in a spectacular/interesting way, I don't really want to write a negative review, I'd rather write about something that blows my mind or opens up new vistas.

Oscar gives it four-and-a-half phooeys.
http://vignette4.wikia.nocookie.net/muppet/images/e/e1/SYSATMR.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20100218024413

PHOOEY PHOOEY PHOOEY PHOOEY (and one-half PHOOEY)

A Visual History of Battles (the Band)

When I saw this headline, I'm expecting it to be a visual history of Robbie Robertson getting into it with Levon Helm.

What's with all the Deftones love this week?

I dunno. If I had realized they sounded like Thursday, I might have listened to them 15 years ago.

What's with all the Deftones love this week?

long overdue imo

i feel like p4k has been covering a ton of old bands lately, makes me question whether their core audience really is passionate millenial males tbh

right now on the p4k home page are:

queens of the stone age
at the drive-in
metallica
pj harvey
the shins
the black keys
the beach boys
deftones

p4k becoming Rolling Stone for aging hipsters?

well p4k is about as old now as Rolling Stone was in 1984

http://rymimg.com/lk/f/l/65603346bd3ac5016e5ae1e0d2be25f7/3802938.jpg

that album is great, 10.0 #bestoldmusic

so there IS a new issue of the pitchfork review coming out. but i'm not in it. sad really. i liked being in a pretty magazine that you could find at the last remaining barnes & noble on earth. it's the jazz issue too and i totally could have written about the best dollar jazz records! i'm guessing j-hop was my only champion over there.

Maybe you can write about jazz for MTV or wherever she went.

yeah, she went to MTV.

tbh the website redesign is so bad I've basically stopped reading

me too

did u guys read my pj harvey story though #RollingStoneforaginghipsters