pitchfork is dumb (#34985859340293849494 in a series.)

(Though I guess Metacritic assigns fake numerical ratings when they compile reviews anyway.)

Reminder that the reviewers don't choose the ratings

it remains more complicated than this

i don't think it's very difficult to understand why a lot of ppl would be mad at pitchfork for giving an album that has been considered a pillar of R&B for decades a 7.0.... read the last 20 years of the room

my life is at least an 8 and is mjb's best record imo, "rating inflation is a blight" may be true to you but pfork giving a mary j. blige record a 7 isn't a fight against rating inflation, that's the status quo

This is why the numbers game is ridiculous anyway, like a lesser score by 1.0 on a 10.0 scale isn't some incredible trashing or whatever. The reaction has been like a 5 star record suddenly getting a 2 star review for the reissue which this... isn't.

hey guys, i have a new subscription service i'm offering: i will pretend to be you on twitter and take all the abuse.

rates vary, depending on how concentrated the death threats are.

i deleted a disclaimer at the end of my posts where i said all ratings are bullshit anyway and the undue focus on them is a net negative for criticism and discourse and has been for one billion years but i figured it was too obvious

Yeah, I would prefer to get rid of them altogether too but I can't see Pitchfork, especially, ever doing that considering that's such a built in part of their reputation now.

Has any person congratulating Alfred for standing up to “MJB Hive” actually even listened to that album before lmfao

Yes, I like it a lot! More than Alfred does even, but I still thought his review was thoughtful and I don't think he deserves to get abuse for it.

tbh the headline pullquote ("occasionally tedious...") stirred the Twitter beehive as much as the rating.

to answer d-40's q: yes, it's far and away my favorite mjb album.

while i definitely disagree that it's "tedious", my posts above about being a jerk to alfred because of the review were in jest.

i mean, no offense alf, but you're a cracker so i wouldn't expect you to understand that kind of music anyway.

(am i doing this right?)

{please understand that i am making fun of everything and everyone here, myself included. you're a fine creator of insightful paragraphs about music, alfred. and i know that's the truth because even the stuff you say that i disagree with i still enjoy reading.}

it remains more complicated than this

Sorry, guess my memory was hazy - I looked back at the discussion a few years ago ITT (which was kicked off when a reviewer who got trashed for a Janelle Monae piece tweeted that there's no writer input into ratings), and I see that you & J0rdan did offer a more nuanced explanation of how it works (though it still didn't sound like the writer actually gets to dictate the final score).

(of course, if Alfred is comfortable with the rating, this avenue of discussion is moot anyway)

The range this time: 6.5 to 8.0.

{please understand that i am making fun of everything and everyone here, myself included. you're a fine creator of insightful paragraphs about music, alfred. and i know that's the truth because even the stuff you say that i disagree with i still enjoy reading.}

― Totally different head. Totally. (Austin)

I knew y'all were taking the piss. No offense made, none taken.

(of course, if Alfred is comfortable with the rating, this avenue of discussion is moot anyway)

― yes m!ch!gan - the feeling's forever (morrisp)

I am. I think the score reflects the judgments. I hope I expressed my affection for much of her music and the arc of a career that's still impressive.

Has any person congratulating Alfred for standing up to “MJB Hive” actually even listened to that album before lmfao

― ILX’s bad boy (D-40), Tuesday, November 24, 2020 3:07 PM (sixteen minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

yes and i won't insult you by suggesting that you're missing the point, rather intentionally ignoring it

i'll twitter fight anybody for you man.👍

sorry, xpost to alfred

Lmfao what is the point?? You guys think this is about a Mary stan army when it’s a critique of like, a foundational pillar of contemporary r&b.

Of course I am not pro “abuse” of Alfred. But acting like people who are like, bugging out about a 7.0 for this project are the ones being crazy must have forgotten how poorly so many early ilx album threads have aged

It's not about anyone "bugging out" -- they shouldn't be sending nastygrams to Alfred (or any reviewer). Who cares what they write on some messageboard, or even as replies to the Pitchfork tweet.

But acting like people who are like, bugging out about a 7.0 for this project are the ones being crazy must have forgotten how poorly so many early ilx album threads have aged

Those people have read those early ILX album threads?

Before you register for a Twitter account you have to read the thread "WOT'S the deal with Status Quo: Top rockers or pure twaddle??" in its entirety

Again, I love that ilx is a space for these kind of idiosyncratic takes. But Illmatic was good

illmatic was perfect

who said it wasn't good?

It was a big debate on the original ilx thread ! M@tt you’ve been here a long time too

yeah the top of any thread that's like 15 yrs old is usually cringey

sorry i was arguing about nas on another thread today and got them mixed up

Illmatic is perfect.

on the plus side, this has me relistening to my life

i think this album was my first exposure to Mary J. it was definitely a permanent installation in the tape deck of my 78 chevy nova. which is to say there's no way i'm going to have an objective viewpoint on it.

The problem with the start of the old threads isn't that they espouse a "wrong" take, it's the smug tone of "we all think so-and-so's a wanker, right?"

Surely it’s that attitude combined with being wrong, right

I have ever known ilx to frown on smug put downs out of hand

I frown on smug put-downs, also smug big-ups.

smig up

I can't believe that after 18K+ posts this thread is still confused about how the ratings number assignment process at P4k works.

I love Alfred; he is IMO wrong when he calls the songwriting on 'My Life' ho-hum; I listened to it again today to double-check and was like 'yeah, a lot of these songs are kinda jammy and without massive choruses (they are clearly not bops) but I think that's intentional and a big part of the album's aesthetic argument; like, if I'm reading Alfred correctly, the parts of the album the review describes as 'occasionally tedious' would be the equivalent of IDK a techno's record's stripped back four-to-the-floor passages; he does not deserve to be attacked or hounded for his review whether he gives MBJ a 7.0 or a 3.0 or a 9.0; saying on a message forum that you think a reviewer is wrong about an album is not necessarily attacking or hounding them; in this regard, we can all surely walk and chew gum at the same time? xxx love you all

I can't believe that after 18K+ posts this thread is still confused about how the ratings number assignment process at P4k works.

Yes, many apologies again, sir... as a public service, here’s the most recent explanation; for any others like me whose memories were somehow fuzzy on such a cut-and-dried topic:

i haven't written for pitchfork in a few years so maybe things have changed but i assume they have not very much (also this process is prob true for most places)

when it comes to big albums, the pitchfork brain trust decides what statement the site is going to make about the record. this opinion is gleaned from discussions among staff/freelancers and whatever other considerations need to be made (ryan's opinion etc). the review is then paired w/ a writer whose personal opinion more or less mirrors what the site is going to say. in that case, there's prob already a narrowly defined window for what the score will be... "low 8s" or something like that. you might say "i'd give this an 8.1" and you might hear back "we're going with 8.0" or whatever... most writers don't care that much about these little decimal points the way the editors have to. but there is def something tricky when an album gets a score in that range that is like "we def like this and want to say we like it, but we're not giving it best new music for whatever reason" bcuz most of the time the writer is prob a fan of the artist and will feel a bit more passionate/less measured than the site. that high 7s range for a big album from an artist the site covers a lot and likes generally is especially in a weird "this album is slightly imperfect to us for often opaque reasons" zone where as a writer you can be a bit disappointed that the score sort of mutes the enthusiasm in your review. but from an editor perspective it can be hard to find someone who is really motivated to thread that needle... generally you're going to lean towards someone w/ expertise on the artist, who is prob a fan etc. unless the process has changed drastically nobody is writing reviews w/o having a pretty specific idea of where the score is landing.

when it comes to smaller albums the scores are driven much more by the writer in my experience, to the point that they're often barely changed. what you pitch the score as/send it in as is usually what goes up.

& again this practice of brand sculpting and writer synergy is pretty standard

― J0rdan S., Tuesday, May 1, 2018 10:05 AM (two years ago)

I can tell you that writers have more input toward the final score than they did even in 2017.

You know what would interesting is if you could see the individual writers' ballots

i can think of fewer things i would find of less interest than the ingredients to a shitty pfork listicle.

gg, grass is growing outside and i wouldn't miss that for nothin.

Reviewers should use aliases instead of real names so they wouldn’t have to worry about this hive backlash. Tell them all how you really feel.

They should at least wear fake mustaches and wigs when they write the reviews, like restaurant critics.

Tried it, doesn't work.

you could do the really obnoxious Economist thing of no bylines so the whole publication gets targeted instead of the writers

but these things get read as if they’re part of an editorial voice anyway. considering P4k’s reputation, its history of giving raves to utter shite while dismissing or ignoring a lot of great stuff, an underwhelmed review of a non-indie perceived-classic will be taken as part of a broader statement anyway. and people aren’t necessarily wrong to read it as such. that doesn’t excuse any abuse stronger than “cracker”

the totally ridiculous number ratings should go. then at least people would have to read the reviews

but these things get read as if they’re part of an editorial voice anyway. considering P4k’s reputation, its history of giving raves to utter shite

thank you for this helpful illustration

i like how this thread is still serving unthawed 2004 era p4k opinions at a weekly clip

that doesn’t excuse any abuse stronger than “cracker”

yes notable “cracker” Alfred

(The “Uncle” was added recently, when the rock band Cracker objected.)

i like how this thread is still serving unthawed 2004 era p4k opinions at a weekly clip

A weekly clip? Most of the regular complaints in this thread involve poor editing – which is even more relevant now than in 2004 (due to Condé Nast).