pitchfork is dumb (#34985859340293849494 in a series.)

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.

maybe they shouldn't be indie rock bands if that's an issue

Looking forward to the Tapes n' Tapes mixtape dropping in the third quarter.

first you get the pitchfork...then you get the ad placements...then you get the women...

i mean, who's their lester bangs, their scott seward?

Maybe Scott needs to send Pfork a writing sample/pitch, amirite?

and of course there are loads of great bands who would love to get the exposure from a 7 out of 10 pfork review, and haven't for whatever reason

true

ksh, how many bands that P4k reviews are at that [ant-like] 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 1:14 PM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark

this probably does make pitchfork's power rather overwhelming & terrifying to the bands on their radar. i mean, they're arguably one of the most influential tastemakers in american popular culture (this side of american idol, clear channel and disney/nickelodeon), and they're explicitly focused on the activities of ants.

it's really harder than ever to measure the 'size' or level of professionalism of an indie band anymore, especially when you're looking at people already on Pitchfork -- bands'll form, go from 2 shows under their belt and a MySpace page's worth of recorded songs to buzz band of the year in the space of what seems like a few months, some bands have bigger fanbases w/ no label and no full-length than 10 year vets with a thick catalog.

mean, they're arguably one of the most influential tastemakers in american popular culture (this side of american idol, clear channel and disney/nickelodeon), and they're explicitly focused on the activities of ants.

― the other is a black gay gentleman from Los Angeles (contenderizer), Tuesday, June 8, 2010 1:41 PM (22 minutes ago) Bookmark

they're not really in the business of handing out beatdowns to unknown bands though, are they? seems like it's all about the stamp of approval.

it's a huge part of their success that they cover 25 albums (and however many other singles/videos/etc.) a week and inevitably include a lot of tiny unknown acts, but i don't know if in the way you mean per se. every critic or publication, including pitchfork, makes 'wrong' calls in the sense of panning what turn out to be considered classics or breakout hits, or hyping up future laughing stocks. sure it's harder to look foolish like that when the stakes are lower overall, but i don't think it has that great an effect on any pub's success or credibility.

back when they dug into the promo pile and made writers cover some real no-name shit, i handed out some nasty 3's and 5's to unknowns, but i think yeah they usually don't pan anything hardcore much anymore unless it's considered big or well regarded enough to be worth taking down a peg.

yeah, "crush" here = 5.6