pitchfork is dumb (#34985859340293849494 in a series.)

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

As much as I love P4k, I wish there were a site out there that did a solid job covering music *without* throwing so much media into my RSS reader a week. I mean, I know, I don't have to read it all. But I'm filtering the filter here. Some of that's always going to be inevitable, but it seems like for everything fifteen news items P4k posts these days I'm reading, say, one of them. And, frankly, I haven't been keeping up with the reviews either, but that's more or less my bad.

Anyway, ignore that -- totally off topic.

i just take two seconds to skim the site for whatever looks interesting, but i am old i guess

ure 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.

― some dude, Tuesday, June 8, 2010 2:25 PM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark

it seems like for everything fifteen news items threads P4k ILX posts these days I'm reading, say, one of them.

it seems like for everything fifteen news items P4k posts these days I'm reading, say, one of them. And, frankly, I haven't been keeping up with the reviews either, but that's more or less my bad.

― ksh, Tuesday, June 8, 2010 2:27 PM (3 minutes ago) Bookmark

anyway, there's absolutely no reason to read their awful news items. but the reviews are okay and a good barometer of what people are gonna be talking about, listening to and reacting against over the next news cycle. and the videos are sometimes cool. i saw the grizzly bear one with the melting clay people there.

I'm the audience for 10% of what they post.

j/k - i mean, i'm the audience. i check the site almost every day.

Really wish p4k would employ Mark Prindle a bit. Would seriously LOVE them to let him do a sort of Christgau style mini reviews thing each week/month.

As much shit as P4k gets, they're pretty much doing this indie rock crit thing better than any other pub other there, so.

Really wish p4k would employ Mark Prindle

― Jamie_ATP, Tuesday, June 8, 2010 2:43 PM (4 minutes ago) Bookmark

cosign

fair enough, but i still suspect that p4k gets a cred boost from the fact that the bands they champion are suddenly swept from near-total obscurity to something like stardom - and from the fact that those they dismiss tend to vanish into the woodwork.

― the other is a black gay gentleman from Los Angeles (contenderizer), Tuesday, June 8, 2010 5:31 PM (16 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

i'd imagine there have to be exceptions, although i have no idea what they'd be -- of course the overwhelming majority of indie bands make maybe 2 or 3 albums at most and then split either into different and equally unremarkable bands or just get day jobs, but there must be some bands that got kicked around by PF and some big pubs/sites a couple times before becoming a big deal. or maybe the thing is that indie is so tasteful (or easy to do 'tastefully') that nobody's really a critical whipping boy anymore unless they're going out of their way to be super obnoxious and attention-grabbing, which, as discussed upthread, can be a much better career move than simply being above average.

i just take two seconds to skim the site for whatever looks interesting, but i am old i guess

yeah, this applies to me, too. i know i should dig down into reviews in the "dread zone" that whiney mentions (6-ish to 8.2), but there's only so much time and attention to devote. btw, i think whiney's wrong about the cutoff on the upper-end of that zone; i'd say it's about 7.7.

xposts -- well look, in terms of both "the woodwork" and "the dreaded middle ratings," here are just a few examples from this year's Best New Musics:

- Ariel Pink got a bunch of 5s and 6s for his old material; he recorded a new and more consistent album and got a 9
- a record by PRE got a 7.0; most of that band went on to Male Bonding and got a BNM
- Radio Dept.'s last record got a "dreaded" 7.4; the new one's stronger and got a BNM
- my ratings for Owen Pallett's records went 6.6, 8.0, 8.6, because I think he started with a no-big-deal, "just trying this out" album and then got really creative and ambitious

... and so on. I just hate to think that anyone's seriously discouraged by releasing a record that gets coverage and a positive review/rating. Maybe if it's your eighth release and you're still not getting anywhere, you might get bummed. But otherwise ... maybe you start with a 7.3, follow up with an even better record, and amaze everyone then. Maybe your current band is the "early" one, and your next project will turn heads. Maybe if you just plug along at what you do, more and more people will come around. If I were releasing a debut album, I would absolutely look at a 7.3 or whatever as a sign that my work was notable and worth attention, that people liked it and might remember my name, and that I'd basically been welcomed in the door and had a great platform from which to do something better.

Obviously there is a general advantage to HOT NEW BANDS that might make it disappointing not to blow up the world your first time out, and everyone wants to take the world by storm, but I really hope bands that pay attention to this stuff just look at the 7s as being easy striking distance for the 8s and 9s. It's a long drive to get on that green in the first place.

yeh, ariel pink was the counterexample i had in mind during my previous posts. and i agree with some dude that pitchfork doesn't often (ever?) use its power to really & truly crush ants. my only real point was that p4k's aura of importance is perhaps enhanced by the fact that they concentrate their not-inconsiderable marketing muscle on relatively obscure artists, thus their good reviews do a lot of immediate good, and there's less blowback from bum calls. i don't think that's contradicted by or even contrary to what you're saying, nabisco.

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. (the only thing I'll mention in there is the word "marketing" -- I know we're all cynical and savvy about branding and whatnot these days, but it's not marketing, it's telling people what records you like!)

The National (2001), 6.6
Sad Songs for Dirty Lovers (2003), 8.4 (!)
Alligator (2005), 7.9
Boxer (2007), 8.6
High Violet (2010), 8.7

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.