pitchfork is dumb (#34985859340293849494 in a series.)

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.

Let's monetize this thread and churn out a book, How Pitchfork Works.

jaymc, i think the nat'l are a special case.

Special in what way? Or are you just saying they're a rare exception to the way things usually shake out? (I'll be honest, I had no idea until recently that they were on their fifth full-length. I thought Alligator was their debut.)

i actually may have been driving at a point that is somewhat off-topic. i get the sense that a lot of critics felt like they underrated alligator, and made up for it with glowing reviews of boxer. my sense comes from reading a number of boxer reviews lamenting the fact that alligator didn't get due credit at the time of its release.

Here's an interesting trajectory:

The Coroner's Gambit (2000): 8.5
All Hail West Texas (2002): 8.2
Tallahassee (2002): 6.7
We Shall All Be Healed (2004): 6.9
The Sunset Tree (2005): 7.2
Get Lonely (2006): 7.6
Heretic Pride (2008): 8.0
The Life of the World to Come (2009): 8.4 (BNM)

yeah, it is. i hadn't noticed the uptick on get lonely (over the sunset tree).

here's what i consider a more traditional trajectory:

• mass romantic -- 8.4
• electric vision -- 8.1
• twin cinema -- 9.0
• challengers -- 6.0
• together -- 7.3

(and a compression of the arc where album three replaces album four. oh, whatevs.)

one of the things about making records like the National's is that the early ones might tend to get under-rated. they're the kinds of (relatively) straightforward rock albums that live or die based mostly on whether there's deep, long-term emotional attachment and communal, word-of-mouth love many months after they're released. so I think, with a lot of music like that, there's one record individual critics spend a few weeks with and say "hey, this is pretty great!," and then there's a building response over the length of the year ("it just keeps growing on me, and on everyone else, too!"), and then it does well on year-end lists, and then the next album, if it's good, is the one where this all pays off in reviews.

xpost -- are the career-tracing numbers supposed to say something about band narratives or something about reviews? don't forget to adjust for most bands being reviewed by different critics

another:

• almost killed me -- 8.0
• separation sunday -- 8.7
• boys & girls in america -- 9.4
• stay positive -- 8.4
• heaven is whenever -- 6.2

don't forget to adjust for most bands being reviewed by different critics

very fair point.

you cant make these trajecory arc assumptions on the career of a handful of bands out of the thousands that are getting reviewed though Daniel. doesnt hold up.

you're right. i'm only passing along my impression, built over the years, along with some anecdotal examples.

Metacritic scores might be more useful than Pitchfork scores if you're trying to make a general claim about the critical consensus.

good point:

• mass romantic -- 87
• electric vision -- 82
• twin cinema -- 85
• challengers -- 74
• together -- 71

another:

• almost killed me -- 78
• separation sunday -- 86
• boys & girls -- 85
• stay positive -- 85
• heaven is whenever -- 75

I'm not really into the different critics - same publication argument. If you can't expect some kind of unified vision/voice from a publication, what exactly is attracting you to read it? Like, yes, different critics reviewing different albums, but there is such thing as the P4k position on a band, album, from an institutional standpoint even if it isn't micromanaged.

If you can't expect some kind of unified vision/voice from a publication, what exactly is attracting you to read it? Like, yes, different critics reviewing different albums, but there is such thing as the P4k position on a band, album, from an institutional standpoint even if it isn't micromanaged.

― Mordy, Tuesday, June 8, 2010 6:04 PM (26 minutes ago) Bookmark

and putting that aside, there might be any number of reasons to read a much less unified critical publication. say for instance, your impression that they regularly published the work of talented writers and/or interesting thinkers.

fiery furnaces and trail of dead trajectories = </3

fiery furnaces and trail of dead trajectories = </3

alright. emeralds getting some spotlight. finally pitchfork takes notice. missed out on What Happened last year but that's fine.

is this Stars of the Lid kinda stuff? because if it is i might have to get this

alright. emeralds getting some spotlight. finally pitchfork takes notice. missed out on What Happened last year but that's fine.

Pfork actually cited What Happened in their 2009 year-end honorable mention list:

http://pitchfork.com/features/staff-lists/7745-albums-of-the-year-honorable-mention

Regardless, though, it's a fantastic album. I pulled it out last night for a spin and it is magical.

is this Stars of the Lid kinda stuff? because if it is i might have to get this

Can't speak for the new album (yet), but What Happened is perhaps *similar* to Stars of the Lid, in a way. It's coming more from the very ambient end of the drone/noise camp, as opposed to SotL's almost classical approach. But there is def. crossover appeal for fans of one or the other.

Awesome. I think I'll check this out.

The other Emeralds thing I've heard is called Solar Bridge and it's also very, very good. Haven't had a chance to delve into the big formless mass of CDr and cassette releases, but that's why we have Herman, right?

http://img535.imageshack.us/img535/1261/partialdiscography.jpg

The earlier stuff isn't as good as the later music. A band that improves greatly after each release.

with each new release