what does this pfm song review thingy even mean anyway?

xpost, c'mon dude "back in the day recommended" is an all-time ilm mountain-out-of-molehill moment.

it was a glorious moment. gives me chills just to think of it. someday i'll tell my kids that i was there.

*tho this is not as baffling as why this review was singled out for a thread!

"this -does not- really sound like the Shins-Will-Change-Yr-Life"

see blog reference as perjorative: oh, awesome, in that case i'll like this. (but they won't.)

see blog reference as positive: oh, this isn't like that? nuts. (but they'd like it!)

Tom+Jess maybe OTM except that we were mostly bracketing that issue to talk about its readability. Also I'm possibly pretty forgiving of all that stuff Tom's asking for when it comes to Pitchfork's track reviews of indie-rock songs, which aren't always set up to make a critical case for the song -- this one works more like news, really, alerting the reader to a new act in the genre and offering a quick snapshot of what they sound like. If none of that good critical stuff showed up in the album review, I'd be more bothered.

tom - i think that there's a functional difference. this is not parsing the song, or trying to articulate what it sounds like to those who want to know if they should get it, but more of a riff on it, an expression of how it sounds to her ears, because that might be interesting to you if you hear the song too.

in other words, part of this (new?) of crit that seems motivated by instant-listen slsk/download stuff.

You can make references that will neatly sort out who will or will not like the music in question

Unless, of course, you've only heard from a friend that you should check out this review and song and have never heard Beulah or Phantom Planet or know their members or backstories. This is why PFM (and other sites I read regularly) are mentioned as sites for indie music obsessives. My sister was telling me about enjoying and possibly seeing Beulah live, but I doubt she knows the name of the singer. PFM singles reviews are for the obsessives, definitely.

"a bendy plywood voice emoting like Miles Kurosky or even Alex Greenwald."

has to do with getting dressed up.

(that part is kinda silly. skin & bones/socks/plywood voice)

haha, and the "fleeting moment" is also the worst part. (can you tell that i wish the Shins changed my life?)

Yeah well now's the part where reading any more closely starts to seem actively mean. Which is to say: it's a really short track review, one of many, and so picking on a failed metaphor or two might be getting a bit too demanding.

my main problem with this style is that there are actually no real people who talk like this/think like this. i guess it's supposed to sound speedy and preoccupied?

“The writer is having fun and being somewhat clever in ways that impress her, so good on her, despite the fact that I don’t understand this review, really, and have no more desire to hear this song than I did before I began reading it. Man, I sure hope my singles reviews don’t elicit a similar response.”

Dude, you are hanging out with the wrong people.

Yeah, I know that tone. I think it's trying to communicate a bunch of qualities about itself: excitement, personality, casualness, range of high/low culture references -- some trait we might call "freewheeling," you know? There's also an attempt toward density -- using that freewheeling quality to pack as much into a capsule review as can possibly be gotten in there.

I don't know that it really matters whether people ever talk like this -- writing is not talking, and nobody talks like the New York Times, either -- but you'll be either frightened or relieved to learn that there are indeed people who kinda talk like that, or whose discussion at least vaguely takes that shape.

xpost

Guys, L said he didn't mean this review, so much -- I think the reference runs more toward Sylvester-type capsules, really.

No

Anyway yeah, I'd like to think that if more people learned about writing criticism from the whole 20th-century history of critics and non-fiction writers and New Journalists and such -- and not primarily from the rock-crit establishment -- then the whole world of music writing would be less insular, less specialized or over-people's-heads ... both more sophisticated AND more "utilitarian."

and, yeah, technically, sure, you can learn lots of stuff from denby. just reading the new yorker, in general, you can learn a lot.

Also I like how he objects to the use of metaphors to express that a band's "sound is gigantic," which is ITSELF a metaphor, for god's sake -- reinforcing my sense that Mickey isn't actually against metaphor or stylish writing and is just asking for it to peg itself closer to his level.

Please stop with the insulting comments about "my level" of reading comprehension. I am more than capable of reading everything on Pitchforkmedia, except for the odd inner-references I may not be familiar with ("Shins-will-change-your-life") or extremely bizarre word choice (I will never forget the "melancholic gegeinschtein" in one review). I don't want music reviews to be taken down to "my level," but I do want them taken down to a level more appropriate for what they inherently are -- ALBUM REVIEWS.

Here's the problem, though: I don't understand why you think "utilitarian" writing is "appropriate" to the business of album reviews. Why would that be? There is plenty of art criticism that is far more esoteric than anything written on the web about music -- criticism of visual art, for instance, a lot of which isn't even accessible to people without some level of "academic" background. Criticism of literature, too, has its complex side, and not just in the world of academic study. An essay in the New York Review of Books (or, as you mentioned above, Harpers) demands more close attention from readers than most anything Pitchfork publishes.

So I ask you: why is "appropriate" for album reviews to be less demanding? Is it because we're talking about "popular" music, a pop-culture art form? But then film is a pop-culture art form, too, and film criticism seems to support everything from simplistic newspaper hacks to super-academic super-theoretical analysis. Same goes for books, too: you can read a tidy description of the latest thriller in your local paper, or you can follow the debates of "serious" high-level critics. Sure, all that high-level conversation about art -- books, films, painting -- tends to be aimed at a smaller, more initiated audience than the stuff in the local paper. But then again, isn't Pitchfork, too? (There are plenty more straightforward music reviews in general-interest magazines and newspapers, after all.)

So yeah, I'm asking you: why are you claiming that album reviews should/must restrain themselves to this humble straightforward role? Why is that "appropriate" to them in particular, when it's not the case with most equivalent sorts of criticism? Do you see what I mean here?

It's often written more clearly, too, yes, but that's not quite what I'm talking about right now: the point is that nobody writes to the NYRB to complain that a particular essay needs to be brought down to the level of "what it inherently is -- A BOOK REVIEW." People who wanted that sort of thing would just read Publishers Weekly instead.

And I might be sympathetic to the complaint that there aren't enough music publications serving that straightforward consumer-guide niche, except that I think there are loads and loads that do serve it, from AMG to EW to major newspapers to glossy magazines. The only places where the esoteric stuff really holds sway are online and in alt-weeklies, which just happen to be what everyone likes to talk about on boards like this one (presumably because that stuff is free). If there were a shortage of the straightforward -- not enough supply of it to meet demand -- that would be a very bad thing indeed, but I don't know that such a shortage exists.

most music fans and music magazine readers have as little or less 'technical knowledge' as the writers, so unless your readership was of a level of, say, readers of Guitarist magazine or another title aimed at musicians, then that wouldn't work, because the reader wouldn't necessarily understand the technical terms being (ab)used. which isn't to say your point of view is in any way invalid, but you're representing a faction of a music mag's readership.

as an avid reader of the music press growing up, i always loved writers who could demystify the technical aspects of the music just a little, but i never anted someone to lay it open. and i was always more interested in how this music related to its influence, contemporaries, followers, etc, and the experience of the musicians and how it impacted their art. and as a writer now, yes, i'm of limited technical knowledge regarding how the music is made, but i honestly don't believe that impacts on my ability to discuss the music. because i rarely appreciate it in terms of technical brilliance, but rather the personality of the music (for want of about a million better phrases), a more emotional response, i guess.

and i'm not really sure how a review's value judgement could be anything other than subjective.

So the more I think about it, maybe the kind of criticism we're all wary of here stems from exactly the stuff Mickey is advocating -- maybe thinking about these things as "just an album review" is exactly what causes the problem. If it's "just an album review," then why not freewheel and reference and slang it out? Whereas the clearest criticism -- in lots of different arts -- tends to come around when someone has something important to say about the world beyond the art itself. Because it has something to communicate beyond just describing the record for you, something that's actually more ambitious than that.

Guilty as charged! Although really if one goal of writing about music is to get people thinking about it, why is trying to teach your reader a little bit about the way the song is put together such a verboten thing?

dude, it totally shouldn't be! though i wouldn't be able to write that review.

my uncle often sends me letters saying he doesn't understand the stuff of mine that runs in the London Times, which is frustrating because that's generally the least-opaque, least-artful, most-straightforward stuff i write, and i *want (sometimes) to be understood by *everyone. he also clips out pieces in the paper that he liked better than mine, as 'guidance'.