why do writers like Matthew Murphy at Pitchfork always review my favorite records and never rate them outside of the 7-7.9 realm?

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (62 of them)

unfortunately pfork has somehow b/c a place to check the numbers. many on here have even admitted to not reading a review unless it gets over a certain #, yes dumb on their parst, but unfortunate all around

citations, pls.

― Ian John50n (orion), Wednesday, 28 September 2005 17:06 (eighteen years ago) link

Actually Nitsuh, I guess I was wondering more about the lukewarm endorsement (regardless of the rating) despite the "pure quality of the music it contains". You went through some of it, but frankly I'd be thrilled to have this rather random box set filled with amazing music. I guess it might be hard to write about or curate or narrate in one's mind.

As for the rating, I suggest you guys spend more time thinking it because it's the first thing (and sometimes only thing) people look at. They're like photo captions in news stories.

Also, on the internet, where nobody's worried about the amount of paper being used, more information should be included in reviews (like track titles/credits etc). Please tell Pfork.

― Spencer Chow (spencermfi), Wednesday, 28 September 2005 17:08 (eighteen years ago) link

I think my issue was more how one reviews a box set, though. One could put some of the greatest music ever in a box and still come up with something no one would ever want to buy -- because there's no common focus to it, or because it's more readily available somewhere else, or because people own the bits they like already, or whatever else. That's what accounts for the gulf between box-rating and quality-of-music, in my mind. Admittedly, I was enough into my larger theory in that review that I didn't get to spend a whole lot of time on the things that make me wonder who'll buy the set. (And the more I thought about it afterward, the more the video DVD -- which I don't have, though I remember most of those clips -- seems like it'd be worth more of that price than I thought.)

― nabisco (nabisco), Wednesday, 28 September 2005 17:20 (eighteen years ago) link

It's funny, I have so many beloved records on Sire including the greatest song ever ("Soon") and all those Just Say... comps reminds me of going through used CD racks in the early 90s. I guess I'd like to maybe hear a little bit about the Sire story?

― Spencer Chow (spencermfi), Wednesday, 28 September 2005 17:30 (eighteen years ago) link

I mean, I was never sure why this sub-label on a major had all my favorite music.

― Spencer Chow (spencermfi), Wednesday, 28 September 2005 17:30 (eighteen years ago) link

you know, after reading the neutral milk hotel thing yesterday, i'm wondering why there's all this embarrassment pitchfork feels for artists. who cares. you'd think they never saw david bowie or little richard.

"A guy in a rock band saying he was emotionally devastated by a book everyone else in America read for a middle-school assignment? I felt embarrassed for him at first, but then, the more I thought about it and the more I heard the record, I was awed."

and then today, making fun of the warlocks by making fun of magic: the gathering cards? i mean, how snobby and inhibited are these people, and how do they remain immune to rock's ability to loosen people up? maybe this isn't the right place for this thought, but still.

― tiny tim, Wednesday, 28 September 2005 20:19 (eighteen years ago) link

articles that are by mr. murphy that read like a "best new music" piece but hover in the 7's

sorry to break up the conspiracy theories, but Matthew rated all of those records in the 7s himself, and as far as I know there has never been a BNM record with a grade lower than 8.2/8.3.

Ratings are the grade given by the reviewer and BNM/rec status is chosen by the editors with input from staffers, same way I'd guess Blender or Q decides to choose which records from previous months are featured in sidebars in their reviews sections.

― scott pl. (scott pl.), Wednesday, 28 September 2005 20:40 (eighteen years ago) link

you can always work on the assumption that I've spent roughly three minutes (and three units of caring) on the number rating, and roughly 230 minutes (and 230 units of caring) on the text below it.

Same here. I have never agonized over a rating and don't take the decimals seriously at all (they're useful only when you use "X.9" as a way of saying "almost X+1").

― joseph cotten (joseph cotten), Wednesday, 28 September 2005 21:00 (eighteen years ago) link

dunno scott. just seems like the same old bands get BNM over and over. I agree this conversation is kinda dumb though. i don't know murphys reviews- but why do some writers always get the bnm bands

pure luck?

― dunno, Thursday, 29 September 2005 02:21 (eighteen years ago) link

Oh snap! Hope mrgoodman isn't a Blackalicious fan.

Mr. Murphy done done it again!

― Zimmer026 (Zimmer026), Friday, 30 September 2005 12:25 (eighteen years ago) link

I reject Spencer's "suggestion" that we focus more on the rating, purely on the basis that I spend as much time thinking about the rating as I do about what I write. A number is not worth a thousand words, sir. Nor are a thousand words worth a number. Nor am I making a damn bit of sense, so I'm shutting up.

― David R. (popshots75`), Friday, 30 September 2005 12:50 (eighteen years ago) link

"just seems like the same old bands get BNM over and over."

i see a lot of variety on the bnm page. could it be that once a band gets BNM it gets the perception of being "the same old band," even if that's unwarranted? for example, sfa had actually never been BNM until this album. kinda don't see how the game fits into your theory, either. and i'm sure everyone was REALLY tired of cyhsy before that pitchfork review...

― marc h. (marc h.), Friday, 30 September 2005 17:03 (eighteen years ago) link

I feel sorry for that Adam Moerder guy who writes for the site. It seems like he always gets stuck with all the crappy mediocre albums that nobody else wanted to bother listening to.

― Ross Godfrey (scatter), Saturday, 1 October 2005 01:01 (eighteen years ago) link

Radiohead's Thom Yorke Considering Meeting With Tony Blair
Kati Llewellyn reports:
From Pitchfork's "We Keep Track of Every Move Radiohead Makes" Department:
This morning, you probably went through the "All-Stars or Pumas?" routine, moved on to a 10-minute debate over whether or not shaggy hair really does look best, and finally, sealed the deal with the choice to wear that hideous SpongeBob SquarePants watch. Celebrities, however, have real decisions to make, decisions that can impact everything from Ben Affleck's likeliness of winning another Academy Award (zilch) to the fate of planet Earth. Fortunately for all of us, Thom Yorke holds his stakes in the latter. Or sort of, anyway.
Last May, Yorke made his way to British Parliament as a representative of the Friends of the Earth campaign, in an attempt to get the government involved with decreasing the UK's impact on global warming. Writing in the the Radiohead blog Dead Air Space on Wednesday, Yorke relayed to fans the charity's latest request for his involvement.
Friends of the Earth asked this Radio head if he would meet with Prime Minister Tony Blair at Downing Street to discuss what the goverment "is not doing about climate change." Karma police, arrest this man! But Yorke hasn't made up his mind on whether or not he wants to go.
In a respectably honest confession, Yorke wrote, "i have no intention of being used by spider spin doctors to make it look like we make progress when it is just words. id love to know what you think but i cant ask. youd say oh ther e he goes again interfering and meddling in politics why doesnt he get on with the music and shut up. perhaps because i feel like a hypocrit if dont do anything, and equally feel like a hypocrit if i try getting involved... id love to forget about it like your average Times reader. wed all like it to go away. turn to to the rising sea and say come back later im busy right now."
He closed the entry with a request for decision-making assistance and a good ol' fashioned "politics is poision." We hope the next set of liner notes have an editor. Damn.

Yorke also gave a li'l update on the progress of Radiohead's upcoming album, announcing the titles of two tracks: "Pay Day" and "Burn the (White?) Witch". Since there are bound to be a few more in the works, we'd like to offer the following song titles as a sign of our deep Radiohead love: "Prime Time: A Day in the Life of Tony Blair" and "Googlefight: Blair VS. Bush". Do with them what you will, Mr. Yorke, do with them what you will.

AND YOU PEOPLE TAKE THIS WEBSITE SERIOUSLY!!!!!!!!!

― Ian John50n (orion), Saturday, 1 October 2005 03:01 (eighteen years ago) link

it's not that anyone is saying "what pfork says is truth"

it's the fact they they have so much influence over the market
deny all you want, not everyone is ironic, sassy, reading ILM

the point is right now, in music, esp indie music, they have a HUGE influence

this is the problem, not about if we think what they are saying is bible or not

― mrgoodman, Saturday, 1 October 2005 05:52 (eighteen years ago) link

hi coolfer

― marc h. (marc h.), Saturday, 1 October 2005 15:07 (eighteen years ago) link

Who would you rather see wielding this kind of influence, Mr. Goodman?

― joseph cotten (joseph cotten), Saturday, 1 October 2005 15:21 (eighteen years ago) link

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.