pitchfork is dumb (#34985859340293849494 in a series.)

Very much agreed, ums. When I speak of 'balance' I don't think it needs to be 50/50 if that's not what the artists themselves were going for.

Here's a review posted today that seems to mention music, in passing, three times — (a) calling the songs "spiky"; (b) describing one track as "a sing-song tribute" (though this is pushing it); and (c) mentioning that another track features "spirals of guitar that conjure memories of the Raincoats or the B-52’s." I guess this passes muster...

Btw, I don't think of the guitar in the Raincoats and B-52s as sounding very similar(?) Guess I'll have to listen, and see if I agree!

Not entirely fair; it also mentions the instrument lineup

also the "punk" positioning fills in a lot of shorthand; even if it's using two somewhat disparate bands as signposts, you at least get a sense of what time period it feels like the music could exist in

Fair enough — I concede the review makes clear this is a "punk quartet" featuring a guitarist, a bassist, a drummer, and a singer.

Here's a review that strikes a good "balance," IMO; talking a lot about both — https://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/oso-oso-basking-in-the-glow/

xp -- I should clarify, my argument here is actually less from the perspective of a writer than that of a reader

But as a writer, surely your tolerance for reading a purely lyrical analysis is higher than the average Pitchfork reader.

sure, but, like, my classmates also made lyrics their aim away messages, not sheet music

Wasn't that a purely textual medium? That seems like saying "my friends always had music for their ring tones, not lyric sheets".

the point is, generally speaking they did so because that's the part of the song they particularly latched onto

This is the thread where I sing along to "Da Funk"

(and of course, one can do that through discussion of music as well as lyrics, but it is patently ridiculous to call the lyrics off-limits. for what seems like the millionth time, if an artist didn't want to intentionally incorporate words into their vision, for a reason, then they wouldn't include words.)

But I never called for the lyrics to be "off-limits" in an album review (I haven't got time to go skimming through every other post either, but I don't recall anyone else advancing that argument either). I said it was ridiculous for a music review to avoid mentioning the music completely.

and it's equally ridiculous for a review of non-instrumental music to avoid mentioning the lyrics completely, yet those reviews never make it into "_____ is stupid" threads

I've just had a listen to the first single off that Georgia Anne Muldrow album, on YouTube. It's fairly strange music as well as being good. It's unusual and evocative, like the other things I've heard by her.

It's not as if there's nothing there sonically of interest to write about. So it's odd that the reviewer didn't bother trying.

xp You are welcome to find an example and post it here! I only encounter the opposite scenario on Pfork.

Actually, here’s one up right now that only cites a few lyrical snippets... sounds like the lyrics aren’t very important? Maybe the music just isn’t very important for those other albums.

(Like this other current review, which basically seems to say the music is generic emo-punk, nuff said.)

Anyway, there's a lot of black-and-white going on here

I think album reviews should talk about what the music sounds like, I like when the reviewer is able to pick up on genre-synapses to posit where the music's lineage is from. If the music demands it then I would hope the reviewer would be able to make note of certain functional aspects of what it is doing, even if it's just an intuitive reading. If it doesn't, there's no real need to speak on "oh what an interesting first chord of "Thank U, Next"" because it is interesting but not worth commenting on.

If the music has lyrics then they requires comment. I prefer the reviewer to isolate a couple of lyrics to describe why they think the lyrics "succeed" or "fail" and to preferably do so in a literate and entertaining way. I do not like when a c+p lyric is summarily dismissed as "trite" or praised with an "we've all been there, amirite" kind of non-engagement.

I do not like much biography written into a contemporary review, I prefer intersections between work-and-biography to be explored critically, later, if warranted. I do not like a critic to summarize recent events, whether internal or external, leading up to the making of the album unless it plays a major role in the work itself.

I do like solipsistic personal anecdotes about the critic and their own life, I like when they describe the situation that they first encountered the music of the artist, I like extreme digression and tangents that are unrelated to the album at hand, in short, I like it when the critic is putting their own style on the line. That said, I do not like it when a review opens with a personal anecdote, or an extended commentary on current events as a metaphor for the album itself. I like when a record review beings with "The first thing you hear is..." and then a description of what you hear when you put on the record. I like it when critics talk about music succeeding and/or failing, I do not like it when critics talk about music being good or bad, unless they do so hilariously and overuse their superlatives.

first one that comes to mind, at the risk of sounding like a stan, is throwing muses' purgatory/paradise, an album that comes with a book of lyrics and essays accompanying every song, that says in the introduction, "All of the stories on this record are true." it is safe to say that the lyrics to this album are both important and easier than usual to interpret. but this is not borne out in the reviews. I hate picking on this one in particular, because it's not bad per se, but it mentions exactly two lyrics, at least one misinterpreted. https://www.popmatters.com/176319-throwing-muses-purgatory-paradise-2495710130.html

LOL @ really trying to make Linda Ronstadt a hipster icon

Ronstadt's version of "Willin'" is one of the most egregious mismatches of singer and material ever

and this is such a shallow reading of the original

The latter song is possibly the greatest example of Ronstadt’s artistic talent in those halcyon days. The Little Feat version of “Willin’” sounds like a sloppy celebration, but Ronstadt found the yearning in it, the loneliness of a job built on back roads and amphetamines

actually, strike shallow. It's just totally wrong!

really trying to make Linda Ronstadt a hipster icon

have you seen the jeans women are wearing lately

it's a good record!!

*checks watch* feels like we're due for 'nuther bit of banter in 5, 4, 3....

It has been long overdue, to be honest

Although reading how good these pieces are they were definitely worth the wait

shout out to Brad, i feel like getting to review RED after 7 years of listening is kind of a dream gig (but also a lot of pressure)

thanks! i had a rough time

i think maura’s review of the s/t is pretty perfect

That Heart Like a Wheel appraisal was pretty good, actually.

this feels like part of P4K's 12 step program

Are people reacting to the idea of Linda Ronstadt or do you guys really not like Heart Like a Wheel?

I don't particularly like it. Like the majority of her solo work there's no arguing that she's got insane vocal chops, but it's often deployed in the service of boring and pedestrian material. It feels like Pfork is trying to make her into some revisionist boomer feminist version of Elvis or Sinatra but I don't think there's all that much to that tbh. Her albums remind me of when Sam Cooke would take a crack at pop material, trying to be all things to all people, but not necessarily doing what he was best suited for, just kinda doing whatever to check a lot of boxes/appeal to as broad an audience as possible.

that being said the last time I listened to her run of solo albums was when my mother-in-law gave us her LP collection about 10 years ago

(also included: several Pat Benatar records, and all the good Joni ones)

She does not have insane vocal chops (save that for, like, I dunno, Sheryl Crow or something), but I will give you that she has found some smart ways to circumvent or make the most of her limitations.

... ronstadt? she's a tremendous singer

fine, can we agree that she has a great voice then

xp

I mean yeah she isn't Kate Bush with the 5 octave range or whatever

What is the weird bizarro world where Linda Ronstadt isn't a good singer?

Sheryl Crow has insaner vocal chops than Ronstadt? WHAT

I mean, Sheryl Crow is also a good singer

I think it might stfu-o'clock for this thread

I don't particularly like it. Like the majority of her solo work there's no arguing that she's got insane vocal chops, but it's often deployed in the service of boring and pedestrian material.

I'll concede the latter half ("Heat Wave," "Living in the U.SA.") but HLAW is one of her few end-to-end wonderful records (others: Simple Dreams, Hasten Down the Wind, Canciones de Mi Padre, Winter Light

xpost Oh, I thought we were talking about Taylor Swift having insane chops, my bad!

helps to read the thread

hahahahahahaha okay