pitchfork is dumb (#34985859340293849494 in a series.)

Illmatic is perfect.

on the plus side, this has me relistening to my life

i think this album was my first exposure to Mary J. it was definitely a permanent installation in the tape deck of my 78 chevy nova. which is to say there's no way i'm going to have an objective viewpoint on it.

The problem with the start of the old threads isn't that they espouse a "wrong" take, it's the smug tone of "we all think so-and-so's a wanker, right?"

Surely it’s that attitude combined with being wrong, right

I have ever known ilx to frown on smug put downs out of hand

I frown on smug put-downs, also smug big-ups.

smig up

I can't believe that after 18K+ posts this thread is still confused about how the ratings number assignment process at P4k works.

I love Alfred; he is IMO wrong when he calls the songwriting on 'My Life' ho-hum; I listened to it again today to double-check and was like 'yeah, a lot of these songs are kinda jammy and without massive choruses (they are clearly not bops) but I think that's intentional and a big part of the album's aesthetic argument; like, if I'm reading Alfred correctly, the parts of the album the review describes as 'occasionally tedious' would be the equivalent of IDK a techno's record's stripped back four-to-the-floor passages; he does not deserve to be attacked or hounded for his review whether he gives MBJ a 7.0 or a 3.0 or a 9.0; saying on a message forum that you think a reviewer is wrong about an album is not necessarily attacking or hounding them; in this regard, we can all surely walk and chew gum at the same time? xxx love you all

I can't believe that after 18K+ posts this thread is still confused about how the ratings number assignment process at P4k works.

Yes, many apologies again, sir... as a public service, here’s the most recent explanation; for any others like me whose memories were somehow fuzzy on such a cut-and-dried topic:

i haven't written for pitchfork in a few years so maybe things have changed but i assume they have not very much (also this process is prob true for most places)

when it comes to big albums, the pitchfork brain trust decides what statement the site is going to make about the record. this opinion is gleaned from discussions among staff/freelancers and whatever other considerations need to be made (ryan's opinion etc). the review is then paired w/ a writer whose personal opinion more or less mirrors what the site is going to say. in that case, there's prob already a narrowly defined window for what the score will be... "low 8s" or something like that. you might say "i'd give this an 8.1" and you might hear back "we're going with 8.0" or whatever... most writers don't care that much about these little decimal points the way the editors have to. but there is def something tricky when an album gets a score in that range that is like "we def like this and want to say we like it, but we're not giving it best new music for whatever reason" bcuz most of the time the writer is prob a fan of the artist and will feel a bit more passionate/less measured than the site. that high 7s range for a big album from an artist the site covers a lot and likes generally is especially in a weird "this album is slightly imperfect to us for often opaque reasons" zone where as a writer you can be a bit disappointed that the score sort of mutes the enthusiasm in your review. but from an editor perspective it can be hard to find someone who is really motivated to thread that needle... generally you're going to lean towards someone w/ expertise on the artist, who is prob a fan etc. unless the process has changed drastically nobody is writing reviews w/o having a pretty specific idea of where the score is landing.

when it comes to smaller albums the scores are driven much more by the writer in my experience, to the point that they're often barely changed. what you pitch the score as/send it in as is usually what goes up.

& again this practice of brand sculpting and writer synergy is pretty standard

― J0rdan S., Tuesday, May 1, 2018 10:05 AM (two years ago)

I can tell you that writers have more input toward the final score than they did even in 2017.

You know what would interesting is if you could see the individual writers' ballots

i can think of fewer things i would find of less interest than the ingredients to a shitty pfork listicle.

gg, grass is growing outside and i wouldn't miss that for nothin.

Reviewers should use aliases instead of real names so they wouldn’t have to worry about this hive backlash. Tell them all how you really feel.

They should at least wear fake mustaches and wigs when they write the reviews, like restaurant critics.

Tried it, doesn't work.

you could do the really obnoxious Economist thing of no bylines so the whole publication gets targeted instead of the writers

but these things get read as if they’re part of an editorial voice anyway. considering P4k’s reputation, its history of giving raves to utter shite while dismissing or ignoring a lot of great stuff, an underwhelmed review of a non-indie perceived-classic will be taken as part of a broader statement anyway. and people aren’t necessarily wrong to read it as such. that doesn’t excuse any abuse stronger than “cracker”

the totally ridiculous number ratings should go. then at least people would have to read the reviews

but these things get read as if they’re part of an editorial voice anyway. considering P4k’s reputation, its history of giving raves to utter shite

thank you for this helpful illustration

i like how this thread is still serving unthawed 2004 era p4k opinions at a weekly clip

that doesn’t excuse any abuse stronger than “cracker”

yes notable “cracker” Alfred

(The “Uncle” was added recently, when the rock band Cracker objected.)

i like how this thread is still serving unthawed 2004 era p4k opinions at a weekly clip

A weekly clip? Most of the regular complaints in this thread involve poor editing – which is even more relevant now than in 2004 (due to Condé Nast).

we went over “they only reviews wilco and white guitar music” like 2-3 weeks ago and Austin stopped short of posting the rough draft of the manifesto he’ll post when he shoots up p4k hq like a week after that

isn’t the new yorker condé nast? that’s like the best edited publication in the world. i do love reading you guys fuss with the editing do :)

flopson at 3:05 28 Nov 20

we went over “they only reviews wilco and white guitar music” like 2-3 weeks ago 

i honestly don't think it matters what they do in this respect people will just keep saying it

Are you thinking of the “they’re reviewing a lot of reissues these days?” discussion? I think that was the context re: Wilco

(admittedly I don’t remember the blow-by-blow exchange)

not to pick on table but the context was exactly what i said:

I guess I just stopped reading it as much because of what has been pointed out, that so many of the reviews and news focus on shit that doesn't matter to me...aka contemporary guitar driven music, which is overwhelmingly mediocre.

― healthy cocaine off perfect butts (the table is the table), Saturday, November 7, 2020 11:14 AM (three weeks ago) bookmarkflaglink

just counted, of 112 reviews published so far in November, 22 (19%) could be considered "guitar music"

I counted with a very "big tent" approach so everything from Phoebe Bridgers to Thou/ERR to Hendrix counts so even within that category its certainly not just what's perceived as "Pitchfork" bands

hmm, I agree that is a counterintuitive observation by table.

everyone knows it’s more diverse than it used to be but it shouldn’t be exaggerated, it’s still post-indie in its outlook & coverage. that doesn’t have to be a problem but it’s not a misperception based on years ago- people younger than the kid a review can see it. it’s not just about guitar music any more but a certain kind of limited eclecticism the scope of which was more or less already defined about a decade ago

I still think it’s a lot better than it was

'limited eclecticism' is one of the big problems with it though and one of the reasons its canons are so tiresome

we were just talking about how they review albums with like 200 Bandcamp streams lol

I guess it means something when the inception of this thread involved a freak-out over the (prank) suggestion that Pfork was going to start reviewing pop albums; and now we’re debating just how much vestigial indie sensibility continues to infect the site.

I mean we should just accept we'll be here moving the goalposts until global warming cooks us like rotisserie chickens

i agree that p4k c 2020 has a fairly consistent voice and the parameters of its taste are influenced (partially) by its past. it’s not allmusic.com. but it is mostly a group of people writing their opinions about albums; Alfred didn’t give mjb a 7/10 because of the vestiges of p4k’s indie sensibility, that’s just his opinion of that album. if u know him as a critic u know there are many albums he would give 9/10s to that would shit on any vestige of indie sensibility

...and many indie classics he would give 7/10s (or lower)

yea hes wrong tho that album rules. its just like ... not even a controversial album where having a counterintuitive stance provokes especially interesting conversation. it fits in w the long (continuing) strain of undervaluing R&B! what did they give the brandy album this year, a 6.something?

its not irritating bc they're supposed to represent some hardwired canon but bc its reinforcing all the laziest critical impulses, that it happens to have accidentally happened bc alfred was permitted to be idiosyncratic on a large platform is beside the point

I chose to review My Life because I had a few observations about MJB accumulated over the years and this album I've long been ambivalent about served as the vehicle. It IS true that, unknowingly, the score dovetails with Pitchfork's attitude toward R&B before, say, 2016.

I'm glad, though, I got to review K Michelle a few years ago! I was not responsible for the score lol.

i dont really care about the scores, don’t disagree on them underrating r&b. but they do review a lot of r&b imo

I don’t think the Brandy album was very good, and there are better / more noteworthy r&b albums they ignore or which the individual reviewers undervalue (but that’s a matter of opinion I guess).

On a positive note, I loved Maura’s coverage of the excellent pair of Amerie EPs a few years back.

The Brandy album was amazing imo and if there's a more interesting or well-written R&B album from this year if like to hear it

the Chloe v Halle is rather good. So's the K Michelle.

I don’t think my personal R&B tastes dovetail with the consensus, so I won’t press the point

"we were just talking about how they review albums with like 200 Bandcamp streams lol"

this doesn't dispel the idea of limited eclecticism at all! from what i've seen pfork is typically only covering stuff with 200 bandcamp streams if it either falls neatly within the old guard p4k taste margins (straight punk/indie) or it's niche stuff in 'cool' non rock genres that doen't do huge numbers but none the less is trending globally and/or socially aligned with the right tastemakers and artists (resident advisor approved dance stuff on trendy labels, shabaka type beat neo jazz, fashion adjacent euro experimental electronic, friends of earl sweatshirt, etc, etc)

it would be cool as fuck if pfork reviewed records with 200 bandcamp streams that sounded like 2020 mary but they don't for the same reason they still think it's acceptable to give her shit a 7/10 when they would never ever do the same to idk slanted and enchanted

That's probably a 7.0 too tbh

we went over “they only reviews wilco and white guitar music” like 2-3 weeks ago

missed this discussion but this is a ludicrous assertion

"That's probably a 7.0 too tbh"

dunno i've never heard it