pitchfork is dumb (#34985859340293849494 in a series.)

“wow I never realized how awful this feels holy shit”

I think that's how Xgau felt about the critiques of his memoire, he's been loath to cast aspersions since.

Ah ok I had a cool idea, I’ll message you elsewhere

I haven't listened to the Cosentino album, but I feel like her lyrics have always been kind of tossed-off banalities (for better or worse). When Pitchfork loved her 12 years ago, it was for an album with lyrics like "The world is lazy, but you and me, we're just crazy."

Fair to put more critical emphasis on the lyrics when they're not smothered in layers of hiss and distortion - the vocals on the early Best Coast stuff were just a delivery vehicle for vibes.

(I have not listened to the solo album because Best Coast lost me after the first album - when things got cleaner - so I have no idea if Pitchfork's actual criticism is fair or good, my assumption is not because Pitchfork is trash.)

yeah, "tossed off banalities" is right re: best coasts early music, and her record is most assuredly not afflicted as such…

that “Psychos” song has a great sound but christ I cannot handle the lyrics. Even if ironic, it’s just awful cliches heaped on top of each other.

and i love Sheryl Crow.

so i mean i get it, i just do find it weird that i don’t know anyone who listens to these bands. it’s the third time i’ve said it. that doesn’t mean i don’t believe they have fans, but i just find it weird that i’ve never met any of them except here!

Sheryl Crow ❤️

My bf has interesting taste in music— he listens to a lot of bands I didn’t think anybody listens to, many of them my friends? or label-mates? people who have many monthly listeners but I had no comprehension of their audience. He’s not a music fan but he really enjoys stuff like Jenny Lewis!

We finished The Bear S1 and it ends with a “Let Down” sync and we were watching it and I suddenly had a thought and asked him “hey do you know who this band is?” and he just said “no” and I said “no guesses even?” and he said “no, I have no idea.” I sighed with pleasure. But yeah he likes Jenny Lewis a lot

Jenny Lewis opened a leg of the Harry Styles US tour, that earned her some new exposure, I think. My older kid has a Jenny Lewis tour shirt, and I don't think I've ever heard her actually play Jenny Lewis.

I love people writing about music, but I've grown increasingly wary of music criticism, as such. Even when well intentioned it often still feels so mean and unnecessary, especially since it doesn't exactly move the needle any more, it just adds to the negativity and noise, which is in no short supply (and which went up proportionally, and unfortunately, with the rise of downloading and decline of income from actually making - and maybe coincidentally, writing about - music).

Now, good music discussion, analysis, providing context, even debate, I still think that's often really entertaining and useful and thought-provoking, even if the audience for it may be dwindling or distracted. That's one reason some of my favorite Fork things these days (when I remember to catch up) are the Sunday review pieces. The dust has settled, some sort of consensus has been reached or is in need of being belatedly corrected, and the focus can be on something other than "good/bad."

As for lyrics, I could never imagine making them the focus of a review (or interview), but as we've talked about a lot on ILX over the years, lyrics are a funny, fascinating thing. I just read Jeff Tweedy's second book "How to Write One Song," which is kind of an approachable TED talk on that subject, and as someone who doesn't always think too much about lyrics (let alone poetry) I found the sections on writing words (and writing exercises) really interesting, with lots of example of how just a simple tweak can turn something banal into something profound or more compelling, especially when matched with the right piece of music. It's such a complicated, very personal alchemy, writing songs. Even the simple ones. Sometimes especially the simple ones.

I just wanted to say my post was meant to be a dumb joke in response to whiney's post, not an actual comment on Alfred's review

Why the fuck is Jeff tweedy giving advice on lyrics

I assume it's because he's been a professional musician for decades that has written and recorded hundreds of songs that a lot of people like?

Sorry I won’t be a dick

Maybe Rahm Emmanuel will learn some cool lyrical exercises

lol no need to apologize, I do like Tweedy and Wilco even if I'm not a particularly huge fan of his lyrics one way or another, but I do recommend the book. It's not nearly as arrogant an exercise as it may seem, and I always like glimpses into the creative processes of others, and their work habits. especially as someone with terrible work habits.

I want a Bernard Sumner book on writing lyrics. Just a little peek into that head of his

Tweedy had some killer lyrics in Uncle Tupelo, and whether they’re overwrought or not (I’d say the former), some of his lyrics for Wilco are vivid and concrete. I’d rather have some dad sing, “I would like to salute/ the ashes of American flags/ and all the falling leaves/ filling up shopping bags” than someone my age sing banalities like “I’m American-made” (as Cosentino does in “Psychos”).

table - Jenny Lewis is here now'

that stage where you think they aren't popular anymore but are actually way more popular than they were when they had "buzz"

it's kind of blowing my mind that Best Coast = Beth Cos

Do artists ever circulate / comment on positive reviews? The only example I can think of is when Grimes tweeted something (legitimately funny, IIRC) about Pitchfork and A. Fantano, when Pfork gave her album a good writeup and F dissed it.

I feel like I'd avoid reading my press if I were artist – even if there were a glowing review, I'd focus obsessively on the one mildly critical line, etc. But I'm sure that's easier said than done, even for a Pfork piece with a big "5.9" at the top.

Table you sure know a lot of people!!

there's a decent radio station where I live with a AAA format, and both Jenny Lewis and Best Coast are squarely in the wheelhouse of what you're likely to hear. I think I've actually been turned on to a Jenny Lewis song or two listening to it!

Do artists ever circulate / comment on positive reviews?

In my world they definitely do. Plenty of jazz artists share Burning Ambulance writeups on Facebook etc., and when I put someone's album in my Stereogum column they'll often tweet about it. That said, the jazz world definitely has its own issues with critics, most of which manifest as "that idiot can't even play an instrument — what the fuck does he know?" with a side of "plus, he's white, so fuck his opinions anyway."

An acquaintance of mine has gone further than “not reading reviews [of their work]”, and doesn’t read arts journalism in any capacity whatsoever

There's only one fundamental problem with all of this, albeit a major one. The issue is that back in the day, there used to be loads of consequential music magazines, journals and so on, so it mattered less if one was lukewarm on your art. Now there is ONLY Pitchfork (or Fantano if you're a bit alt). As with the rest of the internet, everything has been 'optimised' until there's just one prevailing mediator. And when the only zine left disses you?

“...read as little as possible of aesthetic criticism— such things are either partisan views, petrified and grown senseless in their lifeless induration, or they are clever quibblings in which today one view wins and tomorrow the opposite. Works of art are of an infinite loneliness and with nothing so little to be reached as with criticism. Only love can grasp and hold and be just to them.

Consider yourself and your feeling right every time with regard to every such argumentation, discussion or introduction; if you are wrong after all, the natural growth of your inner life will lead you slowly and with time to other insights. Leave to your opinions their own quiet undisturbed development, which, like all progress, must come from deep within and cannot be pressed or hurried by anything.

Everything is gestation and then bringing forth. To let each impression and each germ of a feeling come to completion wholly in itself, in the dark, in the inexpressible, the unconscious, beyond the reach of one’s own intelligence, and await with deep humility and patience the birth-hour of a new clarity: that alone is living the artist’s life: in understanding as in creating.”

- rilke

I guess in the UK, the five CDs a year dad brigade has The Guardian as voice of reason too, and a handful even read The Quietus, but c'mon, Pitchfork's fiefdom surely extends to the global online

fgti's friend and rilke otm

who knows if it’s really true that reviewers are focusing more on lyrics than in previous eras but if it is true i’d keep a few things in mind

1. pre-internet (pre-pitchfork) every album review was governed by a word count. most reviews in an issue of spin, RS etc were maybe like 300-400 words. pitchfork is publishing 3-4 reviews per day that are at least 4x that length, as long or longer than the main big review in a magazine from the 80s, 90s. there’s just a lot more space to spend time examining lyrics on a granular level now. for me one of the defining characteristics of magazine era album reviews is the writer trying to sum up the meaning of a song by quoting one short line from it

2. the utility of describing the sonics of music has greatly decreased in a time where anyone can pull up a song instantaneously and press play. when i was editing reviews some of the easiest edits i would make w/ a given piece were just pruning descriptions of sounds. some writers are really gifted at describing and analyzing sounds — our own ivy and fgti are both top of the list here despite very different personal styles — but a lot of writers, especially young ones (and music writing, bcuz of the economics of the industry, is a younger game than it’s ever been) are not. in my experience, being overly descriptive of production is a common crutch for younger writers. in any event, yes you can also look up lyrics instantaneously but i do think there is prob a feeling that there is more to unpack for the reader in picking apart the lyrics as opposed to the production or arrangements. if you’re writing a track review, for instance, you should prob begin writing with the assumption that the reader will click play on the embed and passively listen to the song — absorbing basic elements of the production, clocking how it might be interacting with xyz genre, but not necessarily digesting, let’s say, the first verse lyrics. i haven’t written a blurb for pitchfork’s end of year songs list in several years but even going back half a decade they were, in the assignment emails, explicitly discouraging writers from fixating on the sound of the song since the reader could just press play on the embed right below your little paragraph.

there’s of course other factors involved — music journalism becoming celeb gossip journalism encourages writers to comb thru lyrics for references to public relationships etc, no doubt spurred on even ambiently by social media stan culture. i think you could argue that critics nowadays are coming of age in a world where reading and reacting to other ppl’s words (esp on twitter which is the world’s most visible forum for music discussion) is just an everyday facet of life, as filtered thru our screens. does it just feel natural to look at lyrics, quote them, and critique them? firming the vocabulary to describe & critique music is really hard, we all naturally have the ability to do so w/ words. anyway, i think most of it comes down to the realities of technological changes rather than a shift in values or beliefs among critics

there's probably some kid on TikTok who wears a Boba Fett mask who throws lunch meat at a record and judges the album by how many slices stick that's bigger than Pitchfork now

 i haven’t written a blurb for pitchfork’s end of year songs list in several years but even going back half a decade they were, in the assignment emails, explicitly discouraging writers from fixating on the sound of the song since the reader could just press play on the embed right below your little paragraph.

this isn't terribly surprising, i guess, but it makes me a little sad. yes, it's easier than ever to hear an unfamiliar song with the click of a button, but the benefit of a review that describes the sound of a song is to make me want to click on that song instead of millions of others. a dissection of the artist's lyrics or persona isn't going to do it for me in the same way.

I love Bologna Fett!

he's the new drip king

I liked him better before the falling out with Ham Solo.

this isn't terribly surprising, i guess, but it makes me a little sad. yes, it's easier than ever to hear an unfamiliar song with the click of a button, but the benefit of a review that describes the sound of a song is to make me want to click on that song instead of millions of others. a dissection of the artist's lyrics or persona isn't going to do it for me in the same way.

― jaymc, Friday, August 4, 2023 12:31 PM (eight minutes ago)

it made me a little sad as a writer! i don't mean to imply, btw, that pitchfork was explicitly feeding into a writing about music vs writing about lyrics binary. it isn't quite that black and white. iirc we were being told to think more about situating the song w/in a larger social/political context, which prob nudges you to think more about the lyrics, tho not necessarily, especially w/ the way non-american music has exploded in america the last few years. writing about bad bunny, peso pluma etc, for an american audience, is as much or more about the sonics than the lyrics.

for me i think one of the biggest hurdles i had to clear w/ young writers was getting them to go beyond the mere description of sounds -- which, again, is hard enough to do artfully -- and into the analyzation of stuff like "why is this production/arrangement good or bad w/in the context of this song/album/career? what is it doing to bolster or detract from the artist's artistic goals?" articulating why you think music, divorced from lyrics, is successful/unsuccessful takes a lot of practice

> the utility of describing the sonics of music has greatly decreased in a time where anyone can pull up a song instantaneously and press play.
I'd encourage everyone to take a browse through the Sly Stone Dedicated Listening Thread. Shakey is giving a master class over there, drawing attention to things I otherwise would have definitely missed in the production/playing/sonics.
(plus too much focus on the lyrics overlooks the fact that the quality of the music is approx 10x more important than the quality of the lyrics)

Thanks for the kindness J0rdan :)

I disagree w both my acquaintance and Rilke; well, not really disagree, but have a divergent approach. I think it is a productive approach for an artist to be immersed in arts criticism, aware of how it functions, and grow accustomed to the responses, and, most importantly, allow their work to be shifted in response to what is written.

To claim that one’s artistic impulses operate in a vacuum is myopic; to be able to limn one’s impulse from audience response and, well, “create more effective work”, that’s is an ideal endeavour.

The prevailing barometer for audience’s access to criticism isn’t Pitchfork or Fantano imo, but aggregators: Rate Your Music and Metacritic.

Lastly, I’ve long-argued that falling to “lyrical evaluation” in a review is somewhat of a crutch. Lyrics aren’t meant to be printed, they’re meant to be sung; I can provide you with countless examples of “a lyric that is good in the page but kinda sucks in context” (Prefab Sprout’s “The King Of Rock And Roll” springs to mind), or “a lyric that sucks on the page but rules in the context of the song” (Le Tigre is my go-to best-example for this). When a reviewer spends their word count engaging in lyrical evaluation, I find myself thinking that the problem isn’t the lyric but the song, and the reviewer is oftentimes leaning on saying “this lyric is bad” rather then engaging with why the words don’t work, in a larger context

I’ve been listening to a lot of War lately and it’s like, imagine if this band was evaluated solely on their lyrics? Wow that’d be a shitshow. What an amazing band

YES!! it's about the performance of those lyrics

i can listen to smokey robinson sing about gasms all day because i both know that he's having fun but also he plays around with the form wonderfully

the benefit of a review that describes the sound of a song is to make me want to click on that song instead of millions of others

This is so OTM (for me). I’m just not gonna click & listen if the blurb doesn’t give me a reason to, and non-musical “context” likely isn’t gonna cut it for me

(and I’m not referring to lyrics, by the way, but more the cultural and industry stuff that such blurbs tend to focus on)

the goop on ya grinch factor

Btw – this week's "7 New Albums You Should Listen To" feature includes the Barbie score album; and while the blurb is not outright negative like last week's treatment of the soundtrack, it's still somewhat catty. Why bother including it??

I’ve been reading a lot of fragrance crit recently, it’s been interesting to see the spectrum of critical responses to an artistic medium that essentially has many of the same features as music— there’s even the equivalent of rockism/poptimism in the discourse. The best fragrance writing is just “good writing”, describing the composition accurately with a mix of chemical explanation, emotional response, personal anecdote, history of the perfumer/house, antecedents, commercial context, and (most importantly) juicy analogies to really communicate to the reader what it ~actually~ smells like.

Dior’s Dune smells like “frowning”, Beyond Paradise for Men smells like “what one would imagine the inside of a Concorde to smell like”, Bulgari Black smells like “hockey practice”, and so on

The true critical heroes are the wordsmiths who can produce something like this (while presumably slightly toasted):

A: Pours a clear medium golden yellow in color with moderate amounts of active visible carbonation rising quickly from the bottom of the glass and moderate bright yellow + pale copper + brassy colored highlights. The beer has a three finger tall dense sudsy foamy white head that slowly reduces to a large patch of medium thick film covering approximately 75% of the surface of the beer surrounded by a large patch of very thin film covering the remainder of the surface of the beer and a medium thick ring at the edges of the glass. Slightly heavier than moderate amounts of lacing are observed.

S: Slightly stronger than moderate aromas of citrus/grapefruit + citrus/orange rind + citrus/grapefruit pith + pineapple + pine hops over the top of light to moderate aromas of biscuit + lightly toasted + caramel malts with minimal amounts of caramel sweetness.

T: Upfront there are light to moderate flavors of biscuit + lightly toasted + caramel malts with minimal amounts of caramel sweetness. That is followed by moderate to strong flavors of citrus/grapefruit + citrus/orange rind + citrus/grapefruit pith + pineapple + pine hops which impart a moderate amount of aggressive lingering bitterness.

Thank God Bernard Sumner doesn't read this thread

fragrance crit

this is also the only place where "fecal notes" would not be an immediate disqualification

I do like how “animalic” basically means “it smells like shit”

Hold on I’ll post my favourite Tania Sanchez thing

There is a passionate minority of perfume fans who agitate for genuinely raunchy, animalic perfumery, griping that castoreum (how beavers mark their territory), hyraceum (the petrified excrement of a South African badger), civet (scrapings off the rear end of a member of the weasel family), ambergris (fatty, sea-marinated sperm-whale feces), and musks (poor deer) have gone out of the world, leaving us with sexless, sterile, scrubbed, and bleached sports deodorants masquerading as fine fragrance. All shinola, no shit! Well, today is your lucky day, fetid friends. No more the oud-trend fragrance that smuggles a synthetic “oud” base into a fruity or floral context (sometimes all right but other times like trying to hide porcini mushrooms in a strawberry cake). Dusita’s “Oudh Infini” holds nothing back in this unmistakably poopy composition of musks and civet, along with the always initially funky titular material, which altogether is not so much even like oud but instead the port-a-potty-by-the-sea that is natural ambergris, only more so. It makes me think of the fact that naked mole rats roll around in their communal toilet so as to distinguish members of their colony by the smell. Am I going to wear this? I confess I didn’t try it on skin due to social obligations. I’m sticking with my Ubar. You who are now already eagerly Googling know that €395 a bottle may sting, but for once you’d be getting the real deal. (FOUR STARS)