pitchfork is dumb (#34985859340293849494 in a series.)

xxp Obviously *readers* rate books on Amazon/Goodreads, but do critics? I'm not super-plugged in, but I'm struggling to think of an outlet that reviews books with quantifiable ratings, other than like starred reviews on Kirkus or whatever.

I've written both rated and non-rated reviews, and I don't feel like the rating affects the writing. But I will say that my least favorite type of rated review to write is something with a middling score, like 3 out of 5 — because if you just look at the rating it signals "meh," but those can actually be interesting works to write and think about depending on their context.

With Pitchfork, it never felt like “well, that’s a [critic’s name] 7.8.” Whereas Spin (I’m flashing back to scanning their numeric ratings) felt like individual opinions.

Hm, I'm curious why you think so. Both outlets published reviews with numerical ratings and bylines.

So no negative reviews whatsoever?

Who says a negative review won’t make an album sound interesting to someone? I have absolutely sought out things that I have enjoyed immensely because of how badly they were savaged (that Farrah Abraham album comes to mind, but also the Nasa album Ishan-Allah that came out when I was in high school, which was an absolute mess but also a ton of fun)

p4k writers are always very quick to mention that they don't set the scores

xp

pfork used to print bylines at the bottom of the review which i'm sure helped with the monolithic perception

come on ppl, siskel-ebert two thumbs is a dialectic! and even better is the spread of six-plus or however-many marks it is that TSJ gives/gave: it turns it into a collective argument abt what constitutes value. editorial star systems may well at some point involve discussion of and decisions about value, but the reasoning is opaque to the reader (bcz off the page): the guesswork becomes a projection that evades and suppresses the energies of analysis at the recieving end

b3n w4tson once complained to me that he couldn't always tell from my reviews if the record was good or bad: i forget what my response was at the time (irritated mumbling under my breath probably) but my actual real response today is "then i have succeeded! fuck you!"

xpost re Kirkus Reviews

Many reviews on Kirkus are paid for by publishers

Yeah I’ve always vociferously argued against the “music training makes for better music writing” red herring

yes do not saddle our goon tie with this — if ppl are looking for the “actually, your review is better if you know what you’re talking about” guy I’m that guy and upon this rock, etc.

Who says a negative review won’t make an album sound interesting to someone? I have absolutely sought out things that I have enjoyed immensely because of how badly they were savaged (that Farrah Abraham album comes to mind, but also the Nasa album Ishan-Allah that came out when I was in high school, which was an absolute mess but also a ton of fun)

Well same, but as an example do you think the critic attacking that Farrah Abraham album was thinking "hopefully by expressing how much I hate this I will get some people to be intrigued and check it out"?

But I will say that my least favorite type of rated review to write is something with a middling score, like 3 out of 5 — because if you just look at the rating it signals "meh," but those can actually be interesting works to write and think about depending on their context.

Film critic I know recently said "three star movies are the best kind", and while there is a hint of "some of the best bands of all time are bland" to this I kinda get where they're coming from lol.

I just mentioned to bf the positive response itt to what he said last night, and he asked me to add the other part of what he said: “it’s important to remember that a review is a conversation with the art itself” and yeah that’s also very astute. He works in theatre, tho, criticism and creation are necessarily a symbiotic thing

As far as I’m concerned, a decimal point system is fine and cool and interesting when employed in a free-wheeling Who Gives A Shit manner— much like the olden days imago made reference to. When the same system is applied to attempt to create a definitive “hierarchy of quality”, with a pretence toward objectivity, that’s when things get hairy; remembering now that even Fantano and his single-origin ratings expresses on every video, paraphrased, “but hey, this is just my opinion.”

It’s when the decimal system took on an air of definitiveness that its problems became apparent. The slight differences between a 7.1 and a 7.2, the conversation-generating differences between an 8.2 and an 8.2 BNM. It no longer becomes “a conversation with the art” and it starts to feel like a stock market

The system will inevitably favour “good music” over “interesting music”, which for over a decade left queers/non-whites/non-men/not-rich artists at a disadvantage, until the conscious correctives toward this problem were addressed

It also numbed the readership— albums that were talked about were those that had been slighted or those that had been highly-praised (8.5 and up); I think there’s even an expression for when an album was rated in the 6.0-7.9 bracket: tranched.

I can think of 100 artists who’ve stopped music/ended a project/needed therapy as a result of Pitchfork’s brutal treatment. As for those whose careers are indebted to the boost that Pitchfork gave them? I can think of two. Sufjan and Basinski. I can’t think of anyone else.

So no negative reviews whatsoever?

I would love someone to rate 'n' rank the Joyce Carol Oates oeuvre.

Or her tweets

As I stated above, I have picked stuff up due to negative reviews too, but I don't think it's true that critics writing negative reviews are, as a rule, writing them in the hopes that their negative opinions will get audiences to pick those records up.

xpostx2

I was chatting w bf last night about it, and he said this: “an ideal critical body is one that seeks to put the work into the hands of those who would best appreciate it.”

iirc this is how Allmusic approaches its ratings. What does this Horse Lords, John Mayer, or Miles Davis album deserve to be rated within the context of that artist's oeuvre and the scene in which it exists/existed.

Personally, I never had a problem with Pitchfork's editorial perspective but totally get why someone whose tastes clash with that perspective would be turned off.

didn't realize people still cared about bnm and 3 digit scores. i feel like the cultural cachet they once commanded eroded to almost nothing like, 6-8 years ago

As for those whose careers are indebted to the boost that Pitchfork gave them? I can think of two. Sufjan and Basinski. I can’t think of anyone else.

really? no one else?

We need to rate our 6.6, 7.4, and 8.2 posters on this thread.

I think Vijay Iyer definitely benefited from Pitchfork at one point deciding he was the only jazz artist they were gonna cover.

fwiw, the last 12 albums pitchfork put a BNM label on are fairly diverse, including experimental cellist Titanic, two metal albums, and Sufjan:

https://pitchfork.com/reviews/best/albums/

I was chatting w bf last night about it, and he said this: “an ideal critical body is one that seeks to put the work into the hands of those who would best appreciate it.”

iirc this is how Allmusic approaches its ratings. What does this Horse Lords, John Mayer, or Miles Davis album deserve to be rated within the context of that artist's oeuvre and the scene in which it exists/existed.

These are very different, imo - what you're describing is evaluating a record for an audience that already appreciates an artist, "good for a John Mayer record" is meaningless if you don't already know who John Mayer is.

Honestly I understand anyone who feels that Pitchfork ceasing to exist would be a net positive, I think at its worst it was pretty awful. I think the improvement in my mind was strictly the wider array of voices and more thoughtful takes. Maybe I'm unduly influenced by the peak work vs the valleys. I don't read it nearly as much or in-depth as I once did. But for recent work, a lot of the present company is included in the peaks. I always think of Ivy's review of Sarah McLachlan's Fumbling Towards Ecstasy that's one that made me reconsider that album and her (always thought she was ok but that piece altered my perception wholly.)

I actually liked having the "BNM" stamp, separate from the ratings, meaning something like "P4K thinks this is special". You need highlights to have an identity, to introduce yourself, give a taste, and encourage a dive. Whereas I can't tell apart ratings herded within a 6-7 range when I have to factor in my own taste, the hype factor, the boost given to make it up to the artist for a previous underrated work. It's not as if I'm going to listen and say "no wait, that wasn't a 7.4, this was a 6.3, liars". A 100-system is bound to be inconsistent and I cannot take it seriously. But highlight 2-3 albums I find great, and I'm forever thinking "you got it right those times, and you might again".

As for those whose careers are indebted to the boost that Pitchfork gave them? I can think of two. Sufjan and Basinski. I can’t think of anyone else.

really? no one else?

― kissinger on my list (voodoo chili), Friday, January 19, 2024 10:29 AM (three minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

uh yeah, that's some nonsense. my friends' band were single-handedly propelled by good reviews in pfork to indie minor celebrity status for a few years, led to them getting signed by 4ad, a euro tour, etc. just one random example

Same experience wrt Fumbling Towards Ecstasy. Even if I never knew Sarah as anything other than the singer of Silence.

i understand musicians having a complicated relationship with the site, but i really don't get ilx type music nerds hating it as readers/consumers. the quantity-quality-breadth of writing was amazing; can't imagine being anything but sad that that will soon cease to exist

One thing to clarify regarding the "BNM culture" thing - feels like there's a knee-jerk reaction to be like "who cares? Why so invested in their arbitrary hierarchies?"

When people fret about it on ILX, I give them the benefit of the doubt that they're speaking more to the weight that dumb lil' tag meant, or used to, from a marketing standpoint. At their height it would really drive sales!

I also think people are overlooking how powerful the scores themselves were as a device that carried a weight of importance other scoring systems didn't, which again is speaking to how this affected the artist from a marketing perspective. The snobby specificity of the number-point-number along with the calibrated-by-design difficulty of going above the +9 threshold meant that despite how good/innovative the writing itself was there was I believe still hordes of visitors that wouldn't even really read the write-up, they'd just come to sear the score into their brain (I always think of all the studies they do where people perceive wine/liquor as better worse purely based on a good/bad score). So they head to the shop and see a new album on the racks and their brain goes "this album = 8.6 BNM" and they most likely buy it. Perhaps, ideally, they read the whole review and liked the overall description, maybe just a memorable blurb from it resonated, but I do think a very large percentage had that glowing red number and BNM flashing in their mind above all else. Just a human psychology thing.

uh yeah, that's some nonsense.

Well, for every recording artist who owes Pitchfork a debt, I can name twenty more whose lives were enormously impacted, negatively, irreparably

And yeah, I feel a desire to reiterate at this time that I feel mixed-sad about this “folding”, and again offer condolences to those laid off, and a strong desire to see the Sunday Reviews continue (and join my voice in shouting out ivy. for illustrating that Talk Talk-Fumbling connection so brilliantly)

xp
yeah I appreciate fgti's perspective itt as I have never been the object of music criticism and have no idea what that is like. But it's frustrating how this conversation tends to dissolve into personal impressions. jaymc posted their 2003 top singles yesterday, and even as a moderate pitchfork defender I was surprised by it: https://pitchfork.com/features/lists-and-guides/5924-top-50-singles-of-2003/

likewise, this isn't directed at anyone here, but it would be cool if the twitter anti-poptimists actually read all of Ewing's columns and explained their problems with the actual texts

xp wasn't saying they didn't also bring artists down, simply that they did wield the power for a while to push them to another level

I actually liked having the "BNM" stamp, separate from the ratings, meaning something like "P4K thinks this is special". You need highlights to have an identity, to introduce yourself, give a taste, and encourage a dive. Whereas I can't tell apart ratings herded within a 6-7 range when I have to factor in my own taste, the hype factor, the boost given to make it up to the artist for a previous underrated work. It's not as if I'm going to listen and say "no wait, that wasn't a 7.4, this was a 6.3, liars". A 100-system is bound to be inconsistent and I cannot take it seriously. But highlight 2-3 albums I find great, and I'm forever thinking "you got it right those times, and you might again".

― Nabozo, Friday, January 19, 2024 10:37 AM (seven minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

This too, cause the BNM seemed awarded to the albums they felt had appeal that transcended the genre-heads that would already be invested. An 8+ album without BNM seemed to indicate that it was a solid album for people already interested in that genre. So it was functional, but it was crazy to see how sales spiked when things would get BNM at P4k's height.

Can’t even count the number of excellent things Alfred wrote for them, too— Rush Moving Pictures immediately comes to mind, and Mary J Blige “My Life”; salud!

xxp i also think about ivy's talk talk-fumbling connection often. probably because i love talk talk and listen to them all the time, and also have evocative memories of my mom swaying in the living room at night to fumbling while holding my baby brother to get him to sleep

yeah it was the talk talk connection that really sealed the deal with me (also i love hearing about artists taking hugely to spirit of eden back when it was still just an obscuro flop experiment)

Can’t even count the number of excellent things Alfred wrote for them, too— Rush Moving Pictures immediately comes to mind, and Mary J Blige “My Life”; salud!

― flamboyant goon tie included, Friday, January 19, 2024 10:50 AM

besos!

the power of it at the peak was pretty crazy, my little bullshit local band at the time ended up playing a fundraiser show for Radio K (University of Minnesota's radio station) with Andrew Broder and Tapes n' Tapes. that happened to be the day that the TnT Pitchfork review came out and I was talking to the drummer and bass player like damn that's awesome and they were pretty shocked/excited...but at that time they weren't even like a super popular local band in Minneapolis, a month later they were headlining some big club in New York

lol forgot about them

I remember Alfred's Listen Without Prejudice review made my week.

wait I tried to read the Tapes and Tapes review and it asked me for a login

In 2008, a friend told me she’d emailed a publicist inquiring about employing them, the publicist said “have you been covered by Pitchfork” and my friend said yes, the publicist said “what’s your number” and my friend told them (I think it was a 7.3), and the publicist sighed and said “ok, I think I can work with that”

Tapes n Tapes: https://archive.ph/gF7Mv

that's funny because over time kind of "learning" how to read their reviews I always found the 7.5-8 zone the sweet spot for stuff i would like

Tapes n Tapes: https://archive.ph/gF7Mv

― poppers fueled buttsex crescendo (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, January 19, 2024 4:09 PM (forty-four seconds ago) bookmarkflaglink

merci

they did wield the power for a while to push them to another level

i think the interview excerpt that jaymc posted is a good example of what a mixed bag, probably net negative, that power was during that time, insofar as schreiber tacitly admits that he understood pitchforks power to help some artists was contingent on also proving their ability and willingness to hurt others. which not only was obv bad for the many artists, but also just not correct. obviously a publication needs to be seen as evenhanded but its also clear that a lot of artists got unnecessarily ground up in the gears just to prove a point.

well put

xxp Obviously *readers* rate books on Amazon/Goodreads, but do critics? I'm not super-plugged in, but I'm struggling to think of an outlet that reviews books with quantifiable ratings, other than like starred reviews on Kirkus or whatever.

― jaymc, Friday, 19 January 2024 bookmarkflaglink

This is a piece on the damage mere *readers* have inflicted, for free.

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2023/dec/18/goodreads-review-bombing

I also know quite a few bands that were launched into another level because of Pfork. My freshman year at Uni, Skeletons— then a bunch of acid-dropping seniors at my school— got their debut reviewed and given a good score, and then they all moved to New York and a few became pretty instrumental in a lot of the scene there. West Nile and the Bkln waterfront scene of the aughts and early teens would not have been possible without that review, I don’t think

well, that review among others obv