Pitchfork Media's reaction to the new record

[Clint09eastwood]

I just know that these guys will write yet another pretentious review claiming it is "dad-rock" just because the record does not match the "hip scene." I mean, some of the stuff that they rate highly? Come on....

[Winston Legthigh]

Like I'm going to read their review in this $3,000 suit??

 

C'MON!!

[dondoboy]

Is there something from them? Or are we just waiting for it?

[Theremin]

Their raving review of YHF

[Sparky speaks]

My dad doesn't like Wilco.

[bjorn_skurj]

Their raving review of YHF

[Jesusetc84]

No. I bought the album because of hearing about its saga from other sources, and hearing "Heavy Metal Drummer" on the radio. Grownups don't give one single solitary shit about that website, trust me.

 

 

Neither does my mom!

 

 

"Grown ups" weren't the new audience that YHF reached. They were already into Summerteeth, Being There and the MAs, no?

 

If anything, the new audience that YHF reached was the kids who listened to Radiohead and Pavement, and didn't really have a background in the Flying Burrito Brothers and CSNY. Said audience are Pitchfork readers.

[Ghost of Electricity]

I had forgotten about Pitchfork. why did you have to remind me?

[bjorn_skurj]

"Grown ups" weren't the new audience that YHF reached. They were already into Summerteeth, Being There and the MAs, no?

 

If anything, the new audience that YHF reached was the kids who listened to Radiohead and Pavement, and didn't really have a background in the Flying Burrito Brothers and CSNY. Said audience are Pitchfork readers.

I dunno - all speculation, really, without market research data. I bought the first Mermaid Avenue when it came out and was barely whelmed. I held off on YHF for quite some time. I would judge, solely by comparing the people on this board to the cretin-crammed ranks of other music boards, that Wilco fans skew toward the mature.

[Sparky speaks]

"Grown ups" weren't the new audience that YHF reached. They were already into Summerteeth, Being There and the MAs, no?

 

If anything, the new audience that YHF reached was the kids who listened to Radiohead and Pavement, and didn't really have a background in the Flying Burrito Brothers and CSNY. Said audience are Pitchfork readers.

 

 

I agree with you there.......I got into UT around the time they broke up and got into both SV and Wilco's first albums......Eventually I took to Jeff's singing more than Jay's and pretty much went with Wilco after Being There......YHF was a chore for me to get into until much later, actually after SBS and seeing them live.

[SGL]

Yeah, Pitchfork is really annoying..

They only care about totally obscure indie bands, and once those bands get popular enough they turn on them (other than Radiohead ofcourse).

Critics argue that the site often emphasizes a reviewers' own writing over the actual music being reviewed, sometimes not even reviewing the album and instead criticizing the artist's integrity

Also their reviewers care more about how "cool" and "hip" their reviews are rather than the music being reviewed, and sometimes they dont even review the album but criticize the artists who make it... and I bet none of them can even play an instrument

[Jesusetc84]

I dunno - all speculation, really, without market research data. I bought the first Mermaid Avenue when it came out and was barely whelmed. I held off on YHF for quite some time. I would judge, solely by comparing the people on this board to the cretin-crammed ranks of other music boards, that Wilco fans skew toward the mature.

 

 

True. But like, the sales difference between Being There and YHF when you think about it, is pretty minor. 350k to 500k sales difference. It's not like the difference of a break out between say, a Smashing Pumpkins album that sells 100k and one that sells 5 million copies.

 

I'm not saying that younger people in their late teens early 20s are any sort of majority of the Wilco fan base; I'm just saying YHF took it from maybe like 1% of the Wilco fan base being under 25 to 10-15% of it.

[LouieB]

Is there something from them? Or are we just waiting for it?

Not a thing..just a short article...not sure why we are talking about Pitchfork talking about an album they aren't reviewing yet.

 

LouieB

[Jesusetc84]

Yeah, Pitchfork is really annoying..

They only care about totally obscure indie bands, and once those bands get popular enough they turn on them (other than Radiohead ofcourse).

Critics argue that the site often emphasizes a reviewers' own writing over the actual music being reviewed, sometimes not even reviewing the album and instead criticizing the artist's integrity

Also their reviewers care more about how "cool" and "hip" their reviews are rather than the music being reviewed, and sometimes they dont even review the album but criticize the artists who make it... and I bet none of them can even play an instrument

 

 

When I first found pitchfork I loved them...I saw their top 100 albums of the 90s and was like "OMG, a top 100 with no Pearl Jam, Metallica, and Nine Inch Nails? this site rocks!!!" I liked that they were willing to knock a band regardless of who they are.

 

I don't think bands should automatically get gold stars just because "Hey we liked their last album." or "They did something really important 5 years ago." That being said, I begin noticing that they were writing off bands for really arbitrary reasons, and praising bands for equally arbitrary reasons.

 

So while I like pitchfork in theory, in practice, pitchfork doesn't work. Sort of like Marxist political theory.

[mpolak21]

Like I'm going to read their review in this $3,000 suit??

 

C'MON!!

 

"Another one of Dad's suits?"

"Hey, I

[Dondante]

When I first found pitchfork I loved them...I saw their top 100 albums of the 90s and was like "OMG, a top 100 with no Pearl Jam, Metallica, and Nine Inch Nails? this site rocks!!!" I liked that they were willing to knock a band regardless of who they are.

 

I don't think bands should automatically get gold stars just because "Hey we liked their last album." or "They did something really important 5 years ago." That being said, I begin noticing that they were writing off bands for really arbitrary reasons, and praising bands for equally arbitrary reasons.

 

So while I like pitchfork in theory, in practice, pitchfork doesn't work. Sort of like Marxist political theory.

 

i understand what you are saying, however, a top 100 albums of the 90's list with no mention of pearl jam is just wrong.

[Jesusetc84]

I agree with you there.......I got into UT around the time they broke up and got into both SV and Wilco's first albums......Eventually I took to Jeff's singing more than Jay's and pretty much went with Wilco after Being There......YHF was a chore for me to get into until much later, actually after SBS and seeing them live.

 

Yeah I mean, I was 19 years old when I heard YHF. That was the perfect type of record for me. I actually had more trouble getting into Wilco's country tunes than getting into Wilco's noisey tunes or expiremental tunes if you will.

 

I have a hard time believing that YHF brought tons of "grown-ups" into the fold who weren't already there, or that the younger people who are Wilco fans now were brought into the fold by UT and Being There.

[cloudsofhiss]

Pitchfork is just a website... Their album ratings are pretty consistent in terms of what they rate well or rate poorly. YHF overlapped pretty well with what they typically like, SBS did not. If the new album contains the sort of things they value, it will score well, if it doesn't it won't. If their tastes don't overlap with yours, calm down and read some other music site.

[Jesusetc84]

i understand what you are saying, however, a top 100 albums of the 90's list with no mention of pearl jam is just wrong.

 

I'm more of a Nirvana guy than a Pearl Jam guy so...I kind of liked it. Though on an objective level, the idea of Ten not being on the list in order to feature an album that sold 1600 copies is pretty silly.

 

Still it was kind of cool finding a publication that wrote about music that other people weren't. I personally wouldn't have found Wilco, The Flaming Lips, Neutral Milk Hotel and several other great bands without Pitchfork. As much as I've outgrown them, and started to hate some of their attitudes towards music, I can't deny that they got me into several of my favorite albums and bands.

[aricandover]

I just know that these guys will write yet another pretentious review claiming it is "dad-rock" just because the record does not match the "hip scene." I mean, some of the stuff that they rate highly? Come on....

 

 

 

Who gives a shit? Who gives a fuck?

[Jesusetc84]

Pitchfork is just a website... Their album ratings are pretty consistent in terms of what they rate well or rate poorly. YHF overlapped pretty well with what they typically like, SBS did not. If the new album contains the sort of things they value, it will score well, if it doesn't it won't. If their tastes don't overlap with yours, calm down and read some other music site.

 

Here's a problem with music critics in general; most aren't actually musicians. So instead of valuing say a great chord progression, or a melody line which is original, they tend to go with things that are more tangeible and universal like a good drum beat, cool samples, lyrics that they feel speak to certain issues.

 

That's why someone like M.I.A. is treated like the second coming, and songs more traditional and melodic based often get written off.

[jlb1705]

Wilco is my favorite band.

I read Pitchfork every day.

 

My entry point for Wilco was YHF. I came to it thru Rolling Stone. At that time, my favorite acts included the Foo Fighters, Red Hot Chili Peppers and Everclear. When YHF came out I had only just begun venturing outside of modern rock radio to listen to acts like Ryan Adams/Whiskeytown, the White Stripes and the Strokes. YHF was some respects an epiphany that changed the way I approach and listen to music - to the extent that I would say that YHF is one of the things that eventually led me to become a Pitchfork reader.

 

I like Pitchfork because unlike most sources for reviews they seem to be willing to utilize the full breadth and depth of their rating scale. It drives me nuts that a lot of reviewers will utilize a scale from 0-100 and never give an album anything below a 65.

 

That said, their constant and liveblogging of concerts and festivals is an annoying scenester indulgence.

[jlb1705]

Here's a problem with music critics in general; most aren't actually musicians. So instead of valuing say a great chord progression, or a melody line which is original, they tend to go with things that are more tangeible and universal like a good drum beat, cool samples, lyrics that they feel speak to certain issues.

 

That's why someone like M.I.A. is treated like the second coming, and songs more traditional and melodic based often get written off.

 

I don't think that's a problem - most people who consume music are not musicians themselves. I think there's room for both approaches and more. There are all kinds of ways to come to an appreciation for music.

[Jesusetc84]

I don't think that's a problem - most people who consume music are not musicians themselves. I think there's room for both approaches and more. There are all kinds of ways to come to an appreciation for music.

 

True. And also there are tons of musicians with awful taste.

[Somnambulist]

I still can't believe Pitchfork had the cojones to post this review. I remember them getting some flack for it when it came out.

 

http://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/9464-shine-on/