Pitchfork Media's reaction to the new record

[Drewsammie]

what happens if the album isn't good? Can they give it a bad review then?

 

 

I feel like we need to give a shout out to And You will knows us by the Trail of our dead with all of this Pitchfork talk.

[cloudsofhiss]

The small, insular group of people that buys physical copies of records at local stores instead of downloading low-quality mp3s?

 

Yes?

[jlb1705]

Wow, you had dreadful taste prior to discovering Wilco. I mean, REALLY dreadful.

 

If you think that was bad, you should've seen my CD collection 2-1/2 years before that. Mercifully, that CD collection was stolen from me. I began rebuilding with different music - some of the stuff that you said sucked so bad were actually stepping stones from the even crappier stuff to Wilco to what I like today. Most people don't start off with impeccable taste. The right crappy music though can serve as a stepping stone to something better or more meaningful.

[Guest Speed Racer]

If you think that was bad, you should've seen my CD collection 2-1/2 years before that. Mercifully, that CD collection was stolen from me. I began rebuilding with different music - some of the stuff that you said sucked so bad were actually stepping stones from the even crappier stuff to Wilco to what I like today. Most people don't start off with impeccable taste. The right crappy music though can serve as a stepping stone to something better or more meaningful.

 

Anyone who's razzing you about your music collection when you were younger is only running their mouth so that you look at them instead of the shit they used to own.

[Sweet Papa Crimbo]

Personally I can't wait for the day when a whole lot fewer people think Wilco is cool.....

 

LouieB

 

 

Be ready for the influx of newcomers...

 

Never a fun time

[Sir Stewart]

[quote name='Crow Daddy Magnus

[Ghost of Electricity]

[quote name='Crow Daddy Magnus

[Calexico]

Does anyone really sit there and trawl through that site and then buy albums based on the reviews? Are people really that mindless?

 

Also, what is it called Pitchfork for? That is a stupid name for a website. You may as well call it Testicle Wellington.

[Gewee]

Testicle Wellington.

 

 

Great brunch suggestion

[Dondante]

If you think that was bad, you should've seen my CD collection 2-1/2 years before that. Mercifully, that CD collection was stolen from me. I began rebuilding with different music - some of the stuff that you said sucked so bad were actually stepping stones from the even crappier stuff to Wilco to what I like today. Most people don't start off with impeccable taste. The right crappy music though can serve as a stepping stone to something better or more meaningful.

 

right on. if anyone tries to act like they had great taste in music straight from the womb, they are full of shit. 99% of kids listen to terrible music. i'm 25 and i'd say that my my musical taste as it is now wasn't fully shaped until about 4 or 5 years ago. it was a gradual transition from mc hammer to pearl jam who is still my favorite band. everyone has music in their collection from when they were younger that they'd almost be embarrassed to admit they own, unless like you, they had that collection stolen.

[radiokills]

i like the "pitchfork gives music a 6.8" thing

[DAngerer09]

For all the people who think Pitchfork hates Wilco and has totally written them off, just read the last line of the Sky Blue Sky review:

 

Perhaps after giving the band-member carousel another spin, Tweedy merely ended up with the wrong personnel to articulate his mood here. If that's the case-- as long as his restless habits hold-- we may only need to wait one more album for message and messenger to click back into alignment.

[junkiesmile]

right on. if anyone tries to act like they had great taste in music straight from the womb, they are full of shit. 99% of kids listen to terrible music. i'm 25 and i'd say that my my musical taste as it is now wasn't fully shaped until about 4 or 5 years ago. it was a gradual transition from mc hammer to pearl jam who is still my favorite band. everyone has music in their collection from when they were younger that they'd almost be embarrassed to admit they own, unless like you, they had that collection stolen.

MC Hammer had maybe two years of fame back in the late eighties. What monster exposed you to him when you were five or six?

[Beltmann]

right on. if anyone tries to act like they had great taste in music straight from the womb, they are full of shit. 99% of kids listen to terrible music.

Among my first purchases as a kid: Europe, Mister Mister, Pseudo Echo, and, um, Bruce Willis.

[junkiesmile]

Among my first purchases as a kid: Europe, Mister Mister, Pseudo Echo, and, um, Bruce Willis.

My first love was Buddy Holly in elementary but in my high school years there were some embarrassing choices. Motley Crue, Poison, Faster Pussycat, Michael Jackson, Warrant, Ratt, you know RAWWWWK.

[dondoboy]

Among my first purchases as a kid: Europe, Mister Mister, Pseudo Echo, and, um, Bruce Willis.

I'm afraid to say I think I had that Don Johnson album.

 

And Pitchfork can still piss up a rope.

[Guest Speed Racer]

Mariah Carey's Daydream (god, I was a smutty lesbian as a 9 year-old) and John Fogerty's Centerfield. Oh, and the Frankie Valli and the Four Seasons Anthology.

 

Edit to add: Aerosmith's Nine Lives. God I was a smutty lesbian as a 12 year-old.

[Preferred B]

First CD I bought with my own money - Wilson Phillips (s/t)

 

First cassingle I bought - Urban Dance Squad's "Deeper Shade of Soul"

 

I can't remember the first tape I bought on my own, which surely preceded both CD and cassingle. Oh, may have been "Flesh and Blood" by Poison.

 

Has Pitchfork ranked any of these?

[junkiesmile]

First CD I bought with my own money - Wilson Phillips (s/t)

 

First cassingle I bought - Urban Dance Squad's "Deeper Shade of Soul"

 

I can't remember the first tape I bought on my own, which surely preceded both CD and cassingle. Oh, may have been "Flesh and Blood" by Poison.

 

Has Pitchfork ranked any of these?

Ahhh a fellow Poison victim.

[mpolak21]

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).

 

This is probably the biggest criticism I hear about pitchfork. You'll get a band that not a lot of people have heard of like Clap Your Hands Say Yeah! or Tapes n Tapes before their first record, and Pitchfork finds it, gives it a glowing review and they become very popular among the pitchfork readers. Then by the time the second record or in some cases the third they'll turn on them. Now this in and of itself can be seen as a little "holier than thou," but though I have my problems with Pitchfork, I am not entirely sure they're always totally off base. A lot of the indie bands Pitchfork has really gotten behind in the six or so years I have been reading them have kind of flamed out after one or two records, and though pitchfork's negative reviews tend to quite migraine inducing (though I was a fan of the monkey drinking it's own urine they put as a review for Jet), I'd say they're right most of the time when a band misses the mark. Tapes N Tapes second album probably was a 5.9, regardless of how cool or uncool they were when it's released.

 

And it's not just contemporary indie rock where this exists, pop music history is filled with millions of bands, who put out one or two really good records and then fall of the mark. Sometimes you only have so much to say and so many different ways to say it. For every Beatles and Talking Heads there are dozens of bands like Television or The Zombies, who really only hit pay dirt once or twice.

 

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

 

This is spot on and why I usually stay away from actually reading their reviews. I think a writer inserting him or herself into a music review is fine, hell Lester Bangs did it all the time, but there is a point where I eventually I am more interested in reading about the actual album than what Ryan Schreiber had for breakfast and why he doesn't like Jim O'Rourke. While I am not entirely sure I can judge Pitchfork's motivations in terms of only going for things regarding their hipness and coolness, but I will say they're certainly more going to be way more receptive to an album that sounds like Kid A than they would to an album that sounds like Sky Blue Sky.

 

Still that said, it's a website I visit everyday because their newsfeed is really good, I do enjoy pitchfork.tv, and everyonce and awhile they do really hit the mark, everything on that site about In The Aeroplane Over The Sea has given some of their more annoying reviews a pass in my book. Still, (and how's this for a Pitchfork-esque statement) Stylus Magazine was vastly superior in terms of reviews, writers and features, but sadly Stylus went under and Pitchfork is still enormous.

 

Quick edit: The first album I ever purchased was Magical Mystery Tour by The Beatles. I didn't buy records by any other band until I had the entire Beatles catalog. I suppose it was all downhill from there, but the Beatles were one hell of a gateway drug.

--Mike

[mpolak21]

First CD I bought with my own money - Wilson Phillips (s/t)

 

First cassingle I bought - Urban Dance Squad's "Deeper Shade of Soul"

 

I can't remember the first tape I bought on my own, which surely preceded both CD and cassingle. Oh, may have been "Flesh and Blood" by Poison.

 

Has Pitchfork ranked any of these?

 

The Wilson Phillips got a 9.9, but the review was mainly about the Minneapolis White Castle where Ryan Schreiber worked as a janitor.

 

--Mike

[Beltmann]

My dad managed a record store for a while, but had (and continues to have) a rather narrow wheelhouse. Still, that wheelhouse had some great stuff in it. As a kid I had a steady diet of Elvis, Buddy Holly, the Beatles, the Beach Boys, Carl Perkins, Chuck Berry, Les Paul, Jerry Lee Lewis, Patsy Cline, etc. I was introduced to the music, but also all the history and backstories, too. I believe that foundation is what helped me survive my Pseudo Echo era with no permanent scars.

[cloudsofhiss]

This is spot on and why I usually stay away from actually reading their reviews. I think a writer inserting him or herself into a music review is fine, hell Lester Bangs did it all the time, but there is a point where I eventually I am more interested in reading about the actual album than what Ryan Schreiber had for breakfast and why he doesn't like Jim O'Rourke. While I am not entirely sure I can judge Pitchfork's motivations in terms of only going for things regarding their hipness and coolness, but I will say they're certainly more going to be way more receptive to an album that sounds like Kid A than they would to an album that sounds like Sky Blue Sky.

 

I know for me, a lot of how I listen to music is in relating it to events/times in my own life. I can't tell the difference between a song in 5/4 or 4/4 time while listening, and a review that analyzes the technical aspects of an album probably won't help me. I don't care what he had for breakfast, but there is some sort of middle ground in there somewhere.

 

Growing up in the grunge era saved me from some of the most embarrassing first albums, but my first was probably a Cranberries cassette. Before I was old enough to start listening to my own music, I think my favorite was Randy Travis, probably an influence from my parents.

[bjorn_skurj]

First cassingle I bought - Urban Dance Squad's "Deeper Shade of Soul"

Nice.

[mpolak21]

I know for me, a lot of how I listen to music is in relating it to events/times in my own life. I can't tell the difference between a song in 5/4 or 4/4 time while listening, and a review that analyzes the technical aspects of an album probably won't help me. I don't care what he had for breakfast, but there is some sort of middle ground in there somewhere.

 

Lester Bangs always did a pretty good job of mixing his personal reactions about a work in, while still talking about the music. I, too, can't tell the difference between 5/4 and 4/4, but when I am reading a record review I personally prefer hearing more about the songs and the writer's opinion on them then a digression that feels more suited for a personal essay. But all depends on the writer, if the voice is engaging enough I'll always be willing to follow it.

 

--Mike