Fuck Pitchfork
Those young turks at Pitchfork review independent (indie) music. They decide what's cool. Labels want ads on their site and good reviews for their artists' newest albums. People buy into their BS. Why? Word of mouth, their blanket bashing of mainstream music, etc. The internet population loves their piss and vinger when describing the latest Linkin Park or whatever else is on the butcher's block this week. By responding to them, I am recognizing the site's worth and its popularity. Everyone who deals with indie music--from label exec to deejays to crazed fan--check on Pitchforkmedia.com quite frequently. It decides the trends as perhaps Creem and Rolling Stone did three decades or more ago. It's online and new and everyone loves it.
Sure, they do some good things. They get independent music more exposure and many of their reviews are accurate. Yet, with their power comes abuse. (And just because we agree with their review does not mean they are healthy.) They know they have control over thousands of minds. Witness their trashing of the newest Weezer album. While Make Believe is a disappointment, it hardly warrents a 0.4. But the pissed-off reviewer at Pitchfork wants to make a statement.
My problem isn't with what they do particularly, but what they stand for. They dominate the discourse on independent music and people are too willing to take what they say as the end of the debate. For me it starts debates, but for those who looks at the 0.0 to 10.0 scale only, a 5.0 means to ignore while a 9.0 means it must be great. Don't get me started about rating things in the first place; I much prefer the NY Times' ban on such quantitative ratings. But their essential 1-100 scale is so arbitrary that the first time I saw it I laughed. But people buy into this. They trust it. It is their source. Even when I read Rolling Stone and SPIN in middle school, I never fully trusted their reviews. I mean, fuck, SPIN didn't like Nevermind. Rolling Stone gave Pinkerton a horrid review. Yet, if Pitchfork gives the latest Trail of Dead album a 5.5, it must be bad, not worth a listen. And NIN's The Fragile is a solid 2.0; while their must have been hundreds of albums that were worse in 1999. A 2.0 please; someone was unhappy that the Downward Spiral broke into the mainstream.
I would argue that Pitchfork suffers from Rob Sheffield syndrome. Sheffield, who has been at RS for quite some time, often writes very shallow reviews where one cannot understand how an album's star score matches with his review. Did the editors overturn his verdict but retain his pan? At Pitchfork, the reviews are often incoherent. Sure, the folks at Pitchfork try to have some fun, be cool, and all that. They certaintly cannot be like a newspaper or RS or the New Yorker or something. But their playful reviews are simply silly and so often they are negative. When they are positive, it is even more bewildering? (So why is it good again? I might ask myself.) All in the name of being different, how indie of them! Besides being incomprehensible, Pitchfork reviews love dropping similar artists, comparisons between new songs and older (almost always "better") songs, and tons of information about the artist. While I don't mind some requisite info about the band's career, this can get overbearing. On top of this, the comparisons are absurb. I often hear: the Pixies did this so much better or he is trying to be Bowie with every measure, etc. While comparisons are necessary, when every song is compared to something else, the reviewing is shallow. The debate, to be sure, include the way a new album plays off of older ones, but talking about the sound without making references to the past is a purer, less post-modern way of reviewing. Everything is not about the other great albums, it's about the one that is in front of you. And try to listening to it three or four times before reviewing it. Few albums are amazing on the first couple of listens unless you really, really want them to be.
Pitchfork reviews are too full of themselves. They lack a requisite level of self-criticism to make up for their arrogance. They make themselves the authority through their voice, but they lack that authority. The culture at Pitchfork, I know nothing about. I know they want potential writers to write a list of their favorite artists, albums, etc and write a review of an unpopular, but not too obscure album. I think this gives a good indication of who Pitchfork are... They particularly snub mainstream music, because they do not want to soil themselves with mass appeal. Meanwhile, they are the mass media of indie music, everything they despise in a different realm. And they are far more arrogant than the mainstream press; everything that is bad about indie music snobs. (Don't get me wrong, I don't mind snobbery as long as it's not mindless and overbearing.) Pitchfork loves their little lists. The best of the best of the best. The cream of the cream. Everything's about ranking. And ranking is about authority and discipline. This is better than that and that is better than this. The whole system (related to hierarchical systems of authoritarian regimes) reinforces and perpetuates itself. (I could imagine if a Pitchforkee was reviewing this post that s/he might say that I am being pretentious for trying to relate my critique to the realm of political systems. Of course, no one can do this. We simply need more Bloc Party and the like and everyone will be okay.) The goal of Pitchfork is to create boundaries between good and bad and mainstream and indie. They are so concerned with these boundaries and creating their own realm that they have become out of touch. (No, not out of touch like the Democrats supposedly are, nor out of touch with the mass culture, but out of touch with what's good.) Their opinions are self-perpetuating.
So, in closing, let's break the stranglehold of Pitchfork on independent music reviews. Let's find a forum that includes all music and focuses on what's good, not on what's "unpopular." Also, let's try to avoid the RIYL attitude that everything has to be like something else. Sure, it may sound like something, but that doesn't mean it stole from it, is a lesser version. It can be unique and good while sounding like something else. Just look at the White Stripes. Or the latest Green Day. Someone just needs to put Pitchfork in its place. (And that's not me but hopefully someone else will follow suit.)
Sure, they do some good things. They get independent music more exposure and many of their reviews are accurate. Yet, with their power comes abuse. (And just because we agree with their review does not mean they are healthy.) They know they have control over thousands of minds. Witness their trashing of the newest Weezer album. While Make Believe is a disappointment, it hardly warrents a 0.4. But the pissed-off reviewer at Pitchfork wants to make a statement.
My problem isn't with what they do particularly, but what they stand for. They dominate the discourse on independent music and people are too willing to take what they say as the end of the debate. For me it starts debates, but for those who looks at the 0.0 to 10.0 scale only, a 5.0 means to ignore while a 9.0 means it must be great. Don't get me started about rating things in the first place; I much prefer the NY Times' ban on such quantitative ratings. But their essential 1-100 scale is so arbitrary that the first time I saw it I laughed. But people buy into this. They trust it. It is their source. Even when I read Rolling Stone and SPIN in middle school, I never fully trusted their reviews. I mean, fuck, SPIN didn't like Nevermind. Rolling Stone gave Pinkerton a horrid review. Yet, if Pitchfork gives the latest Trail of Dead album a 5.5, it must be bad, not worth a listen. And NIN's The Fragile is a solid 2.0; while their must have been hundreds of albums that were worse in 1999. A 2.0 please; someone was unhappy that the Downward Spiral broke into the mainstream.
I would argue that Pitchfork suffers from Rob Sheffield syndrome. Sheffield, who has been at RS for quite some time, often writes very shallow reviews where one cannot understand how an album's star score matches with his review. Did the editors overturn his verdict but retain his pan? At Pitchfork, the reviews are often incoherent. Sure, the folks at Pitchfork try to have some fun, be cool, and all that. They certaintly cannot be like a newspaper or RS or the New Yorker or something. But their playful reviews are simply silly and so often they are negative. When they are positive, it is even more bewildering? (So why is it good again? I might ask myself.) All in the name of being different, how indie of them! Besides being incomprehensible, Pitchfork reviews love dropping similar artists, comparisons between new songs and older (almost always "better") songs, and tons of information about the artist. While I don't mind some requisite info about the band's career, this can get overbearing. On top of this, the comparisons are absurb. I often hear: the Pixies did this so much better or he is trying to be Bowie with every measure, etc. While comparisons are necessary, when every song is compared to something else, the reviewing is shallow. The debate, to be sure, include the way a new album plays off of older ones, but talking about the sound without making references to the past is a purer, less post-modern way of reviewing. Everything is not about the other great albums, it's about the one that is in front of you. And try to listening to it three or four times before reviewing it. Few albums are amazing on the first couple of listens unless you really, really want them to be.
Pitchfork reviews are too full of themselves. They lack a requisite level of self-criticism to make up for their arrogance. They make themselves the authority through their voice, but they lack that authority. The culture at Pitchfork, I know nothing about. I know they want potential writers to write a list of their favorite artists, albums, etc and write a review of an unpopular, but not too obscure album. I think this gives a good indication of who Pitchfork are... They particularly snub mainstream music, because they do not want to soil themselves with mass appeal. Meanwhile, they are the mass media of indie music, everything they despise in a different realm. And they are far more arrogant than the mainstream press; everything that is bad about indie music snobs. (Don't get me wrong, I don't mind snobbery as long as it's not mindless and overbearing.) Pitchfork loves their little lists. The best of the best of the best. The cream of the cream. Everything's about ranking. And ranking is about authority and discipline. This is better than that and that is better than this. The whole system (related to hierarchical systems of authoritarian regimes) reinforces and perpetuates itself. (I could imagine if a Pitchforkee was reviewing this post that s/he might say that I am being pretentious for trying to relate my critique to the realm of political systems. Of course, no one can do this. We simply need more Bloc Party and the like and everyone will be okay.) The goal of Pitchfork is to create boundaries between good and bad and mainstream and indie. They are so concerned with these boundaries and creating their own realm that they have become out of touch. (No, not out of touch like the Democrats supposedly are, nor out of touch with the mass culture, but out of touch with what's good.) Their opinions are self-perpetuating.
So, in closing, let's break the stranglehold of Pitchfork on independent music reviews. Let's find a forum that includes all music and focuses on what's good, not on what's "unpopular." Also, let's try to avoid the RIYL attitude that everything has to be like something else. Sure, it may sound like something, but that doesn't mean it stole from it, is a lesser version. It can be unique and good while sounding like something else. Just look at the White Stripes. Or the latest Green Day. Someone just needs to put Pitchfork in its place. (And that's not me but hopefully someone else will follow suit.)
posted by (e) at 12:26 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home