Upcoming Shows
Roadside Graves
w/Bart Budwig
FRIDAY, Aug. 6, 9PM
@ Mikey's GyrosStereopathic on Hypem
Mar
16
Reviewing the Reviews: #1
Filed Under Updates
No one likes a critic. Only hipsters like hipsters. So why does Pitchfork.com have such a huge following? For that matter, why do I spend so much time there?
Pretty often I find that I’m there to criticize the reviews. This serves two purposes: 1) I get to act as critic of the critics, 2) I get to out-hipster the hipsters. Pitchfork is reaching that level where even folks approaching 30 (like myself), can feel a twinge of joy in recognizing that the publication is reaching the end of its life-cycle as a respectable publication and will soon join the ranks of Rolling Stone and SPIN. The joy comes in pointing this out before everyone else realizes it. That’s bad-tempered and in poor taste. Forgive me, I know what I do.
However, there’s also that sneaky moment when I realize that I do actually care about the reviews. I got angry when they gave M. Ward’s Hold Time a score of 6.8 out of 10. I felt validated when they gave Radiohead’s In Rainbows a 9.3. If I think I’m so cool, why do I care? Why do I go there everyday? Multiple times. An hour.
I’ve come to believe that the problem lies with method and with the efficiency of the reviews. Method-wise, the people at Pitchfok listen to more records in one year than you and I will probably hear in ten. They’re experts. But that expertise comes at a price.
I myself have been privy to a huge amount of music over the last couple years. In order for something to catch my attention I would like to think that it has to be good. In truth, often times it only has to be different. This means that it took me months to figure out that I actually liked Wilco’s Sky Blue Sky record (Pitchfork gave it a 5.2). It was just a solid listen. Jeff Tweedy writes solid songs, and the band plays them well. The record didn’t break new ground. But at some point we have to recognize that breaking new ground doesn’t mean much.
The final song on that record, which I would like to deal with in-depth at a later time, is called “On And On And On.” It’s a very direct song, a lover telling his beloved that even though death crouches at the door for them, they will stay together; death will not truly separate them. It’s a heartfelt song and I think it’s a great one. Not a new sentiment, but a true one and well executed. Pitchfork’s review of the record only mentions that the song title is lackluster. That’s not a fair reading in my opinion.
I will readily admit that it’s impossible for every music outlet to give every album its due, but the format, particularly the scale of 1-10, doesn’t lend itself to careful consideration and enters the review as a judgment, rather than a statement in a conversation, one that will certainly require revision over time.
I don’t know what that might look like ultimately, but I’m going to continue to think and post thoughts on the matter here. We’d love to hear what you all think as well.
Josh Stevenson lives and works in Moscow, ID. His dadhood grants him permission to stick up for dadrock.
Comments
11 Responses to “Reviewing the Reviews: #1”
Leave a Reply
Hmmm. Good thoughts. It seems like rating music on a scale of 1-10 in the first place kinda misses the mark. There’s so much of it out there, and such a wide range of emotions and stories to tap into, that it’s hard to quatify a song in such a basic way. Not to say that it’s all subjective, cause there’s definitely good and bad music. But you wouldn’t give a person a rating of 1-10… if that makes any sense.
I think it makes a lot of sense. You’re getting at something I definitely want to deal with more in future articles. Good points yerself.
Two thumbs.
It’s been long enough that every kid and his brother has had a computer and an electric guitar for us to have nigh explored the absolute outer limits of what may be called music. So much of what is considered ground-breaking, I find provokes little more than tedium and ennui.
I hardly think that a meaningful musical review could be produced by critics who treat their job like they were testing toilet paper. I fell in love with Sky Blue Sky in the first listen, but I find that most albums need at least five or six plays before I can really appreciate the music and discover what depth may be there. In my opinion Wilco and M. Ward gave the world something much more valuable than Rainbows, so what gives?
Really, I believe, it is a lot more difficult to produce, and a lot more satisfying to hear, good, well-written music in the traditional formulae, than something that is always striving to push the envelope. I look forward to true ground being broken by talented and dedicated classically and folk-trained musicians who unearth old material to plant new seeds in.
Good stuff Jason. My hope: that the new Grizzly Bear album (that Josh refuses to listen to until it is officially released in May) will become the new standard/definition of “Prog Rock.” The album, Veckatimest, represents the “fullness of time” for music right now. It nods to so many old styles & genres, from mo-town to electronica, and ties in current themes like Bon Iver and Fleet Foxes (with all of the Beach Boys influences) and breaks new ground. Ahh…so nice. (Josh – it’ll be so much better when you finally do hear it, with all of this build-up)
Pitchfork doesn’t give some music the rating it deserves. Department Of Eagle’s “In Ear Park” only got an 8.3. Whereas Animal Collective’s “Merriweather Post Pavilion” got 9.6. I think what Pitchfork takes into account is not the actual music. It is more the place in society or culture that the music will take. While “In Ear Park” is, in my opinion, one of the best albums I’ve ever heard, it doesn’t break new ground. It just uses the old ground to make something spectacular with it. “Merriweather Post Pavilion” is more of an edgy and “out there” sound that Pitchfork thinks is going to catch on. Pitchfork wants to hop on that boat and be able to say “We thought this music was good when it first started. . .” or something to that effect. In most Pitchfork reviews, the reviewer ends up just telling the story behind the record. . . That’s all well and good, but I want to hear about the actual sounds of music. The thing is, I think reviewing music is going to be hard to do in the future. Because of the new sounds it’s hard to describe what music sounds like unless you can relate it to another band. I think music has become so much more emotional that you can’t just rate the way the music actually sounds but, you also have to rate the emotion it gives you which is something completely different for every person.
I hope I didn’t rant for too long. I’m with Josh on Veckatimest. I actually downloaded it, but I couldn’t bring myself to listen to it. These ideas are probably not coherent at all. . . Oh well.
Maybe if instead of a 1-10 scale they gave us 3-4 twitter-length (less than 140 characters) statements. A hipster briefing of talking points. I’d read that.
Thanks for the comment, Gabe. I think you’re right that music is changing, but I also think that music has always been emotional and judging music has always been complicated. Giving something a rating is an overly efficient way to deliver an opinion. Because it’s such a final, easy method of assigning value to something, I don’t think we can trust it.
That’s not a bad idea, Austin. One on the lyrics, one on the music, and only one on the artist’s persona or cultural relevance.
Maybe even in haiku. I’m serious.
[...] Although I haven’t yet read (or even purchased) Celine Dion’s Let’s Talk About Love: A Journey to the End of Taste by the non-Beach Boy Carl Wilson, the book has been catching my attention more and more. He just recently appeared on The Colbert Report talking about the book (we have the video after the jump). It looks like he’s working in proximity to some of the issues that I’ve mentioned on a previous post. [...]
[...] even though we haven’t always had great things to say about Pitchfork, I can’t help but swell with pride when I see them looking favorably [...]