3:02 pm // Monday, March 15, 2010
Posted by jjb in postchildren.trackback
Pitchfork changes its approach to track reviews: “We’re still going to be presenting and discussing individual songs here, but we won’t be rating them, and we’re not going to be talking about songs we don’t like.”
ETA on the next Teargarden track review? +/- Never.
Indeed.
This might be, relative to what I think is a full step in the right direction by giving Nitsuh Abebe a column, one-twentieth of a step in possibly either direction. I don’t like numeric ratings, so that part is cool. But they still plan to classify some and not others as “Best New Track”, plus now there’s an implied mild endorsement of every track that will appear, so that seems like a fairly hard constraint on what the writers can say about a given song, and obviously on which songs will even be discussed.
Which gets to one of my general problems with Pitchfork, that being a posture that they cover all ‘independent music’ (see their Twitter bio for an example of this) and that their site is just a clearinghouse for their individual writers, even though I’d say their field of coverage is editorially constrained by a strong sense of a ‘Pitchfork taste’ (overt admissions of this are of course not to be found, but one almost-example is the contrast drawn in the review of Muse’s Resistance album between Muse and “most of the music Pitchfork covers”). And while I don’t watch the site too closely, it seems like the boundaries of ‘Pitchfork taste’ are being enforced more tightly now than in the past, and in such a way that there’s less and less overlap with mine. I mean, they’ve stopped reviewing Electric Six albums, for crying out loud (a band that Matthew Perpetua loves, by the way, but whom — unlike the Pumpkins and Pavement — Pitchfork apparently will not let him review).
how does this relate to the 80′s band smashing pumpkins?
Sounds like an earnest quest on their part toward that pure and desired “objectivity” to me.
:P
@Flappy: See comment #1.
@justa: Nitsuh Abebe’s column is a far stronger step away from faux-objectivity and toward a discourse ethic that invites open consideration of thoughts such as “Why do I, the writer, like this?” as opposed to “Why is this band so good?” Yes, ‘everyone knows’ that discussion of aesthetics is subjective, but there are styles of discourse that seek to demean holders of dissenting views and those that promote active introspection within even the ‘supporter’ community. Pitchfork’s history has tended very strongly toward the former; Abebe’s writing is very much geared toward the latter.
so i’m confused here, have you guys been making it a headline when every possible blog that ever has or ever might review the smashing pumpkins change their review format? can i get on a mailing list or something
Floppy, I think the main point is that how a certain site or magazine approaches music is very important. I haven’t checked out Pitchfork too much, but sounds like it’s biased towards their likes.. Kind of like msnbc or fox news presenting themselves exclusively as a news channel.
I like Spin magazine because it used to be more observational, but I’m bugged cuz it’s slightly more and more catering to the ‘what’s in’ hipster crowd. I love Filter Magazine.. Don’t understand their review section at all but the mag is good.
One time I was reading Blender back in the early 2000s, and one of their pieces suggested No Doubt made sucky music, and I never bothered with them again. No Doubt may or may not make sucky music, but I don’t need a magazine spewing that kind of narrative at me.
do you think anyone can be impartial when reviewing or reporting on anything that requires an opinion?
I don’t think I’ve an unbiased magazine ever, but there was at least used to be specific articles/writers that did a good job of just presenting information about 13 or 14 years ago.
All reviews are so subjective that all they really function as is publicity. For the most part I would give something more of a chance if Pitchfork gave it a bad review because they are so biased (not just SP), but I do like the Arcade Fire for example.
I left out “read” in that first sentence.
Too much acid while playing prog rock songs…
reviews aren’t about information they are about opinions. you can try to justify the opinions using facts or points but what does it matter? it’s still a personal opinion.
Floppy, true, very true. I mostly like more observational reviews
Part of it involves being aware of the source’s bias. I know Pitchfork is biased/elitist (or maybe just more critical of popular artists), so when I read a review, I keep that in mind. If they give it a terrible review, I’m not going to dismiss the album. I’ll still give it a listen. If they give it a 9/10, I’m not going to just assume it’s the best thing ever. I’ve read Pitchfork enough to know what might be considered Pitchforkesque music. I do the same thing with every review I read from websites or magazines.
The key is to find sources that you tend to agree with. It’s kind of like having friends with similar tastes. You can share and swap music with each other and have a general idea if you will like it.
The biggest problem I find is that it’s easier to actually obtain music reviewed on Pitchfork than music I read about on smaller websites. I really enjoy reading Said The Gramophone, but I can’t always get a hold of that music (one song generally isn’t enough to make me want to buy an album so I go looking for more).
P.S. PumpkinsRockOn — Said The Gramaphone just dropped a new compilation album for free. You should check it out here: http://www.saidthegramophone.com/archives/here_is_an_entire_mushpot.php
Full disclosure: My brother’s band is featured. :)
Here’s Lucas Jensen (ex-Idolator) reblogging Ryan Catbird on the topic.
“Why do I, the writer, like this?” as opposed to “Why is this band so good?”
Do you not think that any apt and critical reader could and should be able to infer the latter in the former of those questions? Both are subjective.
I can see it now: the future of marketing: “Why do I, the marketer, want to get you, the buyer, to buy this?”
why are you guys overcomplicating jjb nursing his butthurt over pitchfork’s SP opinions by counter-raping them?
language, No no, language!
@jillysp Thanks for that link. I hadn’t checked STG in a bit, so I missed that. I love when they have free albums. If you don’t mind me asking, which band does your brother play in?
I think Pitchfork has a bias in favor of post-modernism. They are suckers for minutia like a song’s texture, the look of its singer, or how it fits the zeitgeist (ironically). For example, they seem to strongly prefer Kid A to OK Computer. If they paid attention to more classic aesthetic concerns like a song’s structure, I could take them more seriously. For example, “That’s the Way” and “Tarantula” are artfully constructed, but they prefer to talk about guitar tone and what period of music it reminds them of, like true post-modernists. (Note that I am comparing music to architecture – instead of to a construction-paper aquarium or any number of other zany metaphors that Pitchfork hauls out).
Another masterfully built Smashing Pumpkins song, “I of the Mourning,” was dismissed by Pitchfork with this statement: “Note the fucking ‘U’.” They didn’t get beyond the title of the song. This is what is fundamentally amiss with Pitchfork.com: They don’t think of music like musicians think of music. They think like smarmy concert-goers.
That being said, this looks like a step in the right direction.
They tend to look at music like a writer (or maybe an English Major) would look at music, mainly because they are writers, instead of musicians. What I mean to say is, many Pitchfork reviews review the whole “product” if you will. They talk about the sound, the album art, the titles, the lyrics, the hype, all in an effort to construct what is essentially an essay about everything.
As an English teacher, I understand what they are doing–Why they often times seem to base a review on, say, simply the lyrical content of an album (writers love words, of course). They attempt to draw metaphors and create, in a sense, create an appealing review in the sense that the review could stand alone as it’s own text. I’d say, a lot of the issues with Pitchfork stem from the fact that they are writers who want to be noticed and appreciated (or at least be notorious) for their writing, which sometimes comes before the goal of the review.
This certainly doesn’t encompass all Pitchfork reviews, but look at their infamous Zaireeka review (http://web.archive.org/web/20020404172254/www.pitchforkmedia.com/record-reviews/f/flaming-lips/zaireeka.shtml). Is this the work of someone worrying about the music or about how interesting their review sounds? Now, Pitchfork has pulled this review from their site, so maybe that says something about how they are trying to adapt to growing “backlash” often targeted at them.
I think, if you read their articles often enough, you’ll see that the the problem is often the writer’s tone/pathos/whatever getting in the way of the music.
it’s not their problem it’s yours for viewing it in the first place. GET OUT OF WHAT YOU GUYS DONT UNDERSTAND!!!
good god GV you dismiss post modernism as easily as pitchfork dismissed i of the mourning.
and what exactly is wrong with post-modernism.
and i’m sorry, but it’s laughable to say that’s the way and tarantula are artfully composed in this same lines of the classics. i understand as a music student it’s fun to draw parallels but there is a line.
@pumpkinsrockon — yes agreed. they tend to look at music like an economics major and english major look at the smashing pumpkins.
Adam,
This is not the best place for me to go into what I think is wrong with post-modernism. Also, I’m busy tonight. My criticism of post-modernism is implicit in the music I write. So check that out if you’re interested: TheEmptyMirror.net.
I’m not saying that Billy Corgan’s songs are composed “in the same lines of the classics” – i.e. that they are as good. I am saying, though, that his music is best judged by “classical” or conventional aesthetic standards, which means asking questions like: How well does it take a theme and develop it? Is the structure of the song well-proportioned? How effectively is counterpoint used? Pitchfork seems blind to these considerations. I’m not asking that they start talking like music theorists; I’m just asking that they show they have understood a piece of music on its own terms before dismissing it. They are a bit rigid.
i’m pretty sure they just saw a piece of shit song and dismissed it
and what rock critic isn’t a bit rigid? this has been the case with rock record reviews for a long, long time. every smashing pumpkins record review, no matter what source, has for the most part been about the personalities involved, billy’s ego, etc etc. that goes for most other rock bands. rock fans don’t know a hell of a lot about music as it is, so that’s what we’re stuck reading.
and i agree that you can judge his music by some conventional aesthetic standards, but it gets deeper than that as it’s modern rock music and a lot of the conventions are really not at play in his writing. hell i would even argue some of his work has some hints of post modernism in it (mixing old influences with new, combines characteristics from different genres, use of collage in song writing structures, etc).
Also, much of Pitchfork’s audience is not aware of those “classical conventions”, so reading a review of them might not be so helpful.
Adam and jchoiha have been discussing SP songs in extremely complex guitar terms in the post above this. I read it, but certainly didn’t understand much of it. I’m sure, to them, it all makes sense and it’s a good discussion of the Pumpkins’ music, but to many of the readers here, it didn’t make any sense.
You can’t blame Pitchfork too much for writing reviews that their audience can understand. We can blame them for other things, but I do feel that they are taking more and more steps away from their “pretentious” roots, if you will. That being said, they’ve still got a ways to go.