I really don't like the idea of PitchforkMedia anymore. They are undoubtedly becoming more anal-retentive with their increased popularity, directly a result of their new tastemaking position in the Rock Proper world. An album championed by Pitchfork will usually go on to be championed by countless others. An album detested by them will become trash elsewhere.
For example, two great albums have come out this year have recieved poor ratings. One was Pedro the Lion's Achilles Heel. Pitchfork gave it a 4.7. Why? What does a 4.7 sound like, anyways? Sure, I agree, like anyone, that there are good albums and bad albums, good art and bad art. But an album that genuinely captures daily frustration, ethical dilemma, and mental anguish as precisely and plainly as Achilles Heel is not a 4.7.
The other example is more glaring. It is Travis Morrison's Travistan. Now don't get me wrong, I was a HUGE Dismemberment Plan fan. I was expecting greatness. I got an album full of great relevance in today's political, social and personal enviornment. It wasn't perfect by any stretch, but what is? (Blueberry Boat, 9.6? I don't know...)
Pitchfork gave the album a 0.0.
What?
According to Pitchfork this album has no relevance whatsoever. This album holds no artistic merit. This album is UNLISTENABLE. This album is worse than Helmet's new one.
Sure you can take the lyrics out of context, as Chris Dalhen does in the review, and they'll sound cheesy. Travis Morrison's lyrics have always sounded cheesy by themselves. Just because Morrison isn't stringing post-modern non-sequiters together, doesn't mean he hasn't succeeded. His lyrics are more simple then ever but not worse for it.
I can't help but think that because this is from "that guy from the Dismemberment Plan" Dalhen gave this a horrible score. He wanted a Plan record and he got a relatively mainstream dance-pop record. Indie police to the rescue!
In essence I really see something dangerous going on. Pitchfork are finding it easier to blast relatively popular artists and bands than praise them. (See: Wilco, Pedro the Lion, Ted Leo). It's truly boils down to a frustrated writer with a national outlet and a fucking rating system for records. What is that?
The hype-machine that Pitchfork has become is reaching monolithic levels. Let's hope they use their power wisely.
[For a better, much more well-informed article about this same subject, please click here. It is written by former Pitchforker Chris Ott.]
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Strong feelings on this issue shared, but a couple of things...
I hate numerical rating systems; they're ridiculous. There's even that metacritic site, which is helpful for finding other reviews but bases its entire credibility on a cataloging of numbers of reviews. Jebus. But, with regard to Chris Ott's article, I'm not sure that "borrowing" credibility from independent sources is a bad thing.
Pitchfork has wielded a bit of power over me for the last eight years. I even communicated with Ryan Schrieber once via email, how cool am I... But it's a source of opinion, and usually, in their too-hip glory, a pretty good source of it. My music taste and selections (on a very limited budget), I'd say, is the better for it. Their name pops up on cd covers, and i know where that opinion came from. There are plenty of other music sites to check too, that are growing in readership. Back to that in a second.
But is it bad that they've become popular and credible? And that people, or other news outlets for example, find them credible? Not if they are still striving, as much as they can, to be independent and objective.
People want a little subjectivity, a little objectivity. Some of Pitchfork's reviews, such as Travis Morrison's, have become too subjective. It's in their interest to knock it off, in the interest of credibility. But as long as people spot subjectivity, that's all I require. It's dangerous to have a subjective source that simultaneously has credibility, cough, fox news, cough, ahem. But isn't a lot of life, especially a blog, all about subjectivity? That's where Ott's argument hits the mark... Don't go pretending like you (collective "you", not brett) don't read other's opinions, or that you don't have a source. Everyone does. And they're all opinions. Some fit with yours, some don't. Daily Show fits with mine. Maybe yours. Yeah, if everyone followed the words of the dude ("that's just like, your opinion, man"), the only hype would be "good" hype, where independent personal opinions turned into a majority. But that's not our situation, we get movie previews and advertising, blogs and newspapers to read up on stuff--we want to know before we buy. We should.
And the internet means more sources. check them out. you may look to new sources, but you are still looking for an opinion you might respect and might coincide with. It's your fault, not Pitchfork's, if you buy a one-sided chunk of opinion or "hype." As for Pitchfork, they just need to cut the silly numbers (which only detracts from their writing) and make sure that their sources are not one-sided as well.
My opinion: Travis Morrison's show, pre-Travistan and around the corner from my apartment, was one of the worst I have ever been at. People were leaving. We did.
Post a Comment