Spent the last 4 days reading Pitchfork album reviews

[suckamc]

And can I just ask any of you to either (1) point out to, or (2) shoot me if I ever commit the following:

--I call music either "self-indulgent" or "masturbatory," all the while I am engaging in a literary style that could only be described by those terms... sacrificing literary meaning, depth and punch for a damn-near vacuous or irrelevant phrase that serves no purpose other than to show how clever a phrase I can marshal. If I ever call something "a masterpiece for people who haven't smoked weed yet but are thinking about it" (http://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/9285-and-the-glass-handed-kites/), then I'll politely excuse myself from ever again criticizing any music for its showy excess.

--I snidely, and with seemingly arbitrary criteria in mind, sweep aside albums/songs that legitimate, respected, respectABLE, and (often) brilliant musicians (and fwiw, those being from the styles that reviewers tend to gravitate toward) hold very dear to themselves. I'm not saying I should be expected to KNOW what albums the legit, working, brilliant writers are so enamored with, but that if I turn out to show a certain tendency toward bucking those trends, then maybe I shouldn't be quite as habitually bold and damning, and maybe even rethink being so downright definitive and objective with my opinions, particularly if I have such a public and career-damning mouthpiece. I am the first and last word in a monologue... unless some lone shmuck starts a thread about me in the dark corner of a little gear forum.

--I'm just a cynical a-hole. "Virtually everything sucks." Please don't let me be that. Opt for the (2), above, the moment you see that transformation happening. Treat it like a zombie movie. If you SAW me get scratched by one, don't wait for me to be a threat to the rest of you before you just take care of it. There is so much beauty in so much music if you can take it on its own terms instead of on the terms of what it's not even trying to be.

Oh, and that Mew album is a masterpiece. What does that tell you about me?

[The Last Rebel]

Pitchfork reviews are the worst. I think the forumla is 4 or 5 paragraphs rambling about bullshit that's only tangentially related to the band, or music at all possibly, and about one paragraph of actual commentary on the album. I've also noticed that they'll give albums from bands/genres they tend to dislike higher scores or more retrospective praise if the album is particularly popular or well revered.

Now, that being, said, they do occasionally produce some brilliant reviews:

http://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/8104-lateralus/

[CharAznable]

Pitchfork reviews are the worst.

[jekylmeister]

I have no idea what's going on here, but I'm staying/running away.........

[dancehall]

bitching about Pitchfork review is so '00s.

[pdodge77]

7-10 years ago, Pitchfork was useful. Then they became far more interested in their own cleverness and less interested in reviewing music.

If you want a good laugh, check out the review that Deer Tick wrote of their negative pitchfork review. http://www.urlesque.com/2010/06/08/indie-rock-band-deer-tick-mediocre-pitchfork-review-parody/

[james...]

Now, that being, said, they do occasionally produce some brilliant reviews:

http://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/8104-lateralus/

You weren't kidding.

"Seven minutes into the song, he does this awesome scream for 24 seconds straight, which is like the longest scream I've ever heard. Then at the end there's this part where Danny Carey hits every drum he has."

[Blue Tile Fever]

Why would you spend four days reading reviews?

[tiktok]

Everyone should think like me.

[skillet]

You weren't kidding.

"Seven minutes into the song, he does this awesome scream for 24 seconds straight, which is like the longest scream I've ever heard. Then at the end there's this part where Danny Carey hits every drum he has."

"Tool know about space and math, and it's pretty complex." All that sentence needs is "and stuff" on the end and I'd go from shaking my head to giggling uncontrollably.

Reading that article made my brain hurt.

[TRS1]

7-10 years ago, Pitchfork was useful. Then they became far more interested in their own cleverness and less interested in reviewing music.

Exactly

[enocaster]

A very flawed website that still has enough going for it to merit a daily visit from me. I disagree with most of their reviews, and you have to read between the lines quite a bit to get to the truth behind their schtick. But I still discover lots of great new music there, along with news and tour dates from many of my favorite bands.

[cledussnow]

Sometimes you can get useful info from bad reviewers. Once you learn their tastes and preferences. I have a co-worker who has just about the total opposite taste than me in movies. If he says it was great I'll usually stay away, if he hated it, I usually rent it that weekend:roll

[mbargav]

A very flawed website that still has enough going for it to merit a daily visit from me. I disagree with most of their reviews, and you have to read between the lines quite a bit to get to the truth behind their schtick. But I still discover lots of great new music there, along with news and tour dates from many of my favorite bands.

Same here.

[Chrome Dinette]

I haven't looked at that site for many years. I guess I don't have an opinion, but I agree with at least one of their old reviews:

http://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/5274-system-2/

Post-punk doesn't come much more jittery and tense than this. In fact, at times, Microwaves sound like a good old-fashioned American hardcore band, but they have far too 'arty' leanings for that classification. To the standard guitar/bass/drums format they add a fair amount of samples and other sonic wackery. The guitar is brittle and trebly, the bass sounds like some kid making fart noises on his arm (a good thing in this instance, I assure you), and the drums are all hi-hat and cymbal. Like their close kin in dark disco-punk bands like the Rapture, the Microwaves have obviously digested the Factory Records catalog, but they've also spent some quality time with Devo, Beefheart, Zappa, and most noticeably, MX-80 Sound, meaning they've picked up a sense of humor somewhere along the line.
System 2 begins with what sounds like a squealing, tape-eating Tascam battling a dusty record in-groove, panning back and forth between channels before the angular post-punk chaos ensues. The vocals alternate between the above mentioned screamo and a deadpan plainspeak. The first thing you hear is, "Every time I take a picture something truly horrible happens... people are dead, bloody and mangled," and later, we get some unclear, presumably nasty happenings "in the back of a McDonalds." Most of the time, though, Microwaves purposefully steer clear of direct narrative, preferring to proffer absurdities. And this is where the humor shines through-- if they played it straight and just related some tales of blood and gore along with frantic paced music, it would get tiring pretty quick. (Insane Clown Posse, anyone?) But little spoken-word interjections like "What were you thinking?" and "How ya doing?" are a clue that these boys are feeling the irony. Do they know what kind of lunatics they sound like? Is it just a big put-on? It's hard to tell, and that, ultimately, is what makes System 2 so interesting.
Microwaves' defining moment on System 2 comes with the maddening final track, "1983." It opens with a hyper-repetitive solo drum pattern that sounds like something from a Faust album, and then, just when you think it will never end, they pile on layer upon layer of maniacal laughter (the kind you might hear from a cartoon villain) and some kid repeating, "I took a picture of blood," and squealing with delight. The first time I listened to this I found it brutally irritating, but on subsequent listens found it both hilarious yet quite disturbing.
I've listened to System 2 more than a dozen times and I can't believe I haven't had some sort of aneurysm yet. I'm fairly certain I've now listened to it more than anyone else in the world, at least more than anyone not somehow associated with the band. It isn't something I'd recommend doing unless you have some sadistic desire to inflict damage upon your nervous system, or if you're just really jaded. There are albums that produce more tension and anxiety than this one, but not many. I advise that you not listen to this as often as you visit Pitchfork (wait, maybe you're really filled with all kinds of sadistic desires!), but that instead, you just bust it out when you're on drugs. No, scratch that. Save the money you usually spend on meth and buy this album instead. And don't forget to put a towel or something down on the kitchen floor.

[78deluxe]

Now, that being, said, they do occasionally produce some brilliant reviews:

http://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/8104-lateralus/
:sarcasm

[HP Hovercraft]

David Cross: Albums to Listen to While Reading Overwrought Pitchfork Reviews (http://pitchfork.com/features/guest-lists/6044-david-cross-albums-to-listen-to-while-reading-overwrought-pitchfork-reviews/)

[andycaster]

I check out their site or Spotify app as their review list is interesting. Much more so than their ratings or the actual reviews. Don't think I've finished one in years. My guess is they pay the writers roughly what it'd take for me to make it all the way through a review. A cool 20 bucks.

[burningyen]

But I still discover lots of great new music there
I used to as well, but after pulling my hair out over the writing I decided there has to be a better way. I like Spinner's Interface (http://www.spinner.com/interface) and NPR's All Songs Considered (http://www.npr.org/programs/all-songs-considered/).

[One Chord Wonder]

Has everyone seen this yet?

http://www.theonion.com/articles/pitchfork-gives-music-68,2278/

Schreiber's semi-favorable review, which begins in earnest after a six-paragraph preamble comprising a long list of baroquely rendered, seemingly unrelated anecdotes peppered with obscure references, summarizes music as a "solid but uninspired effort."
-the onion

:rimshot

[thedroid]

David Cross: Albums to Listen to While Reading Overwrought Pitchfork Reviews (http://pitchfork.com/features/guest-lists/6044-david-cross-albums-to-listen-to-while-reading-overwrought-pitchfork-reviews/)

He makes ups some good band names in there:

Maximum Minimum
Butterfat 100
Screaming at the Mirror
University of Blunts
Wittgenstein's Mistress
Pillow Logic
Thunder *****
The Original Apple Dumpling Gang

[Kitten Cannon]

While I too hate Pitchfork primarily because of their reviews, I've always loved this one:
http://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/1541-xy/

[Dumo]

I've discovered a few good bands while wading through that muck. Not sure if it was worth it. The Best Coast "Dad Rock" video segment was pretty depressing/amusing/fun. That would be a pretty interesting show to have hipsters comb through your records and comment on camera. My kids will probably being doing that any day now.

[Elmer]

Pitchfork is so far up its own ass that the reviews ceased being useful years ago. Rather than read them, I usually take a quick spin through the new review listings to see if anything catches my eye then go see if that particular artist / album is on Spotify. After a bit of listening I can decide for myself if I like it or not. I have found quite a few interesting bands and good albums like this, so I suppose Pitchfork isn't completely worthless...