Pitchfork Is Wack (and notes on the refined delicacy of MBV)

d e n · Post by **d e n** » Tue Jun 04, 2013 10:45 pm

i am a longtime lurker and a first time poster.

i felt compelled to express my distaste for Pitchfork. i think most music reviews are way off... they are so often exercises of self-indulgent writing instead of an objective analysis of music (and they often lack the awareness that certain aspects of music cannot be analyzed*). i feel Pitchfork takes this to an entire new level of wackness.

i recently attended the Primavera Sound music festival and I felt extremely detached from a lot of the music I heard. of course, this experience must be attributed to my own feelings entering the festival. i was out of it, bumming on myself for being so judgmental in regards to everyone looking the same and the entire music festival feeling more like a fashion show. Pitchfork (who "curated" one of the festivals (such a grandiose verb for booking the gig)) published a short article reviewing the festival, noting the most ubiquitous fashion trend as a having to do with tv show t-shirts as if the festivals collective wardrobe wasn't the most ubiquitous trend in itself. more importantly, they decided to label My Bloody Valentine's performance as "Bloody Frustrating", claiming that it was hard to feel "emotionally connected" to the band's performance.

i literally felt the exact opposite. My Bloody Valentine (who hitherto i've never seen before, and while i love them, i have no agenda to defend them) gave the one performance of the entire festival where i actually felt a strong emotional connection. I have seriously never heard a band play so loudly and yet never loose their sense of dynamics. yes, the vocals were low in the mix, however, they never failed to serve their purpose melodically. so often musicians who produce affective records are unable to produce the details and nuances of their sound live. considering the amount of studio work MBV puts into the quality of their sound, (i feel like BoC shares this dedication to quality of sound. their influence on BoC makes perfect sense in this way) i was pleasantly surprised to hear the subtitles and nuances of what makes MBV's sound so special emanate live. i really felt to be inside their music and this place inside MBV's sound was transcendental.

anyway, the way we rely on reviews to make decisions amazes me. i am guilty of this and it is nice to be reminded of how illegitimate that process is.

P.S i apologize ahead for being cynical.

*no doubt, the reviews for Tomorrow's Harvest will cause embarrassment. not because of a favorable or unfavorable opinion... because of way in which reviewers will attempt to describe the music and all the unnecessary adjectives and adverbs involved.

caldrax · Post by **caldrax** » Tue Jun 04, 2013 10:50 pm

I use Pitchfork to find out about music that I otherwise wouldn't, but I never rely on them to tell me whether something is good or not, it's just a "new band name" resource for me. They have often turned me on to good albums, but they have never made me think something was bad, because I discount their opinion in those cases.

m_thomp · Post by **m_thomp** » Tue Jun 04, 2013 11:50 pm

I went to Primavera about 4 years ago - it was the year that Barcelona won the Champions League against Man Utd that wasn't at Wembley, because I saw the open top bus trophy parade. Anyway, as festivals go, it's weird: all tarmac and concrete, and feels like you're under a motorway flyover by a harbour.

However, back then MBV were playing. In fact, I think they did two sets; one indoors, one outdoors. I saw the one outdoors and I was a little disappointed. All the subtlety and nuance got lost in the wide open space. I felt almost monotonous. It wasn't a good show and I'm sure they would have been served better indoors where their tunes would have been contained and appreciated much more. This is in stark contrast to Neil Young who also headlined: he was immense.

The Telepathic Kid · Post by **The Telepathic Kid** » Wed Jun 05, 2013 12:19 am

when the first thing you say about a website which gives opinions about music is "I hate them because I think they're way off"

that's not a good start.

I mean you eventually did have some points, but when you just disagree with a website it doesn't make them any less valid.

I like them because they offer a different/similar point of view on albums I like/dislike.

I really don't care about reviews anymore, I just like reading opinions.

circleofthesun · Post by **circleofthesun** » Wed Jun 05, 2013 5:54 am

d e n wrote:all the unnecessary adjectives and adverbs

Classic bitchfork.
Or, they'll pull a Soft Pink Truth when they have no clue what they are listening to: just type a bunch og nonsense and ridiculously overrate or underrate a release.
LOL WE ARE SO RANDUM WE HAVE NO FILTER AND WE ARE CULTURAL CURATORS

d e n · Post by **d e n** » Wed Jun 05, 2013 5:56 am

^haha, that's what i'm saying!

again, i apologize for being cynical.

i just couldn't think of a better place than a forum to get feeling off my chest.

and yeah... i'm sort of over festivals. maybe MBV worked on their outdoor set up. inside is always preferred though.

still trying to experience the Boards of Canada in lighthouse acoustics.

caldrax · Post by **caldrax** » Wed Jun 05, 2013 6:31 am

In defense of festivals: I just went to Boston Calling and it was excellent. The only negative was standing up for 11 hours straight, but even that wasn't that bad. The National, Dirty Projectors, and The Walkmen were all excellent.

euue · Post by **euue** » Wed Jun 05, 2013 7:08 am

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kvogqD8NIS8

d e n · Post by **d e n** » Wed Jun 05, 2013 7:14 am

euue wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kvogqD8NIS8

hahahahaha, YES. that does a much better job at capturing what I was trying to say.

OverTheHorizonRadar · Post by **OverTheHorizonRadar** » Wed Jun 05, 2013 8:24 am

A comment on that video just about summed it up for me:

"Writing about music is like dancing about architecture."

noby · Post by **noby** » Wed Jun 05, 2013 8:29 am

OverTheHorizonRadar wrote:"Writing about music is like dancing about architecture."

There's only one sentiment from Brian Eno I disagree with, and it's that one.

d e n · Post by **d e n** » Wed Jun 05, 2013 8:40 am

i think it's possible to write about music. and that there is some utility in writing about music. however, i think the way places like Pitchfork do it don't make sense most of the time.

its like genres are useful for organizing music in a record store however i never understood speaking of music in terms of genre. there is a cool little recorded conversation about this on the last Robert Glasper record.

for example, if I had to describe Boards of Canada to someone I would go as far to say that they produce electronic music and maybe mention how their music has a tendency to transmit nostalgia.

in my opinion any other adverbial or especially genre-type descriptions are ridiculous and completely ineffective in actually saying anything.

OverTheHorizonRadar · Post by **OverTheHorizonRadar** » Wed Jun 05, 2013 8:47 am

I mean, of course you can write about anything, that's the beauty of the written word. But music reviews are just kinda useless to me, there's nothing they could really tell me that could override my own listening to the album.

The Telepathic Kid · Post by **The Telepathic Kid** » Wed Jun 05, 2013 9:00 am

should we stop talking about music then?

because that's writing about music, just not as formal.

I personally have no problem with them , people are gonna be pretentious no matter what medium you enter.

There are sport snobs, cinema snobs, gym snobs, I've even met people who think I'm stupid because I don't actively use twitter.

I don't judge peoples shit since I don't wanna judge others.

OverTheHorizonRadar · Post by **OverTheHorizonRadar** » Wed Jun 05, 2013 9:09 am

I like talking about music and such to an extent, though I'd much rather listen to it together with a person that talk about it with them. It's just something about reviews doesn't really appeal to me. Not that I'm saying anyone should stop doing anything, I'm just not going to read any reviews is all.

noby · Post by **noby** » Wed Jun 05, 2013 9:50 am

OverTheHorizonRadar wrote:I mean, of course you can write about anything, that's the beauty of the written word. But music reviews are just kinda useless to me, there's nothing they could really tell me that could override my own listening to the album.

Well written reviews by knowledgeable people can be very insightful and give new perspectives and interpretations, and in general give you assets to think about it differently. Sadly though, most reviewers aren't very good in any of those fields.

The Telepathic Kid · Post by **The Telepathic Kid** » Wed Jun 05, 2013 10:15 am

I just feel that some people who actively hate on reviews of albums are so uncomfortable about others having different opinions, like they're scared others may be "right" and they may be "wrong".

who. freaking. cares.

if you don't like them don't read them, let the people who get things out of reviews continue with their business, no need to pull others down into your misery.

d e n · Post by **d e n** » Wed Jun 05, 2013 10:19 am

The Telepathic Kid wrote:I just feel that some people who actively hate on reviews of albums are so uncomfortable about others having different opinions, like they're scared others may be "right" and they may be "wrong".

who. freaking. cares.

if you don't like them don't read them, let the people who get things out of reviews continue with their business, no need to pull others down into your misery.

as I said, unfavorable or favorable opinions aren't the aspect of reviews that I am criticizing.

mono · Post by **mono** » Wed Jun 05, 2013 10:24 am

The quality of music reviews is just appalling. There is lots to be said about music, but you will never find any in music magazines. At best they tell you whether you are going to get street cred if you buy the album, and most often you get that typical Pitchfork wordy diarrhoea reaching an all time low with that Autechre review written as a theatre piece. Sadly it's not limited to Pitchfork - I'd say magazines which cater to the "indie" crowd are like that in all countries and all languages, or at least where I'm from they are.

There are, or rather were, some good blogs, though: K-Punk, Owen Hatherley sometimes wrote about music, also that batch of decade blogs, Faces on Posters, What Will Be Left of Them and so on...

by the way, there is no way the dancing about architecture quote comes from Eno. actually it's not clear where it comes from. and as an architecture student i have to say dancing about architecture is the most everyday thing imaginable.

ps. primavera sound is the pits. not just because it's a festival, which would be enough in itself, but because of that rambla-sangria-estrella-damm stupid vibe it uses in ads and so on. fuck that shit. anybody who buys into that is either blind, a nobhead, or a blind nobhead. "look at the fucking smokestacks, idiot" and "here stood a factory/ask your elders" should be written in huge letters in every single corner of this city. rambla-sangria-olé where the fascists executed people (that's what the forum is built over) is just about as sad as things can get.

GH · Post by GH » Wed Jun 05, 2013 10:56 am

Pitchfork has eaten itself, and has become predictable.

It's quite easy these days to predict Pitchfork scores on upcoming releases. Scoring albums with a number is a little bit iffy anyway.

I don't like it when the writers give their expert opinion on exactly how an established artist should have approached making their album. Ulrich Schnauss has been victim to this, and it's there I believe the dancing about architecture quote works, in that an expert dancer is not best qualified top tell an architect if he went wrong, and how he should be doing it.

____twoism

Pitchfork Is Wack (and notes on the refined delicacy of MBV)

Pitchfork Is Wack (and notes on the refined delicacy of MBV)

Re: Pitchfork Is Wack (and notes on the refined delicacy of