The, Pitchfork, The

I find it amusing, and somewhat comforting when two geeky internet reading hobbies cross paths, such is the case with the Slate article on Pitchfork. While it doesn't really say much I or the people I regularly discuss the subject with don't already know, it's somehow comforting that the "Pitchfork conspiracy to discredit blogs and take control of deciding what's cool" exists outside of the 3am Rosario's conversations and mid-day blog browsing. Even if it takes a quote from The Music Slut to punch the point home.

But my father always taught me growing up that, the older you get, the more often you discover that Conspiracy theories aren't actually real. In my endless efforts to convince myself I'm older and more mature than I probably am, I usually take the 'Nah' angle on most theories presented to me. Pitchfork is no different. I don't believe the site, as a whole, is out to contradict blogs. I don't think Ryan Schreiber is overseeing the entire site with an iron fist, instructing his writers to write bad reviews about whichever band came on the radio while he was stuck in an infuriating traffic jam. I think the site is made up of around 50 or so writers who all have various tastes and approaches to writing about music. I would like to believe that, even if they take shots at "the blogs" or whatever in a review, these guys are stating their actual opinion. People are still able to have a personal opinion on music, right? Even with Pitchfork and Blogs mixed into the pool? The implication is often basically that alternative music critics either are unable to have any personal feelings towards music and only act on what other people are saying, or that these people secretly enjoy listening to a band, and they are consistently writing in contradiction to how they actually feel just because.

I say, that if you are reading these reviews thinking like this, you are far more guilty of reactionary listening than those you accuse. If you refuse to accept that something you like can be panned, using the scapegoat that the reviewer was basically somehow out to show you, personally, up by disagreeing, you then take on the qualities you claim to so much despise. You choose to read the review that way, and thus listen to the music that way. Sure, hype and playedoutness effects all of our opinions to a certain extent, and I don't deny that someone might be sick of a band before they even get to listen to them. That happens to me regularly. But I refuse to believe someone is only writing something negative to be negative. They must just not like the music. I'm sure my dad would think both Cold War Kids (5.0) and Joanna Newsom (9.4) are unlistenable, and I certainly don't doubt his intelligence or honesty. But it shouldn't take the lifelong trust of a loving parent to be convinced that music is a completely subjective medium.

So until I read the Pitchfork review that says, bluntly, "This album isn't all that bad, but I'm sick of bloggers sucking it off. 3.4," I'm gonna believe that these guys are actually stating their opinions, not simply reacting to mine and yours.

Comments

[r-neg]

well said.

[charles]

the funny thing is pitchfork appears reactionary since they wait till the release of the actual album to review it. the truth is actually the reverse, blogs are just pre-emptive. in this era of advance leaks, it's easy to forget that the clipse cd isn't officially out until today. the aspect where pitchfork is really guilty for being reactionary is by acknowledging that they've read the blog reviews.

[what the kids are talking about]

Enough about this pitchfork versus the bear nonsense, and tell us what you think about "The Devil and God are Raging Inside Me." Seriously.

[jason]

best title, ever

[Ryan]

The only real issue I have with Pitchfork is the simple fact that a singular person reviews an album, gives it a score and that's viewed as "Pitchfork's Opinion". Pitchfork didn't give that album you love a 3.2, one critic who happens to write for them did. It would be nice if one person wrote the review while a group (maybe 10) of critics gave it an average score. That how I used to think the scores were compiled when I first found visited site, because it makes logical sense.

Also, I think any critic is prone to overplay their dislike for an album that is popular. I've mentioned Band of Horses a lot this year, maybe more than any other band, because I absolutely hate the album and I seem to be the only one. I keep trying to like it, but it's the most excruciatingly painful thing I've heard all year. If I wrote for Pitchfork I'd have given the album a 2.5 and caught a lot of flack for it. But I'd be lying if I wasn't proud of that opinion because it shows that I'm not following the herd. I tend to agree that Pitchfork writers are just stating their opinions, and if people would realize it's simply one person's opinion maybe they wouldn't take it all so seriously.

Sorry that was so long. I should just get my own damn blog.

[LK]

The only problem with Pitchfork reviews, as well as most "reviews" on blogs, is that they never mention anything about the actual musical elements of the stuff they're reviewing. If I had a nickel for every time the word "melody" was used in a Pitchfork review...I'd have a nickel.