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.
Recent Comments