Does Anyone Pay Attention to Pitchfork?

...unless your album stunk and deserved it.

 

Relentlessly banal and cravenly beholden to a hip standard that exists only in their mind.

 

Well, if you consider writing articles about Larry Levan, Grace Jones, disco, Arthur Russell, William Basinsky, the problems that women and gays face in the music world, and in depth interviews with musicians to be banal and craven to a hip standard, then you're right. But you're not.

 

Well, it's the decimal that's annoying!

 

Never read it

 

People make fun of the Pitchfork ratings system, which on the surface can seem absurdly complex: 5.4, 8.1, and so on. If you just think of it as a 5-star scale doubled, it's not really that odd. A 3-and-a-half star album in this formula would be a 7.0, and a 4-star album would be an 8.0. The one-tenth increments allow for that wiggle room when a flat rating just doesn't cut it. A 7.9, for example, might be a perfect rating for something that is almost 4-star quality but has one minor nagging aspect that sullies an album for you, infinitesimally so. IMDB (the movie site) uses a 10-star scale and people seem to be content with it; Pitchfork simply adds a little nuance to that scale.

 

Did an SH forum member write this?

 

Sorry, tis a silly and annoying practice to attempt that degree of precision on something entirely subjective.

 

I like it.

 

I agree with that 9.8 on a scale of 10

 

I pay more attention to the words.

 

I wish one could click on the reviewer's name and get some idea of their credentials. Moreover, I would like to know how the score was derived. Fat chance, I know.

 

The accompanying review explains the score. What, you want to treat them like an application to tender, determining scores via a detailed evaluation grid with distinct weighted criteria and clear, specialist-reviewed explanations for each point? Fat chance indeed - I suspect a lot of reviewers got into music writing to avoid that kind of work!

 

I think they give the credentials of most of the writers. I don't know about now, but in the past the editorial board discussed all ratings before publication. I think it's a great site, especially for alternative/indie rock. Their reviews of older artists can be eye-opening. I don't understand the hatred.

 

I look over the 5 album reviews each day. It’s rare that I read even one all the way through but a with a quick skim it’s a way to see what’s going on with a perspective that’s younger (probably by a score) than mine and not overly worshipful of the ‘60s. As one who barely qualifies as a boomer there's more than enough opinion from that generation.

Oh there’s plenty to make fun of, as with all of the music mag & review sites. The Liz Phair “sell out” album review from years ago that got a 0.0 was hilarious. Personally I like that they make use of the full spectrum of numbers - too many review sites live in that “everything is at least average and mostly very good” range. The score is a merely a short way of conveying opinion so if you hate that kind of thing just read the words. Or skim them!

Be it music or politics or economics, I like to read from sources that I might not agree as long they’re not totally off their rocker. I give them credit for expanding their borders too even though poppish r&b isn’t something I have much interest in. They’re just another source, and I don’t view the site as a threat to music or my way of life.

 

Yeah, I like it....

 

Exactly! We have a 5-point rating scale at work but NOBODY gets a 1 or a 5. So what's the point if it is not achievable?

 

I think the decimal system helps the mediocre releases. A 6.4 sounds more redeemable than just a 6 (or a C+ or 2 1/2 star).

 

And similarly, a 5.7 worse than a 6.

 

Pitchfork is really not much different than Rolling Stone. Much less different than they'd care to admit. The chief difference is that for most of its existence, it was written by Gen X'ers, who have a very different worldview and musical experience than the Baby Boomers who dominated Rolling Stone. Thus, it takes a certain glee in being provocative and iconoclastic.

Essentially, I use Pitchfork (very sparingly, I probably visit the site once every few months) as a way of keeping abreast of new releases, and maybe catching a little rock celeb gossip. I use the reviews the way I always have used reviews, if the particular writer seems like he or she isn't a philistine or an idiot, and has enough writing chops to convey something insightful about the music (one of the hardest things a writer can do, since written words are not audible and music is), then I use his or her thoughts as simply one more factor to consider when I play the thing myself. As with Rolling Stone, some ratings and reviews are really someone settling an old score or currying favor (not always with the artist; often with the editor), and pop/rock music reviewers are as corrupt as a Tammany Hall barbecue. But some writers really do have a feel for music, and can say something insightful or enlightening. Even the best ones are hit and miss though, and very few are able to maintain a passion for it very long.

So, Pitchfork is all right, if there's nothing else to read. But it is nothing special. And it is almost time for it to become obsolete, like Rolling Stone did in the 90's. Then, the millennials will be the tastemakers for awhile.


Edit to add: "idiot" was a substitution for a word Bugs Bunny pronounced as "maroon" That evil word appears to be filtered here. Good to know...

 

Every album in which Pitchfork gave it a 10.
http://rateyourmusic.com/list/VelvetDarkness/every_album_to_be_rated_10_0_by_pitchfork_media/1/
I'm uncomfortable with perfect scores for things.

 

As I have said in this thread, there is more to Pitchfork than the reviews. But, whatever.....

 

There may be, but the reviews are what people mostly remember. Like I said, I go for the gossip myself.

 

Which is why their impression is wrong.

 

Wrong according to who?