Pitchfork scores/reviews that aggravate you
This isn't a hate thread, I generally think Pitchfork are on the mark with their revews. Nobody has to listen to what they say, but I think a lot of people feel a slight twinge of annoyance when they put down a great record or artist, so what are your examples?
Basically I think they've been harsh on Bjork since the millenium, though I can't find reviews of either Post or Homogenic (they placed them in their best albums of te 1990s list). Vespertine had begrudging praise with a 7.2 score...but that was pretty much the high point. Go on rateyourmusic.com, see how much people like Bjork.
- Relevant artist taggings:
- None
Thread not appearing correctly? Click here to rebuild | Report this
Twitter
Facebook
Last.fm
SoundCloud
MySpace
Friendster
RSS
Daft Punk - Discovery
rating way too low
They then had the gall to put this album in the top ten albums of the decade
I think they reviewed that during their indie-rock phase when electronica was kind of uncool
nah, more a case of maximal music being uncool
they always had an inclination towards more studied electronic stuff. in fact, they rated 'Homework'... I can't recall if they reviewed it, but they mentioned it in a favourable light.
I'm sure once Discovery gets reissued or whatever
they'll give it a 10.0
maybe the reviewer genuinely didn't like the album
I loved Homework but have never been a fan of Discovery just find it derivative and uninspiring if i'm honest
Genuinely not bothered by their scores
They often don't tally that well with the review content and feel like they've been assigned to provoke a reaction. If they've got anything over about 6.5, I tend to assume the record will be OK. It's more the tone of the reviews, which generally I don't have a problem with.
I DO however have a problem with DiS scores which always seem to be 8s for most good records (except the odd bizarre one like Melody's Echo Chamber of Stumbleine, which both picked up 9s - good records, but nothing to make them a '9').
When you compare DiS and P4K scores, you can kind of see how the extra decimal place helps. Goes to show the quality of writing is the most important thing (and I always go to DiS for that).
DiS scores are meant to be less scientific I suppose
I understand that the decimal point adds extra specificity, but it also can detract from the individual reviewers own opinion.
As for writing, most Pitchfork reviewes are very well written these days, whereas too many DiS reviews start with tacked on prologues that don't add much.
I know we had that thread but the Alt-J review was so goddamn awful
http://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/17233-an-awesome-wave/
Couldn't get more pitchfork parody than starting with the Radiohead comparison that bookies, not even music critics made, then goes on to take cheap out-of-context shots at their quotes. *PRIAPISM*. Accusations of both being cynical genre-pinchers and alsoc doing the 'music for ourselves' thing.
And at the end I'm just left feeling that it only served the purpose of fulfilling the internet's hype-then-savage cycle that happens to whatever band people feel is the rage at any time, something that only happens when people read too many 'x band is great' articles and feel that they have to offer a 'lone voice of reason' to stem the tide, when all they do is just needlessly dismiss a record that isn't a 10.0 but could be a 7~
That infamous Kid A review...
"Poor" writer; that review will follow him to the grave...
Brent DiCrescenzo?
haha, every review he wrote was like that. and I don't think he's bothered, tbh.
any album that's related to bass music or dance mongrel or whatever you want to call it
will never get above high 7, no matter how good it is, unless it's burial or actress
more an observation than an aggravation though
also in general there language is too dry and academic at times, i miss the more personal writing style they had when they first started out.
Yeah that does seem to happen
not that I'm that fussed about it mind, I've not really followed pitchfork much in recent years. Dance coverage fell off a lot since Blackdown stopped writing for them in 2011. The reviews of the dance stuff are often just boring even if the record is a good'un and the tracks they put up are better, but the blurb is often pretty much just the PR fluffed a little so yeah why bother. Once in a blue moon they have a nice article like that LIES one recently but yeah often I forget it even exists.
none
cos im not a baby
and im on ssris
they don't use enough decimal points
U.2
They changed this
It's now got an 8.2
Shitebags.
that's so bizarre
it used to be 4.0
also none of the review matches with that score, talking constantly about being inferior, less passionate, a disappointment
I'M AGGRAVATED
wtf
this now means it's BSP's highest rated album on Pitchfork - even though the review is not positive. I mean, if anything was going to hammer home the disconnect...
fuck that kind of sneaky revisionism.
i'm tempted to think that's some kind of typo rather than a revisionism.
the body of the review is exactly the same.
first thing that came to mind
hate that review so much
''Do You Like Rock Music? sounds empty at its core, with a rock where its heart should be.''
yeah just fuck right off already
Basically every Coldplay review is a bit wank.
Not sure about Bjork
They gave Medulla 8.4, Volta wasn't great and somewhere around 6 was about right. Biophilia was a bit too low though, I'll give you that
Do people genuinely worry about stuff like this?
Well, some people are passionate about certain records
And to see those records done a grand disservice in an influential sphere where a decent write-up might have brought them more fans, and thus (perhaps) great sustainability, is occasionally frustrating.
We can play the whole *lol @ ppl who think pitchfork means anything* game all day, but we're (mostly) in the UK and I bet there's not a day goes by that Pitchfork isn't discussed. You think Americans and other Europeans do the same thing for DiS? I doubt it...
I'm passionate about lots of records
I just don't really care what score Pitchfork gives them.
I read their reviews, I sometimes agree and I sometimes disagree. I'm not uninterested in other people's opinions (including Pitchfork's), but I don't tend to get 'aggravated' when they happen to differ from mine.
funny thing is
I only started reading Pitchfork when googling opinion on certain albums I liked out of a need to feel 'agreed with'; and these reviews turned up by the search were mostly pretty negative, and I was outraged. also compelled, though.
like, the fuck were some band I'd never. heard of called 'Pavement', *scoff*, better than Muse!? but then Muse picked the video for 'Cut Your Hair' on Gonzo or some other MTV2 thing (R.I.P)
and knowing that not only did Muse themselves like them, but also knowing for a FACT how pointless and suckish they were in comparison...
I just had to try and... understand. also they *really* fucking loved Radiohead despite also not liking Nine Inch Nails or Placebo or anything.
those were the golden years, though. before they sold out to sponsored dreams of Arcade Fire crossover sway and that.
...
they later gave 'The Lost Riots' 5.7, and I emailed them. as much as I love HotS, that was on the money. but then the band was so much better than their major label compromises suggested.
* googling things I liked, out of a need to feel agreed with
it's just some random human beings opinion
why are reviewers and critics in general held up in such high regard? It's a ridicolous line of work when you think about it
Relationship of Command by At The Drive-In
got a 6.1. A 6.1 for one of the best post-hardcore records ever.
I totally see where 6.1
is coming from.
not bothered by the scores of reviews
but I wish they'd just stick to their principles rather than tinkering with scores years later. Yeah you got it 'wrong', so what?
Q did acknowledge
that they got their review of Ladies and Gentlemen We Are Floating in Space "wrong".
The classic quote from the original review was, "The use of drone and repetition makes the album sound ... well, droney and repetitive."
:D
I remember reading a Q best albums chart many years ago,
they'd given about half of the albums in the top 20 **/*** at the time. They were good enough to sheepishly acknowledge it though I guess.
I wonder what they would say about Silent Shout now though, having called it 'A hideous mess of electro noodling and maddeningly obtuse, tuneless vocals' at the time...
They seem to have changed their minds a bit
about PJ Harvey...
The review of the Macha Loved Bedhead EP
By Brent again, http://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/5018-bedhead-loved-macha-ep/
This really annoys me. It's a Pitchfork 'concept' review, which are bad enough, but it's so self-absorbed that he barely even mentions the record at all. It's a script, for a scene from a future college class where the professor unearths this very review for discussion. It's so self-referential and self-regarding that even if he is doing it ironically, the irony is just another layer of shut up you twat.
This is a shame: Macha are one of my favourite bands, and reviews of their stuff are thin on the ground. Being on Pitchfork, this bollocks scores higher on Google than almost everything else - it's actually preventing people from finding out about the music. It's an anti-review, it collides with other reviews on Google and annihilates their page views.
And that's not the worst of it. This EP was the last thing Bedhead ever did, hence the name Macha Loved Bedhead, Bedhead Loved Macha. They deserved at least a proper review, and this twat was too busy showing off to do even that.
The EP is awesome btw: four original songs, combining Bedhead's slowcore with Macha's gamelan/Indonesian arrangements, and the saddest cover of Cher's Believe ever.
Also just realised that he got the name of the bands wrong
Its the Macha Loved Bedhead, Bedhead Loved Macha EP, by Bedhead and Macha. So glad that Brent twat stopped writing. His review of the Beastie Boys' To The 5 Boroughs was his swan song; it's half about him though.
http://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/608-to-the-5-boroughs/?utm_campaign=search&utm_medium=site&utm_source=search-ac
They seem to love giving very high scores
to fairly generic hip hop / r&b that is slightly under the radar, when their readers really just want to listen to bed wetting indie. Fair enough if some of it genuinely is really good, but it is all in the 8.0+ territory and features some angry blinged up dude on the cover, it can't all be that good can it?
Trufax
They're reviewed SpaceGhostPrrrp's new mixtape and they keep us informed each time Lil B says or does anything, but they still haven't reviewed the new Deftones album from November. Neither have the AV Club, and they're normally really good. CONSPIRACY
Pitchfork are the only website where the review score isn't massively overinflated.
If a record get 6.5-7.5 on Pitchfork, then to me it'll mean a pretty good record- maybe not the best of the year, but certainly something to try out and perhaps really enjoy. However, a 6 or 7 on any other reviews website pretty much always translates to 'Disappointing'. Which is why there seem to be so many 9s given on DiS, I guess.
I think ratings systems should either be very specific or very vague (stars out of 5 etc)- out of ten is middling and difficult to get to grips with. Out of 100 systems are underrated in my opinion- when I was growing up, reading video games magazines, pretty much all of them used a percentage as the score.
Good post
6.5/10
Thats video games though
It is much easier to compare one game (within genres) to another. Video games are never constrained by artistic intentions either, so scores are almost exclusively about competency, not 'artistic relevance, making specific scores easier to judge.
I agree with what you say about Pitchfork not inflating scores however, but I believe /10 scores could be just as effective if reviewers weren't prone to overhyping records.
Sadly, I think DiS scores are now unreliable to the point of uselessness
Due to the reasons you cited above. Just last year, FIVE records got 10/10, and I didn't personally think any of them were better than average. Nearly everything seems to get 8+... and crucially, if they don't, it's considered a negative review, as you say.
I know Pitchfork go a bit crazy sometimes, but this is what it boils down to: Tegan & Sara just got 9/10 on DiS, and I probably won't bother listening to the album; if Pitchfork gave it 9.0, I definitely would.
haha, that last sentence absolutely hits the nail of the head
on the head, w/e
I've listened to it
You won't be missing much.
As it happens I thought I would check it out
I'm very partial to a bit of well-produced ladypop, and indeed this is ticking all my boxes. I'd still put it at 8/10, but that's only on first listen.
I don't hate it, but it exemplifies your point about score inflation
In any sane world it's a solid, interesting, 6 out of 10.
Yeah, that last sentence is difficult to argue with
But the "exact science" of Pitchfork reviews can seem a little sterile and calculated (though their much improved reviews make up for this). DiS does seem to give out too many silly scores, but the writers also appear to be given more license to love a record and write accordingly. It can get a bit earnest on Pitchfork at times, except for the few exceptional records.
Re: video games magazines
I used to like Edge's rating system, out of 10 and hardly anything getting 10/10. Though if I remember correctly they did have one issue where they experimented with dropping scores completely.
I never read Edge, it was too grown up for 11 year old me
Dropping scores is the way to go though.
This is gamecentral's rule isn't it (now metro games)
Only 3/4 10s ever if i remember, and lots of controversy about one of them being Mario Galaxy.
Good list this
Though no Goldeneye, and I've never heard of Bayonetta.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edge_(magazine)#Scoring
p4k's ratings system makes it seem like they're giving out much more diverse scores than they really are
if you rounded to the nearest whole number then it's overwhelmingly 6-8/10. Like today would be
Foals 8/10
The Underachievers 8/10
Veronica Falls 8/10
Clogs 7/10
Umberto 6/10
I'm obviously not saying that they can't be harsh markers, but their whole marking system is basically camouflage for the fact that on the whole they're pretty 'conventional' markers.
Dandy Warhols first few records are rather great
but PF hates 'em (all). That comes to mind.
Coldplay, obv. How Rush of Blood is 5.5 (&Parachutes) is a larf in the face of some of the other indie soft-pop rock records. Given their half aboutface with the latest one-- which everyone knows isn't Rush of Blood-- bet PF would be willing to revisit that score...
MBDTF
10? If nothing else, 'So Appalled' stops it from being perfect...
The RZA's verse on So Appalled is the best thing on that album
FUCKING RIDICULOUS
you can't be serious?
RZA's yelling is possibly the only bad thing about that song.
http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m2ahfhdOdc1rt224eo1_1280.gif
:D
it's amazing
the whole site is bollocks
just promoting music taste instead of actual music
and them doing the Chief Keef thing and goading him into faffing about with guns was pathetic
not sure I get your first point, mugs
--the whole site is bollocks--
They do have one column I enjoy and a couple reviews a year I like, I guess.
it was much better for most of the last decade
pretty awful these days.
some of the writers are good!
but the thing as a whole is just a way to generate page views/ad revenue. NB I did just read this article which is long and a bit poncey but I reckon has its heart in the right place
http://nplusonemag.com/54
--
We need a musical form that doesn’t think of itself as a collection of influences. We need musicians who know that music can take inspiration not only from other music but from the whole experience of life. Pitchfork and indie rock are currently run by people who behave as though the endless effort to perfect the habits of cultural consumption is the whole experience of life. We should leave these things behind, and instead pursue and invent a musical culture more worth our time.
--
i know i'm on a music forum btw :)
I'm not sure I totally understand what the writer means
But it sounds so sweet and well-meaning that I want to support it
That took a a long long time to read.
But in general i think it was accurate.
idk
I just think the pre-eminent indie rock nerd of the turn of the millenium, oh irony of ironies, sold out himself, and now he needs Volkswagens $s to keep him in supply of Steinways and cocktail party money to regail his guests with short stories about hanging with Thom and Stephen, in foppish hair-swept pauses between verses of Elton John renditions
halfway through this
I must say that Pitchfork's link-peppered write-up style is probs my favourite aspect. it is the record shop clerk telling you stuff you might also love, that you need to check out. it's fucking great.
people who get worked up about reviews
all of them
When they get right,
Balls.
In fairness, they get it right. It's predominantly a news source for me.
LOOOOOO-SEEEEERRRRRRS
pitchfork? what's pitchfork? a farm implement?
everybody cares way too much about what comes out of pitchfork's ass from one moment to the next. I'll bet you can take them in a pub brawl, yeah?
If another oh so clever sod posts about how they are way above getting annoyed at reviews
I'll blow a gasket.