Travis Morrison Grades Pitchfork
After P4K's recent double egging of This Is Next, we went through our Rolodex for other artists who've received a 0.0 from the site. Since we're no longer talking to Kiss, Jet, Bob Pollard, Bachman-Turner Overdrive, or Liz Phair, we dropped a line to our favorite ex-Dismemberment Planner and Javascript writer Travis Morrison to get his thoughts on the failing grade.
Nah, we didn't ask about the All Y'all review. Not even about Travistan ... Since he's been there, we just wanted to know how he felt about P4K's 0.0 Next review. From the desk of Travis M to you...
Matt LeMay is in Get Him Eat Him isn't he? I dunno, maybe the artists got some money to be on it, and that's good, right? They'll need to sock some away for when the bloggers and Pitchfork come after them! Ha Ha Ha ... I was going to say "don't print that," but what the hell.Wonder if this means ...And You Will Know Us by the Trail of Dead are currently millionaires?
Posted at 4:29 PM
Tags: Travis Morrison
This from a site that gave Nada Surf's "Let Go" a 0.2 or something.
Remember, with any critical opinion (especially one found on the 'net), it's best to take it with a grain of salt. I feel like alot of times, P4K has some great insight. But then again, alot of times they're just full of shit.
Score = 0
The're probably just upset to realize that these days 'indie' is as packaged as anyother cashed out trend.
Score = 0
Giving "This Is Next" a 0.0 rating seems to be the most pointless use of P4K's time. Grade a real album and forget about some compilation that isn't geared towards those who already listen to the artists.
Then again, good on Pitchfork for continuing to be unaware of how idiotic they look when they slam something that doesn't require their opinion. Classy.
Score = 0
putting your money in a sock is probably safest right now
Score = 0
I give Pitchfork a 3.5. They sound too much like Joy Division.
Score = 2
It's not P4K that gives an album such a high or low rating (though editors and such may agree), it's individual writers. I know that reflects on P4K, but it boils down to one critic's take on one artist's album.
That said, the This is Next comp review is one the better P4K reviews in a long time for not only stating a fact, but backing it up. It was almost journalistic.
Score = 0
Jenn gets a 9.8 for her comment.
Score = 0
The Ash review today was very good too. It was a rare example of a reviewer placing the album in the context of the artist's career and scene and then discussing whether the songs are good.
Oh yea, the $5 words and labored metaphors were kept to a minimum.
Score = 0
You all may have seen this some years back, but it's one of the greatest things to ever appear on P4K, and one of the best digs the website as well. Brought to you by David Cross... and Pitchfork.
http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/article/feature/10279-guest-list-david-cross-albums-to-listen-to-while-reading-overwrought-pitchfork-reviews
Score = 0
Criticism, just like what is criticized, is subjective. If you lean toward pop, you'll lean toward music that's on your angle and not toward that which skews away. It's natural.
That said, there's an awful lot of residual angst that the DP isn't still going on and that's mostly aimed at Morrison.
Sour grapes? Maybe!
DwD
Score = 0
Remember the Jet review?
http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/article/record_review/38853-shine-on
Score = 0
I can never quite forgive pitchfork for their review of Aden's Topsiders. Apart from the fact i like Aden, i thought it was the most desperate attempt at humour i have ever seen, at the expense of the artist. The reviewer clearly wanted an unusual and exciting reviewing technique that would make people mildly amused and intrigued by his ingenuity, but he just sounded like an utter cock.
Utter COCK.
Pitchfork.
Score = 0
Sorry Jamie, I just read that review and thought it was fucking awsome! Two things though why are you still angry about an album review from 2002??? Seem's kinda silly.
Second, dig what you wear. Period. Who gives a shit if pitchfork thinks that having songs titles like "intro" and "pop song" lack any creative effort. If you think that it does then rock on baby.
Score = 0
Yet you're all still reading Pitchfork.
Score = 1
What bugs me is that it's a critique of how one company is trying to sell its music dressed up as an album review.
And why is the subjective opinion of Pitchfork even relevant? The album, its strategy, the target customers, and probably just about anything else related to the album is in a completely different world than the one Pitchfork exists in. Of course they wouldn't be interested in and satisfied by the album. And anyway, who of all the people reading the review would have bought the album if the review were a positive one?
Pitchfork shouldn't include this in its album reviews, and this shouldn't be considered a true 0.0 review.
Score = 0
Pitchfork can both suck it, and give this album a 0.0. As others have said, it hardly qualifies as an album, and I think that most (more reputable) publications wouldn't review Now That's What I Call Music or whatever. This is Pitchfork's barely disguised attempt to bash the popularization of indie culture. I haven't heard the comp, and I doubt I ever will, but actually I think it's a good thing - gets the kids who shop primarily at the WalMarts and the Best Buys into a new kind of music and into the mom and pop record stores. It's the pot of independent music, and I don't think that's a bad thing.
Pitchfork just doesn't want any more mall kids invited to the party.
Score = 0
All you fucktards must make Pitchfork vry happy not to have comments on their own site. They write reviews, sometimes you agree, sometimes you don't end sometimes they're stupid and sometimes they're unfair and sometimes not. Get over it.
Score = 0
What I hate most about p4k is that they don't allow people to comment on what they've said. If someone on here makes some stupid post about John Mayer or something, everyone can tear the site apart for getting off topic or selling out or whatever. Not on pitchfork.
So they can say things like "Of course, we'd be remiss if we didn't mention that virtually every one of these songs has also been available to hear for free on our website," and people just believe that p4k has always been an mp3 site like blogs. Whatever.
Score = 0
They also gave The Flaming Lips' "Zaireeka" a 0.0, because dude couldn't get 4 CD players. Moron...
Score = 0
its the same tactic Fox News uses. make people angry enough and they can't help but pay attention.
Score = 0
Yeah, that asshole's Zaireeka review was just too much. I wonder whatever happened to him?
JJ
Score = 0
F Pitchfork. Just read Stylus or Prefix or something. The reviews are better anyway.
Score = 0
this coming from a site that included justin timberlake in their top albums of '06 (#25!!!!)
Score = 0
so let me get this straight. a pitchfork writer is in Get Him Eat Him and their albums got a 7.2 and 7.4 from Pitchfork. hey travis, tired of getting bad reviews? maybe they're hiring!
Score = 0
P4K is majorly responsible (at least, they were in the early stages) for the popularization of "indie" culture. They are in part liable for the success of so many horrible, mediocre bands that I don't even want to name right now. By their cynical manipulation of other press outlets and album sales based on their horribly written "reviews" (ugh, Lester Bangs must roll over in his grave every time someone utters their name), not to mention their flip-flopping on the "yeah, selling songs to be used for ads is like totally alright and stuff," they have absolutely ASKED for something like this compilation. For a website that pretends to be so uninterested in orthodoxy, this is hilarious.
This not only illustrates how ridiculous it is that they felt the need to comment, but also the fact that they are losing their once airtight grip on indiedom, and they're desperate to keep everyone in line. Good riddance to bad rubbish is all I have to say about that.
Score = 1
People read Pitchfork because they know their music (think about how many albums they listen to each week to push out those reviews and they have to listen to bad and good, not just your favorite bands) and because they give their honest opinions without consideration for how happy or unhappy it will make their readers. And do they let people make comments on the site? No, if people wanted to listen to what you had to say they'd read your blog, but they probably don't, they read Pitchfork. I don't agree with everything they say either, but hey, it's not Peterfork, everyone has their own opinions.
Score = 0
Look at the numbers between record sales and review grades. There is a direct correlation whereas Bitchfork can make or break some artists solely based on their grades. Look it up. It's science.
Score = 0
Look at the numbers between record sales and review grades. There is a direct correlation where Bitchfork can make or break some artists solely based on their grades. Look it up. It's science.
Score = 0
"Take Offs and Landings" gets a 4.0 while "More Adventurous" and "Under the Blacklight" get a 6.7 and 5.1, respectively?!
Score = 0
travis morrison is just happy people still know he's alive.
Score = 0
So, Jay, does that mean that they should give every band a good score to reward them for trying? Or they should just know which bands you like so that they can give them a high score and then they can succeed because they got a good review from one online outlet?
If you don't like Pitchfork, don't read it. And don't blame them that a lot of people read their site and believe everything they have to say. Blame the sheep.
Score = 0
Harvard did a study in March of '07 and all of the Pitchfork ratings are exactly right. Sorry, guys. Not sure about reviews published after March '07...
Score = 1
Seriously, Pitchfork can eat a dick. I'm a pacifist and I'd have trouble not beating the shit out of one of their pompous writers if I ever ran into one.
Score = 0
Yeah, yeah, you all don't read [hate]pitchfork...but I'd bet your ipods are mysteriously synchronized to their best new music section. Stop posturing, please.
Score = 0
The 0.0 rating is whatever. The article is whatever. The issue that deserves discussion is the record. It is highly topical and quite important to understand. I'm entirely for the article. It is a great discussion. I understand that P4k is pretentious and entirely way too verbose. There are many things that irritate me about it. I still reference it. I can't keep as up to date as they do, and nobody else really does either, hence my use for it. I ignore the bullshit, and buy into the good stuff. P4k represents independent music on a grand scale. They are the chip on the music industry's shoulder and represent the all those shoegazing kids with the same chip.
Score = 0
this is wildly entertaining!!
Score = 0
If I may briefly speak for those of us who don't respect PF, maybe I can clear up some confusion here:
Believe it or not, we understand the concept that music reviewers are "expressing their opinions" and that it is unreasonable to expect that we are going to agree with all the opinions expressed by a publication like Pitchfork. We get this... really, we do.
But the problem that many of us have with Pitchfork isn't that we disagree with specific reviews, but rather that we question their fundamental editorial approach. Reading their reviews, I frequently come away with the sense that the publication is less interested in the music they cover than they are in engaging in ritualized hipster posturing. How they review a recording depends less on the merits of the recording itself, and more on an abstract notion of how priasing or panning that recording will make PITCHFORK look. This is the reason why their ratings are so predictable.
This is bad art criticism, bad journalism, and -- when combined with a prose style that boasts a horrendous signal-to-noise ratio -- the site fails even as cheap entertainment.
Score = 1
Out of curiosity, I looked up their score for Nada Surf - Let Go. It got a 3.8. It is one of my favorite albums of the last ten years.
Among the criticisms: It has the same title as an Avril Lavigne album. Suck it Pitchfork.
Score = 0
You guys bashing Pitchfork into the ground actually read the article, right? I don't think Matt LeMay actually talked any shit about any of the bands that are on this compilation, nor do I think any of them will actually receive any backlash for being on the compilation. He just said that this release was an ill-advised idea and honestly, it would probably be a pretty forgettable CD even without Pitchfork's help. Why they even bothered reviewing it is beyond me.
He wrote and argued his points well although I can't let go of the nagging feeling that 0.0 reflects his own self-interest. Because at the end of the day, this looks like the rantings of an independent artist who's incensed at major label distribution for their attempt to simultaneously capitalize on the success of the indie music surge and push smaller labels (like Absolutely Kosher, perhaps?) even further underground.
My $.02
Score = 0
Add to the list of really good albums that Pitchfork hated:
Belle and Sebastian- The Boy With the Arab Strap
It got a 0.8. And it basically sounds like any other album in B&S's catalogue, all of which p4k loved. Odd. Also, it's clearly better than Fold Your Hands Child.
Score = 0
"Look at the numbers between record sales and review grades. There is a direct correlation where Bitchfork can make or break some artists solely based on their grades. Look it up. It's science."
Yeah.. I mean everyone totally jumped on that Tim Hecker album last year after it hit the Best New Music list. Sales went through the roof, am I right?
"Add to the list of really good albums that Pitchfork hated:
Belle and Sebastian- The Boy With the Arab Strap
It got a 0.8."
Case in point: this is the best selling B&S album to date. AND generally agreed upon by B&S fans (and B&S themselves) to be their weakest.
Score = 0
P4K is pseudo-intellectualism run amuck a lot of the time, but honestly, speaking of sheep, everyone followed along to variying degrees. If P4K didn't begin this, then it would also be fair to say that they capitalized on a tendency already existing in non-professional music criticism on the web.
Stylus is the guiltiest among the crowd just because it has an added tendency to be resentful of its second place position. They, by the standards being spewed here, suck too.
Squabbles like this remind me why I don't actually go to the webzines for new music ideas anymore unless I've already bought the album in question. The best place to find recs is probably still individual critics' blogs, like Zoilus/Carl Wilson.
Score = 0
I would like to take this opportunity, as I always do, to remind everyone of the time Pitchfork's best of list for the year was composed using a system by which writers allocated a certain number of "points" which they could use on as many albums as they want. The whole thing was a great ploy for Ryan Schrieber to trump up the Arcade Fire when his writers preferred The Streets and a few other records. That guy is that Stalin of indie.
Score = 0
About the B&S review - wasn't that back in, like, '98? Back when was giving a 9.2 to Lagwagon?
Cut them some slack, they weren't the indie juggernaut they are today. Everyone looks to the number score, but to me at least, it's the actual tone and content that matters.
And to Joey Headset, can we PLEASE do away with using the term "hipster" as a way of helping an argument? The term seems to be only used by out-of-touch people on internet message boards.
Score = 0
When did people start calling pitchfork P4K? I think that's the real story here.
Score = 0
i hope the next excellent Arcade Fire record comes chopped up and split between four discs which you, the customer, must synchronize, ala Zaireeka. I think the cognitive dilemma will make Matt LeMay's head explode.
Score = 0
Update: I just tried to look it up, actually, and the Zaireeka review is no longer posted on P17CH4K_M3D14. Any insights?
Score = 0
I think they've dumped all pre 2000 or even 2001 reviews. Probably because there was a lot of embarrassing stuff in there.
Score = 0
Pitchfork represents everything that is wrong with music today. Arrogance and ignorance. going with whatever seems "hip" or trendy at the time. greatest example of this is the whole "young folks" thing from the end of the last year. they hated it when it came out, and when it became a cool indie song they called it one of the best songs of the year. hypocrits.
Score = 0
I'm surprised how much everyone is slating Pitchfork (actually I'm not, but you know what I mean). Sure they're pretentious, but at least they seem to love music and writing about music. Try reading NME or Rolling Stone for really crappy music journalism.
Score = 0
It's a website. Nothing more. If you don't like it, don't read it. It's seriously that simple.
Score = 0
Good Press, Bad Press...Just give me press!
Score = 0
I've met Travis Morrison. I've met Pitchfork writers. I've met many music writers. I wouldn't punch any of them in the face.
I AM a music writer and a real (read: "real") music journalist.
The comments above seem to polarize: those that go really ga-ga over P4K and check the site multiple times a day (you know who you are). They usually don't know any better.
Then there are those who are, frankly, smarter, and realize that while P4K may have good taste in music, they don't have good taste in prose (that is to say music-criticism-as-prose).
Those more seasoned will realize that Pitchfork is best skimmed, the news is handy, and their recommendations are good to form your OWN opinion on, and not read the site's. If you do, it will drive you crazy. I'll go so far as to say that it's best not to read too deep into anything they say at all (the P4K staff will do that for you; your energy is best expended elsewhere). They're not gods, and they're not even the avatars they would have you believe they are.
All this said, I still respect A LOT of those writers.
Besides, most of the writers, themselves, are not arbitrary or vindictive like the site is. It's the P4K style of, like David Cross said, "overwrought"-ness that seems to put people off. I could be wrong about this, but that's what seems to be the general consensus.
Btdubs,
I am so glad that Travis went on the record about Pitchfork, finally, though. God bless that man. I got your back, T.Mo.
Score = 0
What I hate most about p4k is that I can't comment at p4k about how much I hate p4k, which means I have to talk about how much I hate p4k here.
Just kidding, p4k. I have "Cellphone's Dead" as my ring tone; does that put me above an 8.0?
Score = 0
Carson: I wasn't using the term hipster to "help my argument". I was using it to describe the particular attitude/value-set that the term hipster is generally used to describe. I see absolutely no reason not to use it, your experience with out of touch message board people notwithstanding.
But, if it will make you happy, please feel free to substitute for "hipster" the phrase "arrogant snobbery in service of obsessive narcissism and at the expense of any sincere appreciation of art or popular culture".
Score = 0
On a 1-10 scale I judge pitchforkmedia.com a 4.2. This is because some of the albums that they like are decent. Out of 42 albums I listen to recommended by www.pitchforkmedia.com I buy 100.
Score = 0
this is old now, but they took the Zaireeka review off the site
Score = 0