This wouldn't happen to have anything to do with Airborne Toxic Event's roughly 800 worder, would it? Kind of seems like one of those letters you (regrettably) write to your significant other just as they're leaving you..."You've given me your reasons why, but we'll both still be around LA and I don't see why we can't be friends."

Well I think people want to know how they feel. It's probably best to ignore what the critics say but then again...I don't see how they are hurt by it too much. Free publicity...

I got half way through the letter and was about to write them a letter about the merits of taking it on the chin and not whining.  But then I ran out of energy.  Poor call, gentlemen.

For lame bands like this one -- I asked a PR rep to stop bothering me with this sort of crap and get that song of theirs to play over a poignant montage on How I Met Your Mother -- a big bad review might just galvanize their fanbase into something it wasn't before.

 

If they're real lucky, their drummer will die and give them something to plug in their bio that'll fool people into thinking they're deep.

I got the letter and read about 10 words before I deleted it.  Just grow the fuck up about it.  Think about Anathallo, they took a lowball pitchfork review and worked with it.  No press is bad press as they say.

I'm with buzzgrinder, I thought it was terribly executed, but a funny/novel idea. On one hand, it's certainly the most thought I've ever given to them (or likely ever will). On the other, it did come off as very whiny, and I read all of 10 words before deleting. Either way, I now have a bad image when I had none before.

Wait.

People still read Pitchfork?

I don't mean to just pile on this particular band (I really don't even know their music) but any band. I have worked with bands that whine and cry about p4k, and can't stop themselves from mentioning it in interviews, their myspace blog, ANYWHERE. I even saw a band who made a fake Pitchfork review as parody. While I understand how disappointing it is, it's really bad form.

I still have to say, I really respect BirdMonster (we worked with them on the first album)...after they got a 3, I asked them about it while they were on the road and they were totally OK with it, even admitting that they were a new band without much of a track record—a work in progress, if you will. They just soldiered on and had fun and didn't take it that seriously. I haven't heard their new album in its entirety, but what I have heard is really good, they sound much more cohesive, professional and they are moving forward. We'll see if P4k just slags them for being too bloggy again ;-)

woxyshiv wrote:
People still read Pitchfork?

I don't. :) I'm not all anti-Pitchfork like some, but it's just not a site that's ever appealed to me. I didn't even know about their negative Airborne Toxic Event review until I got that bizarre "open letter" email - and yeah, I agree that was a very bad call on the part of the band and their PR rep.

ATE should expect bad reviews because of the rumor that was circulating when they released their first EP (which I actually liked) calling them another Monkees kind of band that was assembled and promoted by industry insiders. I don't know if the story was based in reality or not and I don't personally care how a band is formed as long as I like the music (I am after all a Monkees fan:), but just the rumor would seem to be enough to garner some negative blog posts.

Bands should be happy to get anybody to even listen to their music, much less review it.

I kinda like that Scroobius Pip album too.

Posted by: BillRocksClevelandI will say this, the reviewer of their album, Ian Cohen, has been p4k's designated hitman of late. I don't know if he gets all the bad albums by design or if he doesn't like music. Whenever I read a review on p4k and my reaction is wtf is that reviewer talking about, the byline inevitably reads, Ian Cohen. That 1.6 isn't even his lowest review of late. He wrote the .2 for Scrobius Pip vs Dan LeSac as well as the less the less than complimentary reviews for Kings of Leon and Bloc Party.

 

No, there's no reason to stand by this guy, either.  His Cloud Cult review lacked understanding or insight; he talked okay about Local H, used positive language then gave the obligatory P4k fuck-rock numerical beat-down.  There's no reason to talk about Ian Cohen any more than there's any reason to talk about Giant Wet Fart (or whatever this LA band is called).  They are both artistic non-entities.

I couldn't agree more with Rawkblog and Culture Bully. It's almost as if they feel they deserved a better review just because they showed up to the game. And seriously, since when are Silversun Pickups the marquee L.A. band? I like SSPU, but it just sounds like ATE are trying to align themselves for future negative reviews.

I wont lie -- I don't read Pitchfork with any regularity and I haven't for nearly three years.  It isn't that I think they're always off the mark, I think they skew in a certain direction and appeal to the lowest common denominator in their reviews.

Here's what I asked myself (as have many of you):

Do you really want to be in a room full of people who purport to love music that do nothing but talk about how certain albums are reviewed on Pitchfork?

In regards to the complaints, though, I find it incredibly unappealing to get an email like the one Wendy mentions from anyone.  It is the kind of email that makes me less interested in what a band is doing because their passions are so clearly misdirected that they really give a shit what the press thinks about them.

Saying that you don't care in this case actually means you do care, particularly when your care elicits a lengthy diatribe.

It's nice to be liked or even loved.  But getting a bad review from anyone doesn't make you hated by anyone except those who value the opinions of others more than they value their own sense of taste and style.  Furthermore, you're feeding into the very frenzy that you're hoping to transcend with your music.  You're essentially promoting the brand that you're shunning.

Mind you, Pitchfork has some wonderful writers and reviewers.  But hatchet jobs and monkey piss should not a webzine make.

Posted by: meandtheseaI immediately deleted. Frankly, I'm surprised that a publicist working with a band who is not a complete no-name (though the ATE are unknown to me, personally) would not say "no, that's a dumb fucking idea." How many weeks are left in their press campaign? I wonder when we'll get an email saying "just wanted to make sure you got that open letter to pitchfork. Had a chance to read it yet? Would you like to interview the band about it?"

 

EXACTLY.  In this economy, I want everyone to keep their jobs, but I have to seriously question the judgment of a publicist who lets this email get sent.

I'd never thought of it that way.  Spot on.

this "bad" review and the resulting email and "anger" over the email have gotten this crappy band more publicity than they ever would've gotten if they were simply not reviewed by Pfork.

i'd say their publicist has done a good job getting publicity for them.

i sure as hell just scanned through the diatribe and deleted it and never would've thought or said anything else about it until others started posting it everywhere and talking about it. looks like it worked. blah.

Wendy Williams for Vice President!
She can see Canada from her office (I think)

My too-long take is here: http://idolator.com/5051801/the-airborne-toxic-event-tries-to-kill-pitchfork-with-kindness

Can we invade Russia yet? I can see them from my monitor.

that is all. (I have no constructive input to add)

I don't have anything to add to the ATE letter, which is fine and fair of course, but the Björk flap referred to above was built on fallacies that we admittedly let stand for far too long, and I only refute them here because of the seriousness of the central charge (i.e. sexism). I discussed this issue here: http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/article/news/144930-bjork-takes-on-sexism-in-the-music-press]

>>  I will even go farther and say that it's a fucking embarrassment.

Wendy is right.  Fucking shameful, and utterly pointless.  I've actually participated in the discussion and I still have no real idea what band we're talking about (I read the press release and got the gist, but whoever the fuck wrote it escapes me).   The PR person should surely have known better.  And, really, who fucking cares?  Anyone who writes anything this stupid deserves to be deleted and never even thought of again.

Posted by: J HoaS

No, there's no reason to stand by this guy, either.  His Cloud Cult review lacked understanding or insight; he talked okay about Local H, used positive language then gave the obligatory P4k fuck-rock numerical beat-down.

Cohen didn't write the Local H review; Josh Klein did.

And although Cohen and I share virtually no musical tastes whatsoever, if I would have reviewed this album, I'd have taken the same tack. I take no particular pride in knocking down a band with a negative review (who would?), but my reviews of the Dandy Warhols, CSS and My Morning Jacket are one thing. They're big bands and they can take it; they go on world tours and they're far above Pitchfork.

BUT...just because a band has a small following, because they tune their guitars to sound like the Pixies or Modest Mouse or they're trying to tour on food stamps and busking for Myspace Music change doesn't mean they're automatically above critical reproach. I really, really resent little bands who feel above the critical fray because of their relative size. The average bullshit indie band needs to have their shit fed back to them way more often than it currently happens. Sorry, but it's the truth.  Rewarding amateurishness, or even a sound that is pleasantly familiar and competent, does nothing but feed into a music culture that hovers around a low-set bar and retard growth.  That's the one thing that really bugs me about the movement of indie/DIY/whatever to the Web, and the resultant discovery/formation of billions of new bands; there are billions of shitty new bands, but people think that the same rules re: "well a certain percentage has to be good" apply.  There are not that many good bands out there, and uncritical Web-coddling does nothing to help anything. 

Small bands can suck just like huge bands, and it's not even like ATE is going to be small forever; or even for a year.  They've got a $$ publicity firm repping them, their songwriting sounds like it's done by committee, and they'll be on the Huggies/Chips Ahoy Back to School Tour with Mother 13 in a few months.

They're also led by a mid-30s former Filter writer and journalist, who wears the "everyman" schtick well:

"We love indie rock and we know full well that Pitchfork doesn’t so much critique bands as critique a band’s ability to match a certain indie rock aesthetic. We don’t match it. It’s true that the events described in these songs really happened. It’s true we wrote about them in ways that make us look bad. (Sometimes in life you are the hero, and sometimes, you are the cuckold. Sometimes you’re screaming about your worst fears, your most vicious jealousies and failures. Such is life.)."

(translation):

"We are mavericks. People criticize us, but we are Changers. Reformers, I tell you, my friends."

I am not honing anything, per se.  I actually see blogging as an end in itself, I think.  Or at least, I didn't to begin with but I am slowly coming round to that way of thinking anyway.  Also, I don't slag off really small bands simply because it seems mean.  I don't thing anyone benefits much from their first and only review simply saying that they are shit, although I take your point that they are going to have to find out eventually.

But for the rest of it I agree almost entirely.  The LINKLINKLINK impulse and instant question about Hype listing and ad revenue gets me down a bit too.  First write something, then see if you like it or are any good at it and only then start looking at any of this other shit.

The new My Morning Jacket album sure is terrible alright.

I think that's one thing we all can agree on.