What's worse?
  • SoMuchSilenceSoMuchSilence
    What do you think?: Being reviewed and slammed by Pitchfork or not being reviewed at all.



    I bring this up because, coming from Arizona, I notice Pitchfork didn't even expend energy reviewing Jimmy Eat World's "Chase This Light."



    And there was the typical backhand slap in the intro to worst album covers: "As usual, we gave (most of the) easy targets a pass, so you won't find Celine Dion, Jordin Sparks, LeAnn Rimes, or Jimmy Eat World below."



    Aside from a 7.4 review of an EP, Pitchfork pretty much has it in for JEW: 3.5 for Clarity; 3.0 for Futures. One and a half stars for track "Pain" and two and a half stars for "Game of Pricks" cover, in which the first line states: "Since Jimmy Eat World's Bleed American was grotesquely birthed upon our nation in 2001... "



    So is it more offensive to get a 3.-something review or just be ignored entirely?
  • gregwindgregwind
    Depends on how big the band is, I suppose.  If you are being willfully ignored, that's different than being deemed not yet important enough, right?  Jimmy Eat World doesn't need P4k, so I'm not sure it's the best test case, though if forced to choose, I'd say it's better to get a bad review.   A reader will know if they're a mark for a JEW release, and P4K's approval or disapproval shouldn't make that much of an impact. Knowing it's out there is the key, and if someone only gets 5 minutes of media access a year and chooses to search P4K for the new JEW, we'll that's a lost customer.  Again, having trouble imagining a test case that matters.
  • SurfingOnSteamSurfingOnSteam
    I'm always more curious about the poorly reviewed bands.
  • mauramaura
     you have to admit though the vaginaosity of that cover was pretty terrible
  • gregwindgregwind
    Said the woman working on the most awful album covers of 2007 feature. First thing I thought of when I saw the thread, too.
  • mauramaura
    haha! i was sort of surprised that it didn't go past the first round
  • Taylor musicforantsTaylor musicforants
    Posted by: SoMuchSilence 3.5 for Clarity

    That review was ridiculous, Clarity is probably the best album ever to come out of the "emo" genre. 

  • chrischris
    JEW is emo?
  • gregwindgregwind
    I thought it was twee.



    (ducking)
  • loudersoftloudersoft
    they're tweemo



    (also ducking)
  • SoMuchSilenceSoMuchSilence
    Posted by: Taylor/Music/Ants
    Posted by: SoMuchSilence 3.5 for Clarity

    That review was ridiculous, Clarity is probably the best album ever to come out of the "emo" genre. 



    Agreed. And the writing was pretty juvenile in the review.  

  • Harry_ThaBombShelterHarry_ThaBombShelter
    I still don't get the venom towards the Chase this Light album cover.  I can kind of see that some people might see a vagina, but it's nowhere near as graphic as Georgia O'Keefe, and most would argue that her work is beautiful.  Plus, the album is pretty great, for a JEW album.  It's not gonna win any new fans, but if you liked Bleed American (which I did) it's right up your alley.



    As far as no coverage vs. bad coverage, I would point to Anathallo.  They got very BAD coverage from Pitchfork (for an amazing album), but when I asked Andrew Dost from the band about the review, he told me that any press is good press.  The fact that pitchfork gave them such a low score (2.7 for Floating World), it actually generate MORE buzz than if they had received a middling review.  I would say that most folks would be more inclined to check out an absurdly low score (Surely it's not THAT bad?  Let me see for myself).  I know I would be more likely to download a 0.0 track than a 5.3.
  • loudersoftloudersoft
    If Pitchfork doesn't like something, it's as likely to generate interest as if they do.  The anti-Pitchforkers generally run towards albums they review poorly, while fans of Pitchfork will glom onto their Best New Music choices.
  • brendanbrendan
    i have 0 (zero) respect for this website. mainly because, like you said, they don't put their time and effort in before they review. case in point.
  • chrischris
    0? really?
  • brendanbrendan
     
  • Taylor T-SidesTaylor T-Sides
    Posted by: risingstormi have 0 (zero) respect for this website. mainly because, like you said, they don't put their time and effort in before they review. case in point.

    I like Eric's reviews.



    I check in every week or two to see what they give albums, just out of curiosity, but I rarely read them anymore, because, yeah, it's pretty clear that a lot of the writers don't put time and effort into reviews.


    this review frustrated me even though I agreed with a fair amount of what he was saying. but seriously, if all I need to do to write for pitchfork is type up a review outline, then awesome!  I'll send about 10 their way.


    a couple times I've gone there because I wanted an idea of want an album/artist is about because I wasn't getting good enough feedback from blogs. besnard lakes, for example... I read that review and felt like it told me very little about the music.


    in terms of negative pfork reviews, just ask travis morrison.

  • EF MattEF Matt
    it can never be a bad thing to have your music reviewed on Pitchfork. at least not in terms of publicity/attention/potential album sales. and the only time their reviews are offensive, like some have already mentioned, is when they dip into careless/lazy/nasty/personal/etc land - example. of course, which of anyone who writes regularly hasn't gotten lazy or stupid at some point.



    anyway - the answer to the question is that, naturally, not being reviewed at all is worse. at least in my opinion.



    side note - anyone else noticed how excellent some of their interviews have been lately? like that PJ Harvey one or the Kevin Drew one?
  • Taylor musicforantsTaylor musicforants
    Yeah that Anathallo review was particularly harsh and uncalled for.  It doesn't actually review the album as it just takes pot shots at stupid things like the band's name, the order of the tracks, their religious beliefs, their use of Japanese folklore, etc...  Then somehow calls the band insufferably pretentious (when anyone who knows them knows that they're not pretentious in any way), and then spends about half of the review calling the band a second-rate Sufjan Stevens (because they both use a lot of instruments, I guess?) .



     He also picks out two random lyrics to make fun of them and ends the with one of the most confusing analogies I've ever heard: "Floating World makes Anathallo the Emerson, Lake & Palmer of fiction-workshop rock".  There's not actually one moment where the reviewer says anything remotely intelligent about the music.  Then they slap on a 2.7 for shock effect and send it out to the world.  Seriously, one of the most frustrating reviews I've ever read for an album that was actually really good. 
  • bondbond
    like every other music review publication on the planet, the quality of their reviewers (and hence reviews) varies greatly. who cares?
  • Harry_ThaBombShelterHarry_ThaBombShelter
    Yeah, I'm glad I came across the anathallo review after I had heard the album.  After I had fallen in love with the album, actually, so when I read it I was almost personally offended.  And you're absolutely right, the guys (and girl) and Anathallo are some of the nicest folks I've met, not a single bit pretentious.  Plus, when you see them perform, you can almost feel the joy that they have in doing what they're doing.
Add a Comment

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Sign In Apply for Membership

Categories