PGWP Reviews Pitchfork Reviews Reviews

Probably the worst trend in twenty-first-century indie rock is the degree to which people care about Pitchfork. Clearly they have a far-reaching influence--hell, even ABC News is asking them for recommendations--but so what? It's easy to get caught up in talking about Pitchfork's every move (is it suspect? is it genuine? is it naive? is it cynical? is it defining our culture? is it behind the curve?), and I've been guilty of it myself in the past.

At the beginning of this year I wrote a post, titled How Did It Start?, in which I said this:

It started with burning out on everyone's end of year/end of decade lists, which began in August and are still going strong in some corners of my RSS reader. All that Radiohead, all that Animal Collective! Never mind the Arcade Fire and the LCD Soundsystem and the Dirty Projectors and the Grizzly Bear. God, even the stuff I liked in the first place I was beginning to dislike. It brought home in an acute way both how much and how little my tastes align with Pitchfork. It doubly brought home how redundant most blogs I read are—how much they echo Pitchfork, how much they hold their noses at Pitchfork, how much they watch Pitchfork like its ratings were horses rounding the track on Derby Day.

With that last line I made an unspoken vow to myself that I'd stop contributing to the all-eyes-on-Pitchfork mania that hampers indie culture. Every time I see someone comment on a band's Pitchfork score--or worse, guess what a band's future score will be or whether an album will be annointed with a "Best New Music"--I silently translate their comment to what they're really saying: I don't value my own opinion. I don't have an issue with Pitchfork or its influence (if Spoon or Arcade Fire are debuting in the Billboard Top 10, I think I should only be happy for its existence); I also follow and interact with many of the site's writers via tumblr or twitter or ILM or this blog. As individuals they're uniformly among my favorite people to talk music with on the internet. So again, I don't have hard feelings against Pitchfork when I say people need to stop giving a shit about Pitchfork.

Obviously I've broken my vow with this post. But in fact, if you'll permit me to be this meta, I'm not writing about Pitchfork but rather Pitchfork Reviews Reviews, an anonymous tumblr blog that critiques and comments on Pitchfork's content every single day. When I first heard about the blog I didn't bother to follow it because I knew it would aggravate me. But I caught some reblogged posts and found the writing entertaining and well-considered so I started following.

Inevitably, I've become aggravated anyway. I think the most frustrating thing about PRR is that the guy is actually a pretty good writer with a lot of ideas and energy and optimism. I'd welcome reading his thoughts on whatever album he's into that day. But instead I get his obsessive critique of a site whose influence, while admittedly great, he's blown utterly out of proportion. It pains me to read his blog posts because they shout louder than anyone else, I don't value my own opinions! Reading his blog is like watching Rock Star, the Mark Wahlberg movie about the guy who aspires to be the lead singer of a tribute band until he gets the opportunity to sing lead for the band he lionizes. This guy is like the ultimate fanboy when he should be a writer in his own right. 

I was finally set off by his recent post on Altered Zones, the new Pitchfork-assembled conglomerate blog whose mission is to headhunt left-field acts who might not otherwise get coverage on the big site. There was cackling and cawing all around the web when Pitchfork announced the new blog last week. It really pained me to see so many complaints about a site that hadn't even launched yet. People have a reflexive, often negative, opinion about Pitchfork, which they inevitably undermine by following every move Pitchfork makes. What people don't seem to understand is that complaining about Pitchfork's influence is what gives Pitchfork its influence. If you really hated it, why can't you ignore it?

Not that PRR hates it. He lauds it as much as he slams it, to his credit. Nevertheless he has his eyes so close to the screen that he doesn't even seem to realize there is a real world out there, full of people making music, talking music, writing about music. Music, not Pitchfork.

I digress: it was the Altered Zones post that finally set me off. He seems to have granted Pitchfork so much power that he expects them to act as A&R for the acts they discover, rather than a) music critics or b) trainspotters.

so anyway, instead of recognizing the potentially devastating effects that fame has on young artists, Altered Zones digs even fucking deeper and Pitchfork’s spotlight protrudes even further into the underground, allowing them to stamp their imprimateur on larger and larger swaths of independent music until no kid playing lo-fi music is safe from the spotlight shining in through his bedroom window regardless of how premature Pitchfork’s arrival is. and how is some 20-year-old with a laptop and a drum machine supposed to turn down this crazy exposure? Pitchfork’s endorsement puts backlash targets on bands’ heads, and then he/she has to deal with the internet populated by contributors who’ve dedicated their presences to “DELOREN IS WURST BAND OF EARTH!?!!!!!”? how could that not fuck with you when people are saying it about YOUR band and you only have 2 songs out!!?! and one’s a cover!!! and whereas in pre-internet times you needed a decent full-length or a stellar EP to be critically validated, and the press and labels and the public might even be PATIENT with you, now fourteen bloggers thirsty for the earliest conceivable scoop are ready to lavish praise like you are the Second Coming on your song, and then once they’ve patted themselves on the back for discovering you at the earliest conceivable second, the expectations are yours alone to deal with. did you read all the track descriptions? Hipster Runoff must have fallen out of his chair.

This attitude really sets my teeth on edge. It's not the first time I've seen this critique of Pitchfork--that they are somehow hurting indie rock by annointing bands too early. Seriously, it's not Pitchfork's responsibility to shepherd bands into healthy careers. It's their job to critique what they hear. If some band comes along and knocks out one song and a cover and they're both fucking outstanding, I'd call out Pitchfork for slipping if they didn't cover it! How is Pitchfork supposed to know whether a band has a healthy attitude toward recognition? It's true that the cycle of hype and backlash turns as fast as a toilet paper roll, but it's not Pitchfork's duty to determine the pace. It's also extremely presumptious to think the bands that may or may not be covered by AZ are obscure by choice, fastidiously escaping Pitchfork's spotlight. These bands don't need protection or coddling, nor does Pitchfork need a policeman or a cheerleader.

I know this is largely being directed at one anonymous dude, but it really ought to be directed at everyone who blogs about music. Let Pitchfork do their thing. You do yours. Music (and writing) will be better for it.

Comments

[Matthew Perpetua]

I think you're being unfair to that guy. I think he definitely has his own taste and values his opinions. He's just a FAN of Pitchfork. Like, you know how you might write about a record or movie? He's writing about this publication. It's kinda like a not-fully-formed version of Emdashes, the blog about the New Yorker -- http://emdashes.com/

[scott pgwp]

I see that he has his own tastes and opinions; that's what I respond positively to. I just think using the filter of writing about Pitchfork weakens his perspective. Pitchfork already has a public editor in the form of all the bloggers already monitoring its every move.

[Dave Rawkblog]

Gahhh writer I like writing about other writer I like WORLDS COLLIDE

I kind of agree with you. But I'm also glad someone intelligent is reading Pitchfork every day and remarking on it so I don't feel the need to (as much).

[Linds]

I both agree and disagree with you. If he had not taken the angle to review Pitchfork itself, which was a clever little move, than would you be reading his opinions at all? Or would he just be one of the many anonymous music bloggers that you skipped over? I think the focus allowed him to gain attention and thus a more public voice. And I admire that. Also while I agree with you that there was WAY too much discontent about Altered Zone before anyone even got a look at the site, the kid makes a valid point about the site's influence thrusting musicians into the spotlight. Nathan Williams being the prime example that I think a lot of people would bring up. I'm glad he choses to discuss whether this is a positive or negative aspect of music criticism and is noting that the site has the potential to change the game for musicians. Which it does. But ultimately I sgree with you that Pitchfork should do its own thing and you should do yours and that a lot of people put far too much stock into it then they should. It's full of great info and strong writing from good critics, but it doesn't create your opinion unless you let it.

[scott pgwp]

I think it's premature to think anyone featured on Altered Zones is de facto "thrust into the spotlight." There are a lot of bands on Pitchfork whose reviews have no effect on their careers. Same goes for bands featured on a blog like Gorilla vs Bear and same will go for many bands on AZ. And if some band who wishes they could be obscure accidentally gets some recognition, we can all claim that AZ is a failure.

[jill]

who is releasing music and wishing to be obscure? that seems very suspect to me. if you really want to be obscure, don't put it out into the fucking public arena, because this is the way the world works these days. it is simply up to all of us to adapt.

also: it's not pitchfork's fault that fame spreads quickly and that people get noticed early in their careers. the hype cycle is short everywhere these days - are you people paying attention to the larger world outside of music??? that is simply a phenomenon of the internet age, and it happens with everything these days - fashion, art, literature, music, celebrity, news stories! pitchfork is one notable contributor, but it is most certainly not their "fault". it is our collective short attention spans that have enabled this phenomenon, and we have no one to blame but ourselves.

ugh, this non-conversation is about as interesting as yet another facebook self-portrait of some idiot holding a camera in the mirror. but here i am, and i love you all anyway.

[cam]

Somewhat related to the discussion (p4k's impact): http://bit.ly/9cEHWd