FITE: PITCHFORK vs. FREAKY TRIGGER

For me the only point in a review is to open people up to new ideas and insights about music, or make you think about a particular piece of music in a new way. Creativity is more important than being utilitarian.

*smokescreen dissolves*

Uh, seriously, yes -- I do have a good deal of embarrassing crap in the archives. For the most part, these are from a few years ago, when all the writers took it less seriously and, more to the point, I myself had little confidence in my ability to give opinions about music. These old reviews are very painful for me to reflect on now, but instructive, too, & with a little bit of good feeling because I feel I've come a way since.

Pitchfork is a unique institution on the web, and I have affection for it that extends beyond it giving me a place to spout off. Naturally, it is only as good as its writers, and there is pretty fair amount of turnover, but I've always felt like there was more diversity to the Pitchfork writing corps than it's given credit for. I've always thought that Paul Cooper, for example, was one of the better online writers for beat-driven electronic stuff, Nick Mirov always gives a balanced & insightful look into indie rock, and Matt LeMay's reviews are very honest and perceptive. Count me with those who've been entertained by Brent D more often than not, & with the recent crop, including two who've posted here (Ethan & Dominque), I think the 'Fork is on the verge of its best phase yet.

As to FT v. PF, I like some of both. I usually can't get through a FT- style think piece unless I'm familiar with the music being discussed, so that to me seems the biggest downside (I didn't have this problem with Energy Flash/Generation Ecstasy, but I do with Chuck Eddy, so I think it has something to do with the desire to describe the music being discussed). But selected pieces from the FT archives are without question some of my favorite pieces of music writing anywhere.

I personally find it very easy to look to reviews for ideas on new music, with a good ratio of enjoyable purchases. I don't run with a crowd of music fans, so music media is essential.

Godspeed, God bless and God willing, gygax http://gygax.pitas.com

That said, I really wish they were more successful in merging their snotty 'zine 'tude with their attempts to be professional and The Source for information. It's all fine and good to be snotty and willfully ignorant or snotty and smarter-than-thou, but not at the expense of talking about the record (if you're supposed to be talking about the record, which is what ends up happening in most of the reviews). The new writing that I have read on the site, though, looks pretty good (especially Dominique's contributions). (And, sure, I'll be happy to include Ethan, if he wrote anything more besides that one review.) I only wish I was one of the New Crop, but that opportunity seems to have passed me by. Ah, well.

For the record: I like the FT writing much better, but the 'Fork has the info my complacent indie rock ass likes. I'm sure the non-mersh nature of the FT offerings has a lot to do with it.

Mark - take heart. I don't think there's anyone whose published music reviews, online or elsewhere, who doesn't regret a lot of the stuff they've done. I for one am quite relieved that many of my initial FT articles are now conveniently missing.

That's what the most interesting part about Pitchfork is for me -- it exists right now in some space between indie rock zine-sterism and a more professional-minded Source archive for new independent music in general. I think the new crop of writers, especially Dominique Leone and Luke Buckman, write incredibly knowledgeable, excellent 'prof' reviews. And then you got people like Ethan P., who also know a lot but have a more stylish dialogue flow. What makes the 'Fork so fun to me is that it's also a site about writing, and it doesn't have any one approach, making it difficult to nail down and summarize. It's just a place where alot of different writers with alot of different styles post about a strange variety of music (though not so varied to I Love Music aficionades, likely).

I don't understand the whole Nude Spock "Ian, it's as if the world revolves around what these 20-something hipsters perceive, if you didn't notice. Every review is self-referential, rather than an objective interpretation of the music" claims. If you're just stating a preference, I suppose I can comprehend -- it's a busy world, we can only absorb so much information each day, and some aren't in the market for a personalized music review site that focuses on indie rock/electronica and occasionally branches out into other forms. But if you're suggesting that writers shouldn't write from their perspective, I'm a little lost. Every review is clearly not self-referential, and the ones that are make for amusing little pop-culture nuggets. Likewise, I don't think that the reviews are without insight, however briefly that inspiration has room to appear.

chris.

Well, I'm afraid that indie is taken a bit too seriously in certain circles.

(okay, maybe not. but you obviously know where my sympathies lie.)

They barely actually describe the music. In fact, you almost need to have heard it already to know what they're talking about. Music reviews used to actually describe the music and the attitude of the band/record and that was pretty much it.

They've had some bad writers (most of the faux Brent D.'s between the Mirov/LeMay days and the recent Dleone/Ethan additions), been guilty of loads of knee-jerkisms and indie cheerleading, but they have had good writing as well. (Thanks t those Mark mentions above -- and toss him in as well -- + Brent Sirota.) I much prefer FT because the writing and dialogue is much more consistently engaging and intelligent, but Pitchfork has a utilitarian function and does seem as if it is improving. Although I've spent a total of about 10 minutes lurking there, I'd guess the webboard probably helped that. The instant feedback loop may have called PF out on some of its BS and, potentially, a fresh, varied group of voices indirectly shaped its direction at a time in which Ryan wasn't working with his strongest or most committed staff. (Of course it could also be full of 100 "Taking Sides: Caustic Resin vs. 764-Hero" threads, this is just a guess.)

** Full disclosure: I know Brent rather well. But, do people have a general problem with the 95% of Brent's writing or just the reviews that are either something he absolutely loves or hates -- "Kid A," Sigur Ros, "Emergency and I," "the Moon and Antarctica" vs. Tool, "The Fragile," Wolfie. (Of which, I'd say only Kid A and Wolfie are largely indefensible.) It seems reining himself in on these extremes is his biggest weakness. Also, he has written, what?, 10 reviews this calendar year for PF. And with the exception of the Tool review, he, for the most part, has abandoned the Bangsesque style -- which, hit or miss as it is/was, is preferred to the typically dull, press release-heavy, diplomatic music reviews that are in every print mag in the U.S. -- that made him loved or loathed, rarely writing so tangentially this year.

Ooh, sorry, I didn't expect to go on like that.

If a reviewer of music says that they lyrics are weak and not intentionally so, that's fine. The guitar playing is subpar or cliché?... well, let's describe it, but let's not overdo it, because everyone likes different styles. The vocals are terrible? How so? And, must you throw your own spin on it? I'm thinking of one pitchfork review where the guy said it sounds like another girl whispering into her computer microphone. He put a spin on it like she was a no-talent brat with home studio equipment & no talent. Annoying. And, so, okay, maybe the music isn't breathtakingly original. So? A lot of music isn't anything new. But, occasionally, a reviewer feels the need to grind a band into the ground for not being something new. Fuckin' A, some bands exist to play songs they like for enjoyment. Ya know?

I don't know, I'd say that all writing is in some ways self-important, and strong opinions and passion for music does not = knowing all. But could Brent and many other PF writers could use some tact at times? Of course.

It's only reviews? A lot of people, industry types included, base a lot of importance on what "they're saying". "they" = critics, unless the band sells so many copies that people can overlook the critics. Critics also encourage or discourage people to buy music. So, for relative unknowns, a review you tossed off in 10 minutes could be very hurtful.

Pitchfork takes the first approach and credit to it - if you don't like negative reaction, don't make your work public. Freaky Trigger takes the third approach and just doesn't review things (which is a small part of the reason why Pitchfork is an enormous indie institution and FT is a cult at most, making me blush every time I see this thread title). Taking the second approach - as a couple of online sites seem to - is fair on the bands but as interesting for the reader as counting gravel.

Thanks for the reply, I understand where you're coming from better now. I'm curious, though, about the extent to which you mean this:

"an album should be judged on it's own merits, not what it's place in the scene currently means to you."

by 'scene' I'm guessing you mean the more limited, 'fashion trend' sense of the word, and would be annoyed at Mark's "the oldies will like it, young people won't get it" approach on the ABBA review, or Daphne Carr's recent Vue piece equating fashion trends with music preferences (http://pitchforkmedia.com/record-reviews/v/vue/find-your- home.shtml ) or another referencing her joy that college kids aren't into the Kindercore label any longer (June Panic review) ..

but I'm thinking of 'scene' in the sense of 'genre.' Obviously, at some point the lines of distinction between "what something means to you" and the "objective" approach you mention get blurry. Recently I reviewed "Underland," a half-hour EP by this guy Miles Tilmann. It's basically smooth, melodic early-90's style ambient house/techno, very similar to Aphex Twin's Selected Ambient Works Volume I. I suggested that, for me (and in an unmentioned but implied larger music scene sense), the revival of that style right now is particularly refreshing considering all the micro-genre niche burrowing and pop- avant-gardism these days (glitch/squirm/dub minimalism). Considering that another might argue that what Tilmann is doing is completely uncreative and derivative, is that the kind of thing that is inappropriate to you?

My guess is that you're not against historicism in reviews per se, but demand that it be tied carefully to the 'objectivism' you've mentioned, rather than read as the reviewer's diary or web-blog (the much-maligned "I got hit in the head by a bird today and that got me thinking..." Pitchforkisms). Still, makes me wonder at the acceptable levels people will tolerate of either historicism or subjectivism .. considering, for the former, the glut of Radiohead reviews in the societal context of 'post-modern malaise,' or for the latter, my shock to see Dominique Leone's well-executed context- establishing reviews get dissed here (I think?).

so did pitchfork "win" this one?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_J._Jeffries

I dunno, the Poptimist articles on pitchfork by Tom just seem like Freaky Trigger articles that happen to be hosted on Pitchfork.

can't fight city hall, folks

dude has nappies to buy, bills to pay.

actually i completely forgot tom was writing for pfork when i revived this

it was more in the general sense of ethan's question in the opening post and also the way it's sucked up so many ilm'ers

(and ft'ers)

enlightening thread

We were so much older then, we're younger than that now.

I'd rather just drink and forget the question, Billy Carter style.

-- Nicole, Tuesday, October 16, 2001

nicole bringing the ruggedness, even almost six years ago

the "pitchfork model" is probably on its way out too, of course. if anything the damn site's got too MUCH info on it these days for grandpa here.

Nicole AKA best ever.

It's a shame how the combined action of ILM-use and professional reviewing gigs tends to cleave in twain the conversational insight component of writing about music and the well-shaped totality component, which were/are inseparable in the best FT/blog-style writing. But there's only so much polishing you can put into ILM posts, and only so much conversational insight you can put into 600-word reviews.

strongochalabi

Quite frankly I feel that pitchfork is quite possibly the best publication on the planet, print or html. ryan's treatment of jim o'rourke is pulitzer-worthy. the consistent no-bullshit approach to reviewing records readily contributes to the emptying of my bank account every tuesday. how else could i keep track of all the beta band side projects? what's hot and what's not? pitchfork is this generation's trouser press, a monument to the glory of music worldwide and the heroes that choose to assign a number and a couple of paragraphs to it.
Godspeed, God bless and God willing, gygax http://gygax.pitas.com

-- gygax, Monday, 15 October 2001 00:00 (5 years ago) Link

wow

What's funny about this question, six years on, is that Pitchfork is increasingly one of the more discursive music sites (keeping around 600-word reviews, adding columns and longer features), as the landscape around it has become more mechanical and non-discursive (latest mp3, three sentences about it, bad joke, repeat).

I'll admit, it's downright FRIGHTENING to me to see people bitching that 600-word reviews are "long-winded," that making any kind of larger comparison/point is considered self-indulgent or off-topic, etc. Most amazing of all: I only recently started understanding that lots of people look at Pitchfork and think of the News and Forkcast sections as being the meat of the site, rather than the reviews, features, and columns. This is bizarre to me, but I guess I come from some antiquated old-media mindset where I pick up a magazine and assume the cover story is more important than the sidebars.

Ties in a bit I think with what Amy Phillips was saying with the much-debated EMP comment about what Pitchfork's audience seems to really want. And which didn't surprise me at all to hear. It's interesting -- ten years after starting to write for the AMG, it seems that those kind of miniature reviews might be what most folks want anyway.

yr amg reviews are never very miniature though, ned.

Hmm...well the standard size of them is around 250 to 300 words (of which probably 240 to 290 could be junked or rewritten, doubtless). My perceptions are likely heavily skewed due to longer pieces in blogs and places like Pitchfork/Stylus/etc., but is that higher than a general baseline than I've realized? I've heard enough complaints from people stuck with shorter word counts at other outlets to know there's some ridiculous extremes on the low end at 100 words or less.

I'm feeling that we're at a point OMG when music journalism's relationship with the music industry is gonna start changing pretty dramatically. Admittedly this is just me being microcosmic and not reading any music journalism besides my own (like always), but... there's nowhere else to go. Unless it changes.

In a funny way what annoys about 100 word limits is not the incapacity to say anything about the music but the incapacity to actually say something such that people can register your "voice". I do 150-word singles reviews every week and really enjoy it because over the course of 4 singles you can sort of build up a kind of logic of taste. I actually find writing 600 words about one thing harder because it's getting to the stage with that length where I really should be able to say something interesting/novel about the music but find it hard to express anything cogently or neatly enough.

I totally agree on that last point, Tim -- a much longer essay form I'm still comfortable with, but all this time regularly writing at around 300 makes 600 seemed like wasted words and/or time now.

The real coup with AMG I suspect is that you mostly get to do several albums in a row for the one artist, so if people read all of those they're getting quite a detailed and insightful overview of the artist through what appear to be quite disciplined reviews.

I almost find it annoying when the artists' albums are split b/w different writers on AMG - e.g. I think "so Stephen didn't like that last album, huh? I wonder what he thinks of the new one."

they need to get matt h31g3son to rereview all the early 90s gangsta rap on AMG

you mostly get to do several albums in a row for the one artist

Well, that was by lucky circumstance mainly -- when I joined there were a lot of entries that needed massive upgrades (thus for instance Depeche up through Exciter), so I asked for and got to do them all. Also, freelancers were able to ask for anything in the collection, but about four, five years back we had to switch to only current releases. I didn't mind much since I'd already reviewed a large chunk of what I already owned; it also meant I had to concentrate more on new things, which is a good habit to start with.

The standard is really quite high now I think.

On a related note is how I came to love Stephen. I used to hate him! Maybe as my taste has grown more equivocal as i've grown older i sympathise more with his equivocations.

Interesting way of looking at it! I'll have to pass that on to him.

In a funny way what annoys about 100 word limits is not the incapacity to say anything about the music but the incapacity to actually say something such that people can register your "voice". I do 150-word singles reviews every week and really enjoy it because over the course of 4 singles you can sort of build up a kind of logic of taste. I actually find writing 600 words about one thing harder because it's getting to the stage with that length where I really should be able to say something interesting/novel about the music but find it hard to express anything cogently or neatly enough.

it's a broken record, i know, but right OTM, tim.

AKA how do you really make 600 words both punchy and in-depth at the same time?

@nabisco: if the fluff graf is going nowhere, i don't fault readers for passing on longish reviews. i think that readers are into the whole brevity thing not because they're ADHD but because a lot of P4K readers can sneak onto the page for parcels of info when the boss isn't looking.

the problem is that it's getting harder and harder to tell what are short form reviews and what's ad copy. i also think that stereogum, an aquarium drunkard, my old kentucky blog and a handful of others [you know who you are] should merge like voltron instead of being a great big echo chamber for whatever it was that arrived in the mail that day.

[also: i was looking at alexa.com numbers recently and it's interesting to see where traffic has flowed since the advent of stereogum. it's like mp3 blogs are having their dewey defeats truman moment, but at the same time, does anyone else sense that web 2.0 will bring with it yet another dot com collapse? have you seen where the money's going lately?]

i mean, wow.

stylus vs. paper thin walls

I believe the current word limit for Uncut album reviews is 80 words.

As I have said many times before here, the time will come, and soon, when we will have zero-word reviews; just ratings and emoticons. Those who bemoan the loss of long thinkpieces will routinely be directed to the blog world, where there are plenty of stimulating and provocative thousand-word reviews written free of charge, i.e. we helped do ourselves out of business.

I believe the current word limit for Uncut album reviews is 80 words.

Charming. No wonder the UK freelancers I know are grouchy on the point.

i can think of a few reviewers i'd limit to zero words

I believe Goebbels voiced similar sentiments in the early days of the Third Reich.

I have a really hard time writing long pieces because I convince myself that I don't have that much to say about anything and so I'm stricken with panic about having to fill 800-1000 words. When I actually get to writing, I find that it does usually take several paragraphs to really satisfactorily explore an idea in depth, but even then I'm often monitoring my word count to see how much more I have to go.

This is why I like writing for the Stylus Singles Jukebox: with the standard being no more than three sentences or so about a song, I can be sharp and economical.

hmmm, this goebbels guy sounds right on!!

we should make him an ILM mod

Potential future employers will google all this, you realise that.

Yes, when they get the CV from "moonship journey to baja" he's fucked.

IPS tracking, and all that.

gosh you're tiresome

It's a world renowned children's hospital and not in the least bit tiresome.

wait, ilx?

shrug

if this is a hospital, then gary young must be involved somehow. it's all making sense now!

Cue the Snow Patrol! Make dramatic faces!

Nurse, the Autotune, quick!

stereogum, an aquarium drunkard, my old kentucky blog and a handful of others [you know who you are] should merge like voltron instead of being a great big echo chamber for whatever it was that arrived in the mail that day.

But how would they determine how all that fat ad revenue gets split up? We're talking like up to 5 figures (maybe even 6 for stereogum) a year, per site, for some of those.

But how would they determine how all that fat ad revenue gets split up? We're talking like up to 5 figures (maybe even 6 for stereogum) a year, per site, for some of those.

that they'd have to sort out among themselves.

it is a little shocking to think that after only ten years of online music 'magazines' folks are already talking about them circling the drain as viable publishing outlets. stranger still, if you look at alexa numbers for fluxblog, those are WAY down from the dizzying heights they reached when it was considered mp3 blog par excellence.