Predictfork.

August 8, 2006 5:41 PM

Pitchfork? Predictable? Let's take an empirical approach.
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane (69 comments total)

You could find better links for the "Predicatable," because most media outlets liked the new TVOTR and most of them hated that shitty, shitty Metallica album.
posted by maxreax at 5:49 PM on August 8, 2006

Fine. Predicatable.
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 5:58 PM on August 8, 2006

Metafilter does not do politics Pitchfork well.
posted by eyeballkid at 5:59 PM on August 8, 2006

Yeah, but Pitchfork's review of NIN's The Fragile is like Balzac for the new millennium.
posted by The Jesse Helms at 6:02 PM on August 8, 2006

I am aware of that fact.
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 6:02 PM on August 8, 2006

(directed at ebk).
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 6:05 PM on August 8, 2006

This could make an interesting appplication for machine learning. If you ran the 8.5+ scoring albums and got a point where a computer could predict what Pitchfork would rate something you could really have something.
posted by sien at 6:09 PM on August 8, 2006

Why anyone would read a review on there is far beyond me.
posted by fire&wings at 6:20 PM on August 8, 2006

Why was the last link described as an empirical approach? It was just some guy predicting what pitchfork would do. Big deal. How is a series of predictions in and of itself empirical?
posted by oddman at 6:28 PM on August 8, 2006

This could make an interesting appplication for machine learning. If you ran the 8.5+ scoring albums and got a point where a computer could predict what Pitchfork would rate something you could really have something.

Not machine learning, but someone has tried to systematize the PF matrix.
posted by camcgee at 6:29 PM on August 8, 2006

oddman writes "Why was the last link described as an empirical approach? It was just some guy predicting what pitchfork would do. Big deal. How is a series of predictions in and of itself empirical?"

Well, some people say that PF is predictable. And this here guy, yeah, he takes that idea to the test. If you still think that does not constitute an empirical approach, go ask Oxford.

OED. QED. HTH.
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 6:33 PM on August 8, 2006

Is it really that predictable? I found myself clicking on the TV on the Radio review link, thinking 4.7? 5.6? Nope. I don't read Pitchfork much, but I generally like the reviews. I don't pay much attention to the ratings.
posted by mrgrimm at 6:42 PM on August 8, 2006

I couldn't belive he thought Pitfork would like Thom Yorke's album. See, he's not including enough cyncism in his model. He needs to account for the fact that everyone at Pitchfork wasn't dying to review the record because they'd actually listen to it, or even cared what it sounds like, but because they all were writhing in ecstasy at the chance to savage Yorke, since so many people like Radiohead.

Which is the best way to predict a Pitformk rating. If it looks like more than a handful of people will like it, Pitchfork will hate it.
posted by eustacescrubb at 6:46 PM on August 8, 2006

damn i can't type in the dark.
posted by eustacescrubb at 6:47 PM on August 8, 2006

I liked the new Yorke album. That is all.

Anyway, pitchfork sucks ass. Most people end up being sucked along with popular trends, either unaware or grudgingly. But there is a certain class of people who not only go along knowingly, they revel in it. Pitchfork is like these people but worse, they not only revel in their obsession with image, they somehow see themselves as above it at the same time. Bleh.
posted by delmoi at 7:03 PM on August 8, 2006

for what it's worth, I think amg's checkmark is a much more reliable cock for my music recommendations than Pitchfork's decimalated system.

and please keep in mind, friends, that not everybody can write well on music--Pitchfork caters to those who pointedly ignore that fact. still, their news bits are a great source for the forthcoming and the 'who the hell's this?' and all the side projects &c.
posted by carsonb at 7:24 PM on August 8, 2006

just heard about this.
posted by kliuless at 7:24 PM on August 8, 2006

oh, and sneering at the sneerers? yah. *scoff*
posted by carsonb at 7:25 PM on August 8, 2006

To counter this, if a reviewer was not predictable, wouldn't they be essentially random, or something so close to random as to be indistinguishable from random? If your tastes aren't predictable to some degree, you might as well be drawing your opinions out of a hat.
posted by adipocere at 7:29 PM on August 8, 2006

whatever. if people need their metre for calculated elitism, pitchfork's as good as any. what's especially hilarious is that, even though it's empirically a barometer of indie music opinion, no one will admit to agreeing with them. i've never met anyone who had anything positive to say about pitchfork, but it's clear that they're listened to.

this is as good a time as any to point out that when pitchfork decides to go after someone, the results are often hilarious. their reviews of tool's lateralus and audioslave's first album are definitely highlights for me.

It was Cornell's idea to dub this bloated masturbathon Audioslave, and the name says everything with the same exacting precision that it says nothing at all. Audioslave. It's like it was tailor-made for a Sam Goody voiceover.

...

And all I can picture is Cornell high-fiving Rick Rubin and hitting the beach to play volleyball with Creed.

:)
posted by spiderwire at 7:34 PM on August 8, 2006

To counter this, if a reviewer was not predictable, wouldn't they be essentially random, or something so close to random as to be indistinguishable from random? If your tastes aren't predictable to some degree, you might as well be drawing your opinions out of a hat.

Exactly. You should be able to predict pitchfork in some way simply by rating good music good and bad music poorly.
posted by delmoi at 7:34 PM on August 8, 2006

I've given up trying to figure out how they do it. Sometimes they are spot on, sometimes way off. I think they have a dart board they wheel out.

Hot Chip's The Warning was bumped down from an 8.2 to an 8.1 the day they linked to their review [it was available in the archive weeks beforehand]. That 0.1 is floating around out there, somewhere... lost.
posted by yeti at 7:38 PM on August 8, 2006

Rating: 5.1
posted by unmake at 8:05 PM on August 8, 2006

fwiw :P

What else are you investing in?

I do some private investments. I have been fascinated the last two or three years with predictive markets. Predictive markets, on the one hand, is gambling, but in another sense it reflects the consensus view as people put money on an outcome that looks like it has some information to it. I follow these companies quite carefully.

What's being predicted?

Hillary Clinton is the most favored Democratic presidential candidate and bird flu is likely to arrive in the United States before the end of this calendar year.

Do you use the information in some contrary way?

You would think so, wouldn't you? Yet I haven't seen a case where 100% of the people were thinking one thing and taking the bet on the other side would be worthwhile.

Academics are enamored with this business, because it gives them much information about forecasts.

Companies use it for product research. They'll give their employees a certain amount of money to wager on which product is likely to be their best product and where they should be putting their research and so on. That is a very sharply growing field for companies.

!!!
posted by kliuless at 8:11 PM on August 8, 2006

TV on The Radio are a really good band. I like them a bunch.
posted by Divine_Wino at 8:22 PM on August 8, 2006

anyone who gives 10.0 to Music Has the Right to Children is OK in my book.. :D
posted by zenzizi at 8:51 PM on August 8, 2006

it's a music review site. with music reviewers. and opinions. and all the requisite encyclopedic musical knowledge and indie pretention and whatever else. fucking disagree if you want. who cares? if it's the only review site you read, maybe you're not getting the full picture of what's out there, maybe you're missing out on a lot - but you know, pitchfork at it's absolute predictable worst is about 3000 times better than depending on ClearChannel for your musical opinions like 98% of the public does.

i'm going to keep reading pitchfork. sometimes they're spot on, sometimes they're way off; predictable or not, they've introduced me to some amazing, life changing music.
posted by ab3 at 9:52 PM on August 8, 2006

i've never met anyone who had anything positive to say about pitchfork, but it's clear that they're listened to.

I like Pitchfork. I don't know where everyone gets the "elitist" vibe.
posted by maxreax at 10:17 PM on August 8, 2006

maxreax: I like Pitchfork. I don't know where everyone gets the "elitist" vibe.

Don't you think some of these reviews are really snide? Read the NIN review linked above. Regardless of whether the record sucked or not, the writer is straining so hard to reach cool-kid superiority that I'm worried he's going to pull something.
posted by spaltavian at 12:23 AM on August 9, 2006

I love Pitchfork and I'm always slightly boggled by MetaFilter's quarterly hate on it. After Melody Maker died and NME turned into a comic it became my go to place for smart, funny, passionate criticism. Oh no, some of the reviews are snide! This is what music criticism is meant to be like.

Favourite ever Pitchfork review.
posted by ninebelow at 2:10 AM on August 9, 2006

I have no problem with Pitchfork. I think what's happening is that age-old fan thing of "X doesn't like my fave band, therefore X is elitist/deaf/stupid/wrong". I'm guessing Pitchfork is especially vulnerable to this as they are not in the thrall of the major labels and are free to have a dig at the major acts (thereby upsetting the most people), whereas NME might go a bit easier, for fear of being denied the circulation-inflating features with Thom Yorke, or whoever is flogging the most magazines this week.

Personally, I realised a long time ago that when it comes to music, no-one is wrong. Not even these guys.
posted by bokeh at 4:01 AM on August 9, 2006

Pitchfork still sucks.

*goes back to drinking bile spiked coffee and trying to summon the Dave Marsh, Chuck Klosterman and the ghost of Lester Bangs*
posted by jonmc at 5:23 AM on August 9, 2006

I think the ghost of Lester Bangs is currently sticking a pitchfork into the ghost of Ken Lay.
posted by languagehat at 5:33 AM on August 9, 2006

I'm guessing Pitchfork is especially vulnerable to this as they are not in the thrall of the major labels

..and being in the thrall of the latest indie flavor-of-the-month is better how exactly? Trendiness is for weak herd animals.
posted by jonmc at 5:35 AM on August 9, 2006

My favorite record review ever was from the Rolling Stone Record Guide c. 1981. It was for an album called Attack. The review, in toto, was: "Flee!"

Second favorite, if only for its inscrutability, was the one line review for Fear of Music: "Nothing to be afraid of here."

If a reviewer is good, and has enough column inches, s/he can snark the hell out of a piece and still tell you enough to know whether you'll like it. Neither example above fits that description, but they're still amusing.

I love to read snarky reviews. It's an old and wonderful tradition to savage that which people love. Mark Twain's essay on James Fenimore Cooper is a great historical example, and I'm sure more literary folks than I can come up with better ones. The best such attacks usually manage to address the artistic merits. Ebert at his best is like that, as is Elvis Mitchell. (Though Elvis is better on the radio. He doesn't translate so well to print.) The reviewers at Entertainment Weekly used to be good about packaging some actual attention to the work in their reviews. (Haven't read that rag [affectionate usage/] in years.)

The genre of snark-review tends to fall down, IMO, when it focuses on the sort of meta-qualities of the work. E.g., what the artists are thinking about, or what they're wearing, who likes them, or how the disc jacket looks, and so on. I don't read Pitchfork, but I'm getting the idea they fall into the latter camp, so I probably wouldn't find them too entertaining.
posted by lodurr at 5:36 AM on August 9, 2006

My favorite record review ever was from the Rolling Stone Record Guide c. 1981. It was for an album called Attack. The review, in toto, was: "Flee!"

There was a similar one for an album called Bad News Travels Fast. It read 'Not fast enough.'

Pitchfork ultimately turns me off for two reasons: 1)for all their much ballyhooed 'maverick' status they tend to praise the same stuff as every other zine and blog on the planet and 2) they write as if they don't actually like listening to music at all and would much rather be shopping for faux-vintage t-shirts or gossiping at an afterparty with some bulimic sculpture major chick about who's not cool enough.
posted by jonmc at 5:40 AM on August 9, 2006

being in the thrall of the latest indie flavor-of-the-month is better how exactly

Well, that's my point: they can't win either way, and fair play to them for not trying. It's easier to be in the thrall of the major labels as they'll garner less hate-mail from angst-ridden teens whose life revolves around what Brian Molko ate for breakfast. Also, as I suggested earlier, for those conduits in thrall of major labels, certain "opinions" about one act or another may be financially motivated.

And anyway, who defines the flavour of the month? By that I assume you mean bands who are (a) new and (b) in your opinion, not good. Hmmm, subjectivity, how deliciously...Pitchforkian?
posted by bokeh at 6:01 AM on August 9, 2006

You mean to tell me that Lester Bangs, the patron saint of rock reviewers, was never snide and elitist? That's part of the job.

/ yay Pitchfork
/ although, yes, sometimes they forget to review the actual music when they're too busy making fun of the people who listen to it
posted by you just lost the game at 6:02 AM on August 9, 2006

You mean to tell me that Lester Bangs, the patron saint of rock reviewers, was never snide and elitist? That's part of the job.

yes, but Lester had taste. and the Pitchfork crowd is exactly the type of people he would have ridiculed mercilessly for their arty pretension. He prefferred Blue Cheer, The Archies and Tommy James & the Shondells to arty opuses and could articulate why, which the Pitchfork kiddies seem unable to do.

although, yes, sometimes they forget to review the actual music when they're too busy making fun of the people who listen to it

that's exactly my point. they sometimes seem to actually base their opinions of music on who listens to it, rather than how it sounds, which is ass-backwards high school cliquemongering.

bokeh: who defines it, the collective 'buzz,' that flows around whatever band is the It Band of the moment from all the zines & blogs written by scenesters who are above all deathly afraid of appearing uncool. At this point I've heard so much third-hand punk cant and half-assed faux nihilism that a point-by-point defense of Night Ranger would be downright refreshing (not to mention more punk rock). This is part of the reason I love Chuck Klosterman, even though he's off-base have the time. He's more like Lester than any Pitchfork hipsterbot. You see, real rebels risk disapproval.
posted by jonmc at 6:12 AM on August 9, 2006

also, here's a few publications that make Pitchfork look like the posers they are.
posted by jonmc at 6:16 AM on August 9, 2006

Ehm, kliuless - very interesting, but this is apropos of what, exactly?
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 6:23 AM on August 9, 2006

oh, and sneering at the sneerers? yah. *scoff*
posted by carsonb at 8:25 PM MST on August 8 [+] [!]

Yeah, well you know the people who sneer at the folks who are sneering at the sneerers? I'm sneering at them. I'm such a rarefied sneerer that I can't be sneered at, because anyone that tried would either die from lack of oxygen or burst into flame.
posted by mecran01 at 6:38 AM on August 9, 2006

Lester had taste

...in your opinion, jonmc. Fans of Mario Lanza or Daniel O'Donnell or even Britney Spears might disagree - this is the problem, jonmc. All of us only enjoy reading criticism that suits our world view. All of us reject and humiliate that which we disagree with or cannot relate to. It's interesting to observe in terms of Social Identity Theory, which, whether you like it or not, rules all of our lives, all of the time.

Thanks for the links, UGLY THINGS looks good, and especially interesting to note how the hairstyles have come full circle.
posted by bokeh at 6:44 AM on August 9, 2006

..and mecran01 sums it up perfectly.
posted by bokeh at 6:46 AM on August 9, 2006

Thanks for the links, UGLY THINGS looks good, and especially interesting to note how the hairstyles have come full circle.

except the band in UT wasn't being 'ironic.'
And for what it's worth, I like Mario Lanza, too. And Lester entertained me even when he was dissing stuff I liked. Can't say the same of Pitchfork. Put simply, Lester, Dave, & Chuck (and the Wax Poetics and Ugly Things crew) simply don't give a fuck what anyone thinks. Pitchfork gives a fuck about nothing else, to my eyes.
posted by jonmc at 6:54 AM on August 9, 2006

Lester, Dave, & Chuck (and the Wax Poetics and Ugly Things crew) simply don't give a fuck what anyone thinks

What, not even their mums?
posted by bokeh at 7:00 AM on August 9, 2006

Heh. What I mean is they've rejected the idea of 'cred,' and 'cool,' which makes them the coolest of their breed.

As for social identity theory, I don't know if it applies as much to the American music scene, which is far less cultish than the UK.
posted by jonmc at 7:02 AM on August 9, 2006

by 'cultish,' I mean that in the UK, there seems (to my eyes at least) far more indentication bundled up in specific fandom: 'I'm a mod,' 'I'm a goth,' 'I'm a headbanger,' whereas serious music fans in the US tend to take heavy duty pride in their omnivorousness. Odd cultural difference.
posted by jonmc at 7:06 AM on August 9, 2006

I'm so uncool, I must be the coolest person in the world.

As for social identity theory, I don't know if it applies as much to the American music scene...

As far as I can see, it applies to just about everything that humans do.
posted by bokeh at 7:16 AM on August 9, 2006

My favorite record review ever

Shit Sandwich.
posted by Fuzzy Monster at 7:23 AM on August 9, 2006

serious music fans in the US tend to take heavy duty pride in their omnivorousness

I'm not sure what a "serious" music fan is. I guess one definition would be, in the same way as a serious guitarist might have a lot of different guitars, someone who is a serious music fan listens to a lot of different music, so omnivorousness goes with the territory.

And yes we do have fandoms in the UK, but not all of us Limeys fit neatly into them - you have been misinformed. On the other hand...being omnivorous puts you into an ingroup, I'm afraid - it's a fandom in itself. There no escaping...there's no "top level" sneerer...
posted by bokeh at 7:30 AM on August 9, 2006

ok, then, lead to where my ingroup meets. will there be appetizers, cocktails and cute girls?
posted by jonmc at 7:31 AM on August 9, 2006

Yes, jonmc, there will be all those things. But, on the other side of the room, there will be your outgroup. And they will be throwing peanuts at you, and laughing at your shoes.
posted by bokeh at 7:33 AM on August 9, 2006

my ingroup is tougher than my outgroup. we'll simply kick their asses.
posted by jonmc at 7:34 AM on August 9, 2006

I think that was covered here:

Hymans, J.E.C. (2002). Applying Social Identity Theory to the Study of International Politics: A Plea for Caution. IR and SIT paper for PPBW, January 3. Available at: http://www.cbrss.harvard.edu/events/ppbw/papers/hymans.pdf
posted by bokeh at 7:41 AM on August 9, 2006

...this is our cue to start discussing the Middle East...
posted by bokeh at 7:45 AM on August 9, 2006

Main Entry: em·pir·i·cism
Pronunciation: im-'pir-&-"si-z&m, em-
Function: noun
1 a : a former school of medical practice founded on experience without the aid of science or theory b : QUACKERY, CHARLATANRY
2 a : the practice of relying on observation and experiment especially in the natural sciences b : a tenet arrived at empirically
3 : a theory that all knowledge originates in experience
- em·pir·i·cist /-sist/ noun

As far as I can tell, the guy essentially pulls a number out of his ass. Furthermore, the term "empirical" implies a scientific rigor that is obviously not present here. A real attempt to quantify the biases of music review sites would be cool; this is just snark. Fun snark, though somewhat bitter, but still snark.
posted by chrominance at 8:25 AM on August 9, 2006

(though if you mean "empiricism" as a synonym of "quackery," though it's not the common definition, then you win.)
posted by chrominance at 8:26 AM on August 9, 2006

Furthermore, the term "empirical" implies a scientific rigor that is obviously not present here.

I agree, and I don't want to go all semantics on yo' ass, but if I must, I would refer to the adjective form.
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 8:47 AM on August 9, 2006

Pitchfork is terrific for finding out when somebody of a certain musical status has recently died.

Or if a recently deceased person has, at any given time, indie music cred.

When Brian Wilson dies, there will be four days worth of reading on Pitchfork.

However, when Anthony Braxton goes, there will be a review of the Yeah yeah yeahs.
posted by gcbv at 9:04 AM on August 9, 2006

I expect it would be harder to be snarky and useful in music criticism than in literary, dramatic, or film criticism. In those areas, though, it's quite possible -- though more often honored in the breach than in practice.
posted by lodurr at 9:04 AM on August 9, 2006

Ok, regarding the ol' adjective form, pulling numbers out of my ass now counts as legitimate data for an empirical study? Seriously? Because if it does a whole host of PhD's just got a lot easier.

"Well, sir I've conducted an empirical analysis, and you will find that the data all support my initial hypothesis to an amazingly high degree. No sir I didn't just pull those numbers out of my ass. I conducted an emprical study, really."

Guessing does imply "based on observation or experience." (The first definition in your M-W link, goodnews.) It might be based on observation, but it might be based on whimsy and half-assery, too. Now if the guy had some sort of methodology, or a systematic way of generating predictions, that might qualify as an empirical study. But just give it up already he is not conducting a study. As chrominance said, he's just snarking.
posted by oddman at 11:20 AM on August 9, 2006

Guessing does imply "based on observation or experience." (The first definition in your M-W link, goodnews.)

That's what I meant, yeah.

It might be based on observation, but it might be based on whimsy and half-assery, too.

Agreed.
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 12:05 PM on August 9, 2006

Lester entertained me even when he was dissing stuff I liked.

Exactly, and that's the real test of a reviewer. Come back, Lester! We miss you!
posted by languagehat at 2:01 PM on August 9, 2006

Crap I actually meant to write "guessing does not imply . . .", hah.

In any case, we may have reached a consensus (and oddity in MeFi land). The guy could be conducting an empirical study, but there is no evidence that he's actually doing so. In fact it looks like he's just snarking.
posted by oddman at 7:36 PM on August 9, 2006

Ugh. I know this thread is getting a bit old, but the patronizing remarks about the nature of empiricism all seem to be missing the point. adipocere and delmoi: agreed, a reviewer should rate good music well and bad music poorly (as determined by the taste of her audience), but one would think that the reviewer would at least listen to the music in the process.

The guy is speculating about the ratings without listening to the albums, implying that Pitchfork's ratings are not based on the artistic merits of the albums but on the the indie "cred" of the artist in question.

The criticism is not that Pitchfork is consistent in how it evaluates music, and you don't have to have a Metafilter account to realize that this would be a foolish premise for a blog. The criticism is that they're evaluating music based on something that has nothing to do with an objective appraisal of the quality of the music itself, and, furthermore, that the motives of Pitchfork's authors are transparent. If the predictions prove to be accurate, the accusations of Pitchfork's critics will thus be confirmed, although it's not entirely clear to me based on a cursory reading of the blog whether the author has as much hate for Pitchfork as some of us.

In my opinion, this is a pretty damning indictment of an elitist rag, as well as the increasingly tiresome subculture that allowed it to become its mouthpiece.
posted by alphanerd at 9:50 PM on August 9, 2006

Well said, alphanerd.
posted by lodurr at 6:58 AM on August 10, 2006

This is a pretty dead thread, but I wanted to pop in and say that Chuck Klosterman is barely one-tenth of the writer Lester Bangs was, and frankly, one of the most irritating, narcissistic, unfunny people I've ever read.

And

The criticism is not that Pitchfork is consistent in how it evaluates music, and you don't have to have a Metafilter account to realize that this would be a foolish premise for a blog. The criticism is that they're evaluating music based on something that has nothing to do with an objective appraisal of the quality of the music itself, and, furthermore, that the motives of Pitchfork's authors are transparent. If the predictions prove to be accurate, the accusations of Pitchfork's critics will thus be confirmed, although it's not entirely clear to me based on a cursory reading of the blog whether the author has as much hate for Pitchfork as some of us.

It doesn't prove anything beyond the fact that you can predict what records Pitchfork will like and which they won't. Just because Pitchfork's reviews are guessable doesn't mean they're not reviewing the albums. And frankly, you can do this with about any music critic--Bangs and the dreaded Klosterman, too. Predictability in inherent in criticism precisely because it's not random; most people (and most critics) like certain kinds/types of music, and will therefore be more likely to give those kinds of music better reviews. Dave Marsh is a great example: he likes classic rock bands. Of course there are some bands you'd expect him to like that he doesn't, and vice versa, but like any normal person, you can probably predict his taste to 60% or so.
posted by maxreax at 9:34 AM on August 13, 2006

It doesn't prove anything ...

Precisely. Which, I assume, is why alphanerd said: "If the predictions prove to be accurate, the accusations of Pitchfork's critics will thus be confirmed..."

At any rate, the assertion is that Pitchfork will rate the album based on factors other than the music. If that were not the case -- if they were occasionaly referring to the music -- then one would expect a weak correlation between the prediction and the reality.

The case is not that Pitchfork is predictable. The case is that they do not base their ranking on qualities of the actual music. The methodology seems to me to be sufficient for casual purposes.
posted by lodurr at 6:23 PM on August 13, 2006