2 0 1 0 a year in reviews
January 31, 2011 8:19 PM Subscribe
2 0 1 0 a year in reviews - This visualization renders a browsable, searchable distribution of all 2010 Pitchfork music reviews
I love Pitchfork. But trying to rate any kind of art to two significant figures is an exercise in futility. Is Morrissey really 0.2 away from perfection? Is Ghostland Observatory: Codename Rondo precisely 1.5 better than a warcrime? (OK, don't answer that one.)
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 8:35 PM on January 31, 2011
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 8:35 PM on January 31, 2011
I was always a fan of this review.
posted by Threeway Handshake at 8:40 PM on January 31, 2011 [2 favorites]
posted by Threeway Handshake at 8:40 PM on January 31, 2011 [2 favorites]
Is Morrissey really 0.2 away from perfection?
The distribution was the interesting part, to me. You're right that this scoring makes little sense, but while Morrissey is ranked 0.2 away from perfection, he's still well away from the mean and the bulk of mediocrity around it. The distribution gives a sense of where that tipping point is for the reviewers.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 8:47 PM on January 31, 2011
The distribution was the interesting part, to me. You're right that this scoring makes little sense, but while Morrissey is ranked 0.2 away from perfection, he's still well away from the mean and the bulk of mediocrity around it. The distribution gives a sense of where that tipping point is for the reviewers.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 8:47 PM on January 31, 2011
Actually, I think their scoring has become increasingly erratic as of late. They're handing out a whole lot more scores above 9.5.
Normally, I try to ignore the numeric scores, although I've come across a few reviews where I seriously wonder if they even listened to the album.
So....yeah. Pitchfork can be good for discovering new stuff, although even that's becoming less reliable. Whereas I used to disagree with their low scores, I've started to disagree with a lot of the high ones too.
posted by schmod at 9:03 PM on January 31, 2011
Normally, I try to ignore the numeric scores, although I've come across a few reviews where I seriously wonder if they even listened to the album.
So....yeah. Pitchfork can be good for discovering new stuff, although even that's becoming less reliable. Whereas I used to disagree with their low scores, I've started to disagree with a lot of the high ones too.
posted by schmod at 9:03 PM on January 31, 2011
Is Morrissey really 0.2 away from perfection?
Maybe in 1986 but not in 2010 and definitely not without Marr.
posted by juiceCake at 9:03 PM on January 31, 2011
Maybe in 1986 but not in 2010 and definitely not without Marr.
posted by juiceCake at 9:03 PM on January 31, 2011
ah, juiceCake, Johnny Marr made the Smiths.
posted by lakersfan1222 at 9:42 PM on January 31, 2011
posted by lakersfan1222 at 9:42 PM on January 31, 2011
Not to get all "Would this be something I'd have to have a TV to understand," but I was pleasantly surprised to scroll over this and actually find bands I'd heard of and appreciate. Opeth, Swans, Neurosis, Pale Sketcher, Earth...I don't much agree with the ratings or reviews, but at least they've given these guys the bandwidth.
Also, the 'open in a new tab' functionality is a nice touch.
posted by Existential Dread at 9:46 PM on January 31, 2011
Also, the 'open in a new tab' functionality is a nice touch.
posted by Existential Dread at 9:46 PM on January 31, 2011
schmod: “Pitchfork can be good for discovering new stuff, although even that's becoming less reliable.”
Absolutely. Exhibit A: one Javiera Mena, whose first album in 2006 was stunningly good, and whose 2010 follow-up was named "breakthrough of the year" on iTunes Mexico. I'm telling you, she's the freaking indie-rock goddess of the Spanish-speaking world from her home of Chile over to Spain, and yet she hasn't warranted so much as a mention on the P-fork. I'd like to believe that this has nothing to do with the fact that she sings in Spanish, but it's kind of difficult, considering that she seems like the kind of thing Pitchfork would love otherwise. Shit, she's a fuckload better than that Crystal Castles bullshit from earlier this year, stuff that got ultra-high ratings and was utterly forgotten a few weeks later, just like everything new Pitchfork loves.
posted by koeselitz at 10:02 PM on January 31, 2011 [2 favorites]
Absolutely. Exhibit A: one Javiera Mena, whose first album in 2006 was stunningly good, and whose 2010 follow-up was named "breakthrough of the year" on iTunes Mexico. I'm telling you, she's the freaking indie-rock goddess of the Spanish-speaking world from her home of Chile over to Spain, and yet she hasn't warranted so much as a mention on the P-fork. I'd like to believe that this has nothing to do with the fact that she sings in Spanish, but it's kind of difficult, considering that she seems like the kind of thing Pitchfork would love otherwise. Shit, she's a fuckload better than that Crystal Castles bullshit from earlier this year, stuff that got ultra-high ratings and was utterly forgotten a few weeks later, just like everything new Pitchfork loves.
posted by koeselitz at 10:02 PM on January 31, 2011 [2 favorites]
YES
posted by lakersfan1222 at 10:35 PM on January 31, 2011
posted by lakersfan1222 at 10:35 PM on January 31, 2011
Not sure how they forgot about Crystal Castles. They liked their 2008 release, liked their 2010 release and liked that song with Robert Smith. And yeah, it seems like they're mostly english language based.
posted by saul wright at 10:36 PM on January 31, 2011
posted by saul wright at 10:36 PM on January 31, 2011
Waiting for the Kinect drivers so I can scroll the timeline by chin stroking
posted by fallingbadgers at 10:45 PM on January 31, 2011 [15 favorites]
posted by fallingbadgers at 10:45 PM on January 31, 2011 [15 favorites]
ah, juiceCake, Johnny Marr made the Smiths.
Agreed.
posted by juiceCake at 10:49 PM on January 31, 2011
Agreed.
posted by juiceCake at 10:49 PM on January 31, 2011
Actually, I think their scoring has become increasingly erratic as of late. They're handing out a whole lot more scores above 9.5.
Mostly to reissues though, judging from the link.
And at 8.7 or above, nothing seems odd or objectionable to me besides the Dexys Midnight Runners 30th Anniversary thing.
posted by bobo123 at 10:50 PM on January 31, 2011
Mostly to reissues though, judging from the link.
And at 8.7 or above, nothing seems odd or objectionable to me besides the Dexys Midnight Runners 30th Anniversary thing.
posted by bobo123 at 10:50 PM on January 31, 2011
Yeah, the reissues stack the high end of the spectrum quite heavily - why bother reviewing a mediocre reissue, after all?
I've got less seething hatred for Pitchfork than many do. The main thing that has impacted its usefulness for finding new things was when Hulu ceased to exist; it was awesome being able to, you know, punch a button and hear the fucking album. I've found piles of great stuff through Pitchfork, though. I've been digging through the 2010 top fifty and finding a few gems, like Twin Shadow and Zola Jesus, that I definitely wouldn't have heard otherwise. I'm pretty sure that Pitchfork is where I first heard about Animal Collective (just after 'Here Comes the Indian' came out I was listening before they were cool and had newfangled things like 'beats', goddammit), so I have a hard time being completely anti-pitchfork.
I do think their relevance has declined a bit since 2000, even as the quality of their writing and volume of reviews has steadily increased. The reviews that start with discussion of toothpaste experiences have disappeared, but then, so has the novelty of their niche. Around 2000, the internet was starting to come into its own as a place to go around radio, to create a whole world of alternatives to the clearchannel stranglehold, rather than just one more station with an 'alternative' slant. The ecosystem of music has exploded in diversity and quality this last decade, and pitchfork was on the ground as that explosion was beginning. And they covered one aspect of that explosion, which has become a bit less exciting as the shape of the new ecosystem has begun to be known. There's still a lot of unknowns, though, and the amount of creativity in the music scene today is really amazing....
ok, just rambling.
posted by kaibutsu at 12:10 AM on February 1, 2011
I've got less seething hatred for Pitchfork than many do. The main thing that has impacted its usefulness for finding new things was when Hulu ceased to exist; it was awesome being able to, you know, punch a button and hear the fucking album. I've found piles of great stuff through Pitchfork, though. I've been digging through the 2010 top fifty and finding a few gems, like Twin Shadow and Zola Jesus, that I definitely wouldn't have heard otherwise. I'm pretty sure that Pitchfork is where I first heard about Animal Collective (just after 'Here Comes the Indian' came out I was listening before they were cool and had newfangled things like 'beats', goddammit), so I have a hard time being completely anti-pitchfork.
I do think their relevance has declined a bit since 2000, even as the quality of their writing and volume of reviews has steadily increased. The reviews that start with discussion of toothpaste experiences have disappeared, but then, so has the novelty of their niche. Around 2000, the internet was starting to come into its own as a place to go around radio, to create a whole world of alternatives to the clearchannel stranglehold, rather than just one more station with an 'alternative' slant. The ecosystem of music has exploded in diversity and quality this last decade, and pitchfork was on the ground as that explosion was beginning. And they covered one aspect of that explosion, which has become a bit less exciting as the shape of the new ecosystem has begun to be known. There's still a lot of unknowns, though, and the amount of creativity in the music scene today is really amazing....
ok, just rambling.
posted by kaibutsu at 12:10 AM on February 1, 2011
I don't trust them since this review of Bobby Birdman's Born Free Forever. That album is a fucking ten if ever I've heard one.
Unfortunately, the album is practically impossible to find unless you want to order it direct from the label. My local record store has tried to stock it and their repeated emails and telephone calls to the label always go unanswered.
posted by dobbs at 12:11 AM on February 1, 2011
Unfortunately, the album is practically impossible to find unless you want to order it direct from the label. My local record store has tried to stock it and their repeated emails and telephone calls to the label always go unanswered.
posted by dobbs at 12:11 AM on February 1, 2011
bobo123: “And at 8.7 or above, nothing seems odd or objectionable to me besides the Dexys Midnight Runners 30th Anniversary thing.”
That's the only high rating that makes any damned sense.
posted by koeselitz at 7:41 AM on February 1, 2011
That's the only high rating that makes any damned sense.
posted by koeselitz at 7:41 AM on February 1, 2011
Ladies and gentlemen the Perfect Album according to Pitchfork
I've listened to it, a few times.
I have always listened to all sorts of music, including hip hop. And this one is a puzzle to me.
How is this album a perfect 10? Anyone?
Help me understand this. It is making me question Pitchfork's ratings but also my taste. Am I becoming too much of an old fuddy duddy to know what good music is! Am I no longer cool! Was I ever cool? Do I need more auto tune? Do cool people even know what fuddy duddy means?
posted by WickedPissah at 7:49 AM on February 1, 2011
I've listened to it, a few times.
I have always listened to all sorts of music, including hip hop. And this one is a puzzle to me.
How is this album a perfect 10? Anyone?
Help me understand this. It is making me question Pitchfork's ratings but also my taste. Am I becoming too much of an old fuddy duddy to know what good music is! Am I no longer cool! Was I ever cool? Do I need more auto tune? Do cool people even know what fuddy duddy means?
posted by WickedPissah at 7:49 AM on February 1, 2011
Pitchfork has risen in my estimation over the course of the last few years. It's almost like a different site entirely. It's always been a decent avenue for finding the kind of new music that I might like, but I can actually read the reviews now without getting worked up into a teeth-gnashing rage.
The reviews used to make the site almost completely unreadable, though. It's not that they give a lot of albums I like bad reviews (they did, and still do). It's that the writing itself was uniformly smug, arrogant, meandering, incoherent, and poorly-edited. Their site's down right now, but what I have in mind as a good example is their review of Wire's album Send. When their latest album came out recently (Red Barked Tree, which is phenomenal btw), I looked over a few of their older reviews on Pitchfork. Send's review is appalling. The author spends 3/4 of the review pontificating about Wire's place in music while shamelessly punning their song titles in every other sentence. Then there's a throwaway two paragraphs about the music itself near the end, almost as an afterthought. It's as if the author was too busy marveling at his own cleverness and knowledge of music history to actually, y'know, talk about the CD.
posted by kryptondog at 7:52 AM on February 1, 2011
The reviews used to make the site almost completely unreadable, though. It's not that they give a lot of albums I like bad reviews (they did, and still do). It's that the writing itself was uniformly smug, arrogant, meandering, incoherent, and poorly-edited. Their site's down right now, but what I have in mind as a good example is their review of Wire's album Send. When their latest album came out recently (Red Barked Tree, which is phenomenal btw), I looked over a few of their older reviews on Pitchfork. Send's review is appalling. The author spends 3/4 of the review pontificating about Wire's place in music while shamelessly punning their song titles in every other sentence. Then there's a throwaway two paragraphs about the music itself near the end, almost as an afterthought. It's as if the author was too busy marveling at his own cleverness and knowledge of music history to actually, y'know, talk about the CD.
posted by kryptondog at 7:52 AM on February 1, 2011
WickedPissah,
I'm definitely not a music critic and I intentionally try to avoid analyzing music in the Pitchfork let's-label-everything method. But I thought the new Kanye West was damn good, and I'm no huge fan of hip hop. Give it a few more listens.
I also agree with the sentiment that it is the utterly pretentious to assign music a score based on a 100 point scale.
Goodbye Lala, we'll miss you!
posted by gagglezoomer at 8:18 AM on February 1, 2011
I'm definitely not a music critic and I intentionally try to avoid analyzing music in the Pitchfork let's-label-everything method. But I thought the new Kanye West was damn good, and I'm no huge fan of hip hop. Give it a few more listens.
I also agree with the sentiment that it is the utterly pretentious to assign music a score based on a 100 point scale.
Goodbye Lala, we'll miss you!
posted by gagglezoomer at 8:18 AM on February 1, 2011
It's not on Pitchfork, but this is still my favourite online record review of all time (followed shortly by John Darnielle's exhaustive exegesis of Radiohead's Amnesiac, between 9/16/2001 and 02/25/2002 here if you've got some time to kill).
posted by Zozo at 8:35 AM on February 1, 2011
posted by Zozo at 8:35 AM on February 1, 2011
WickedPissah, I'm with you on that. The experience of not feeling the greatness of the new Kanye takes me back to 2007, when I was the only person I knew who thought There Will Be Blood was just whatevs.
posted by Beardman at 9:20 AM on February 1, 2011
posted by Beardman at 9:20 AM on February 1, 2011
Help me understand this. It is making me question Pitchfork's ratings but also my taste.
Oh boy, have we been here before. I'm with you too FWIW.
posted by Hoopo at 10:21 AM on February 1, 2011
Oh boy, have we been here before. I'm with you too FWIW.
posted by Hoopo at 10:21 AM on February 1, 2011
Aha, I should have known this was covered already.
I am not closed minded and I am not saying that Kanye isn't talented or that the album can't be good. It's just that it does not warrant a 10 in my mind. I realize it is all very subjective and it is silly to really get worked up about (I'm not - honest). It just surprised me is all.
posted by WickedPissah at 1:28 PM on February 1, 2011
I am not closed minded and I am not saying that Kanye isn't talented or that the album can't be good. It's just that it does not warrant a 10 in my mind. I realize it is all very subjective and it is silly to really get worked up about (I'm not - honest). It just surprised me is all.
posted by WickedPissah at 1:28 PM on February 1, 2011
(followed shortly by John Darnielle's exhaustive exegesis of Radiohead's Amnesiac, between 9/16/2001 and 02/25/2002 here if you've got some time to kill).
posted by Zozo
Reading through now. This is great. I always wish there were more indepth 'song' reviews.
posted by troubles at 1:47 PM on February 1, 2011
posted by Zozo
Reading through now. This is great. I always wish there were more indepth 'song' reviews.
posted by troubles at 1:47 PM on February 1, 2011
« Older Fish finger | UK Crime Map Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by ORthey at 8:34 PM on January 31, 2011