Just who in the hell is Ray Suzuki?

May 6, 2024 2:14 AM

From a certain angle, the review feels less like a piece of music criticism and more like a Dada-ist joke on what music criticism even is. Or at the very least like a shitpost that was prophetic in its use of the visual, flippant language people would soon be employing en masse to post about art online. Squint, and it’s a masterpiece … of some kind. But it goes down in the stats sheet as an actual review—and in that sense, it wasn’t really fair to Jet. from The Ballad of Ray Suzuki: The Secret Life of Early Pitchfork and the Most Notorious Review Ever “Written” [The Ringer]
posted by chavenet (12 comments total)

As an ardent chimp piss connoisseur I always assumed the review was a ringing endorsement of the album.
posted by star gentle uterus at 6:45 AM on May 6 [2 favorites]

I'd pretty much given up on music criticism well before Pitchfork even existed, and the high-minded rationalizations ("Progression—whether it was in hip-hop, pop, guitar music, electronic music—was important to us at the time") behind the low-brow gesture is pure college-paper-level crap that you can get away with in your early twenties, if you're lucky, but nothing to be ever proud of. I hadn't heard of the band, but they sound OK.
posted by Halloween Jack at 7:14 AM on May 6 [2 favorites]

As a Melbournian who, like many other Melbournians at the time, were forced to witness the emergence of Jet into 'the scene' in real yet horrifying time, pissing chimps were not even the worst of it.

Although I did used to drink with a bloke who claimed to have auditioned for Jet as a bassist. He generally had good gear* and stood his round^ so we ignored the fact he was a wanker.

*drugs
^had money for beer
posted by prismatic7 at 7:47 AM on May 6 [3 favorites]

I was the dead center audience for this and I remember it seeming pretty stupid at the time, even as I thoroughly enjoyed all of the short-story-as-review nonsense they were doing. I want someone to hold Pitchfork accountable for memory-holing embarrassing reviews, I remember they gave Brushfire Fairlytales a 7 or 8 and then deleted the review a year later. It’s hard for me to get too riled up about any of it- tho I would like to go back in time and say things to myself at 18 about how enjoyment of a good thing should never be perceived as weakness.
posted by q*ben at 8:20 AM on May 6 [2 favorites]

This was a good article, and it didnt matter what I thought of Pitchfork, which was cool. I liked the layers. Speakkng of peelkng layers, it was fun to relive the days when a nice surprise was to find a paper Onion that someone brought down from WI to Chicago, then a couple years later see them on the internets. Thanks OP.
posted by drowsy at 9:23 AM on May 6 [2 favorites]

Just who in the hell is Ray Suzuki?

Joe Isuzu's lesser-known cousin?
posted by RonButNotStupid at 9:25 AM on May 6 [3 favorites]

They were both rivals for Terry Yamaha's affection.
posted by Halloween Jack at 10:40 AM on May 6 [4 favorites]

Just who in the hell is Ray Suzuki?


It'd be better if he was named for Damo Suzuki, vocalist for Can, and the Pitchfork dudes would have known him from the Mooney Suzuki, which was a band in Jet's timeperiod (early 2000s) who took their name from the two Can singers, but sounded more like Jet. Or influencing The Fall, who had a song commemorating him.
posted by The_Vegetables at 11:00 AM on May 6 [3 favorites]

"Progression—whether it was in hip-hop, pop, guitar music, electronic music—was important to us at the time"


And this comment is why I've always disliked musical critics as purveyors of taste. I'm sure when your job is reviewing music, that hearing a dozen bands that sound similar is probably tiring, so you are always looking for change. But that doesn't mean 'changing or progressing' is better, it's just different.

I'm fine with music critics as something to hate read, pass the time, whatever, but taking their opinions about music? No thanks.
posted by The_Vegetables at 11:06 AM on May 6 [3 favorites]

Never a pitchfork reader, but I enjoyed this deep dive into their culture. The last line of the article, quoting a Guardian review of the same album, is kind of perfect, and I admire the author's restraint in leaving it until that moment.
posted by Sparx at 1:57 PM on May 6 [1 favorite]

enjoyment of a good thing should never be perceived as weakness

Ah but the rub is in what gets to be considered 'good'
posted by Dysk at 8:50 PM on May 6 [1 favorite]

I remember they gave Brushfire Fairlytales a 7 or 8 and then deleted the review a year later.

They gave the last Jack Johnson album a 7.7—a move some are calling homophobic—so I’m surprised they didn’t pull the old review out of camphor.
posted by pxe2000 at 2:55 PM on May 7 [1 favorite]