It’s funny. Pitchfork‘s reputation, at least among my friends, is that it is pretentious and negative. Personally, I either don’t see that or I’m attracted to those qualities. Probably a dose of both. Either way, I’m struck by the following stats that Pitchformula put together back in 2004. I suspect not much has changed:
score 0 to 49 – a negative review (873 articles fall in this category)
score 50 to 74 – a neutral review (2362 articles)
score 75 to 100 – a positive review (2339 articles)
Ok, that means that Pitchfork’s reviewers are giving 5 times as many positive reviews as negative reviews. So why doesn’t perception jive with reality?
The best I can think of is that music, an art, is designed to evoke emotion. When we listen and we allow ourselves to be moved, we participate in the music. It’s personal and seemingly private, like dancing in a dark bar. The problem is, the reserved reviewer who applies restraint, even when delivering praise, makes us uncomfortable. It’s as if they’ve flipped on the lights and are watching us dance. People feel violated when their emotions are intellectualized.
So I guess my point is that people need to lighten up about Pitchfork. They’re not telling you whether or not you should like the album. Rather, they’re taking on the ridiculous task of trying to fit an album into a 100 point scale. Further, the ratings for each album, in theory, have to jive with the thousands of other ratings that have already been handed out over the years. Even if a reviewer really enjoys an album, he has to point out enough flaws to justify why it’s not a 10.0 and has to heap enough praise to justify why it’s not a 0.0. Would you want that job?
as one of jon’s friends who has that feeling about pitchfork, i’ll comment. i don’t think, at least for me, the issue is basic negativity. it’s more a certain selectivity in the reviews. i think the perception is that music that’s popular and mainstream tends to get more negative reviews while pitchfork likes to write rave reviews about a certain genre of hipster-loved bands that pitchfork can lay some claim to having discovered. i’m sure that perception doesn’t totally jive with the truth if someone were to run the stats. i think it’s more the pretension that people have an issue with. there’s a feeling that pitchfork wants you to like what they tell you to like and is not-so-quietly mocking you if you like what they don’t. again, i’m sure reality doesn’t match perception. to be fair, i read pitchfork sporadically at best, so it could be like so many things that a few highly influential or controversial reviews have colored my, and many other’s, opinions unfairly.