The Pitchfork Review Scale explained

[MindGoneHaywire]

I don't know where this is from, I found it on the Velvet Rope, no idea who wrote it, but it is rather Onion-like. Those of you who love Pitchfork may not want to read on, but I thought it was pretty darned funny.


10.0 - Everything we're reading in real magazines leads us to believe this record is groundbreaking.

9.5-9.9 - Three Pitchfork writers, including Ryan, think this is groundbreaking, and have been reading about it on/in Hipinion/ILM/NME/Uncut/XLR8R/blogs.

9.0-9.4 - Ryan thinks this is groundbreaking, and has been reading about it on/in Hipinion/ILM/NME/Uncut/XLR8R/blogs.

8.5-8.9 - A "senior" writer heard about this on ILM/Hipinion/some blog and is overrating it to mask their ignorance. Or Ryan heard it and wants to "get behind it." Or it's hip-hop, and the hip-hop writer told Ryan it's one of the best hip-hop records of the year.

8.0-8.4 - ScottPL and/or Dleone and/or RobMitchum think this is groundbreaking, and have convinced Ryan of it. But it will not make "best new music" until months later when everyone's forgotten about it and Ryan finally "gets" it, making it part of some cop-out/stayed out late/ate too many Smarties "Best New Music" day (two of these a year).

7.5-7.9 This record is actually amazing, and will be talked about for years by people with taste, but it lacks the passing thematic gimmick/novelty noises Pitchfork writers need to be immediately impressed. It's not that we actually listen to a lot of music, are jaded and need something "radical" to get excited, it's that we're impressed by anything overstated and obvious, that tries hard or has been influenced by music we don't know anything about.

5.0-7.4 Couple good songs, nobody's ever gonna give a **** about this record. Why are we even reviewing it. Oh, because we're just an annotated release date list.

3.0-4.9 Closed-minded slam on an artist trying do something new.

0.0-2.9 Politcally-motivated bull**** writeup out to position Pitchfork in opposition to a record or artist that 1) everyone on Earth knows has Pitchfork written all over it, and/or 2) Pitchfork has drooled over in the past. Ever eager to prove they know any more about music than they did three years ago, the staff pat each other on the back and go, "Yeah man, we're past this." In the archives, find an 8.x or better review for the same band.

[Davey]

I like Pitchfork. Not always, but much of the time. Sure, when they were smaller it read more like one voice, mainly that of Brent and Ryan, but they've still managed to snag some pretty good writers along the way to the big time. And many that aren't so good, but what site or magazine can say otherwise about themself. I've still discovered some of my favorite music of the last few years through the Pitchfork writers.

I've read a lot funnier pieces in the past. To be honest, that didn't seem that funny to me. Guess I must not be in a very funny mood today. Some call reviews like this pretentious or lament the lack of concrete sonic comparisons, but I still love this stuff

John Darnielle's Last Plane to Jakarta devastatingly parodied The Strokes approach to their second album, joking that they would use their money and clout to make a two-album monster with eight-minute jams, tuba solos and a Gregg Allman guest spot. Whether that sounds like a dream or a nightmare, the joke was on us: The Strokes' second album sounded mostly like their first. But The Fiery Furnaces have made the kind of rock behemoth Darnielle described, a record for the overgrown part of our brain that craves engrossing complexity. The exuberant overload of Blueberry Boat will thrill and transport you with the ineluctable force of a great children's story, one whose execution matches its imagination. And like all the best children's stories, it takes off once the kids break the rules-- when they're dragged away from safety but have enough curiosity and faith in themselves to enjoy the adventure. We're just lucky to trail behind and pick up their breadcrumbs.

-Chris Dahlen, July 13th, 2004

[Stone]

-Chris Dahlen, July 13th, 2004

Yeah, that coming from the same guy who gave the Travis Morrison record a 0.0. The 0.0-2.9 comment is right on. What a bunch of bullshit. I've really lost respect for Pitchfork over the years because they do that kind of crap. There are too many other good online zines out there for me to really care about reading reviews by the snobbish, conceded Pitchfork writers, no matter how well written (and most of the reviews aren't, if you ask me).

Having said that, I admit I still check it from time to time to see the numerical ratings they give on some of the new releases.

[nobody]

They're OK I guess. I don't pout much stock in mags, online or print really, when it comes to music reviews. If they really like something that sounds like it may be up my alley, I'll look for sound samples, but would never trust them to buy something.

I agree that their 0 ratings are pretty silly, usually just saomething they wanna rip on for kicks, but generally not as awful as stuff that gets average ratings.

My favorits ratings are the ones when, like CMJ, they tell you what it sounds like. I know musicians hate that, all wanting to be thought of as unique and original, but I think about 90% of bands are best described by what they sound like and it's a more useful measurement than some lame, wanna-be deep and meaningful prose.

Nothing worse than reading a review and having no idea what the thing's gonna sound like when you're done. At least if they give some touch stones, you have some clue.

[Dusty Chalk]

I thought it was funny.

[Davey]

Yeah, that coming from the same guy who gave the Travis Morrison record a 0.0. The 0.0-2.9 comment is right on. What a bunch of bullshit. I've really lost respect for Pitchfork over the years because they do that kind of crap.

Wow, I can't believe you would take the whole ratings thing so seriously! I thought that was a really good review and he went through the whole album to point out why it was so disappointing, after first setting the stage with his professed love of the D-Plan. So, you would've really felt better about the review if he gave it a more realistic score of say 5.0? Hehehe, they had been setting that 0.0 rating up for months with all the scathing news items about the solo album, so I think most people expected it. I know that I did. I thought it was kind of funny. Cruel to be sure, and certainly not really the score a reader would give it from digesting the review, but entertaining nonetheless.

My only point was to say that contrary to the mildly amusing piece J posted, Pitchfork does have some good writers. Moreso than most mags and nearly all internet sites. And they are often way ahead of anyone else with any significant readership when it comes to reporting on some of the albums that have gone on to become among the most significant releases of recent years, including ones like Emergency & I by the Dismemberment Plan and Neon Golden by The Notwist, not to mention the two they've taken a lot of outrage over this year, Blueberry Boat by The Fiery Furnaces and Funeral by Arcade Fire.

[Stone]

Wow, I can't believe you would take the whole ratings thing so seriously! I thought that was a really good review and he went through the whole album to point out why it was so disappointing, after first setting the stage with his professed love of the D-Plan. So, you would've really felt better about the review if he gave it a more realistic score of say 5.0? Hehehe, they had been setting that 0.0 rating up for months with all the scathing news items about the solo album, so I think most people expected it. I know that I did. I thought it was kind of funny. Cruel to be sure, and certainly not really the score a reader would give it from digesting the review, but entertaining nonetheless.

My only point was to say that contrary to the mildly amusing piece J posted, Pitchfork does have some good writers. Moreso than most mags and nearly all internet sites. And they are often way ahead of anyone else with any significant readership when it comes to reporting on some of the albums that have gone on to become among the most significant releases of recent years, including ones like Emergency & I by the Dismemberment Plan and Neon Golden by The Notwist, not to mention the two they've taken a lot of outrage over this year, Blueberry Boat by The Fiery Furnaces and Funeral by Arcade Fire.

I took the 0.0 serious enough that I didn't even read the review. They've done the 0.0 thing in the past, and I thought it was stupid the first time, and think it's just plain indie snobbery. The fact that it was so predictable made it even worse to me. Most reviews I don't even read (partly because of the way most are written, but also because I don't want to take the time to read the reviews), but I look at most for the numerical ranking. The Morrison record I already had before the Pitchfork review, so I knew it was mediocre (but not terrible), but it really makes me dislike the guy and the site that much more.

[Davey]

I took the 0.0 serious enough that I didn't even read the review. They've done the 0.0 thing in the past, and I thought it was stupid the first time, and think it's just plain indie snobbery. The fact that it was so predictable made it even worse to me. Most reviews I don't even read (partly because of the way most are written, but also because I don't want to take the time to read the reviews), but I look at most for the numerical ranking. The Morrison record I already had before the Pitchfork review, so I knew it was mediocre (but not terrible), but it really makes me dislike the guy and the site that much more.

I only remember the Sonic Youth album. Were there more? I obviously just don't see the big deal since the rating means nothing to me without the context. You really only look at the rating without reading what they say? Sorry, but that makes no sense to me.

I am curious which sites you were thinking of when you said, "There are too many other good online zines out there for me to really care about reading reviews by the snobbish, conceded [sic] Pitchfork writers", because you know I probably frequent most of the same ones you do and I don't really think there are that many good ones that review a lot of records. But I'm always looking for new blood (like at obner.org ).

[Stone]

I only remember the Sonic Youth album. Were there more? I obviously just don't see the big deal since the rating means nothing to me without the context. You really only look at the rating without reading what they say? Sorry, but that makes no sense to me.

I am curious which sites you were thinking of when you said, "There are too many other good online zines out there for me to really care about reading reviews by the snobbish, conceded [sic] Pitchfork writers", because you know I probably frequent most of the same ones you do and I don't really think there are that many good ones that review a lot of records. But I'm always looking for new blood (like at obner.org ).

Liz Phair comes to mind, and it seems like there was one more, but I'm not positive. Well, the truth is, the Pitchfork reviews got to be so much about being clever (instead of describing what the album was like and what was good and bad about it, along the lines of what nobody said) that I quit reading the stupid things and just looking at the rankings more out of curiosity than anything. If an album gets a really high rating, then I'll probably look at other reviews at other sites. I probably don't know any more than the ones you already know (Stylus, Splendid, fakejazz, DOA, tiny mix tapes, etc.). These days, I rely mostly on recommendations and opinions from people on web boards, such as this one, and people at the record store for most of my purchases.

Stone

P.S. You got me so pissed off at Pitchfork I stopped proofreading and misspelled "conceited." Thanks!!

[Davey]

Liz Phair comes to mind

Yummmmm, I know what you mean! But she's married, isn't she?

P.S. You got me so pissed off at Pitchfork I stopped proofreading and misspelled "conceited." Thanks!!

Heehee, I bet your partime girlfriend thinks you're pretty cute when you're mad, huh?

[-Jar-]

Yeah, that coming from the same guy who gave the Travis Morrison record a 0.0. The 0.0-2.9 comment is right on. What a bunch of bullshit. I've really lost respect for Pitchfork over the years because they do that kind of crap. There are too many other good online zines out there for me to really care about reading reviews by the snobbish, conceded Pitchfork writers, no matter how well written (and most of the reviews aren't, if you ask me).

Having said that, I admit I still check it from time to time to see the numerical ratings they give on some of the new releases.

Yea, they've pretty much turned on about every Emo band too. Though, admittedly, they've never been into it from the beginning.. but any new release from a band like Jimmy Eat World, Get up Kids, Jets to Brazil, Thursday, Coheed & Cambria, Taking Back Sunday or an ATDI offshoot are sure to score below 3. I think it's in their bylaws or something.

[Slosh]

Say what you will about Bitchpork but they have led me to at least a dozen really good albums that I probably wouldn't have heard of otherwise. When I see a glowing review for a new band I'll check out the band's website and download a song or two to see if they're a good fit for my tastes. I often have problems with their opinions but at least they're reviewing interesting bands (for the most part). I really couldn't care less about the writing per se; mp3s have pretty much made the text meaningless and it's my opinion of the music that counts, but I guess I still have to give them some credit for pointing me in the right direction.

[mad rhetorik]

Funny article, Jay.

I don't have much use for Pitchfork. Between their extremely pretentious reviews, indie-hipster smugness, obsession with novelty, and the fact they don't review a lot of music that I'm very interested in, it's hard to find anything good there. Half the time I'm reading their reviews I'll start saying to myself: "Stop trying to be clever or oh-so-ironic and talk about the damn album already!!"

Occasionally they'll really get an album right, positive or negative (McLusky's Do Dallas, Yankee Hotel Foxtrot, Jet, Kings Of Leon) but then they'll turn around and give an average-to-middling review to something like The Mars Volta album (which I thought was excellent), and boy did they ever slam Tool's Lateralus (I think they gave it < 2, if I'm not mistaken) while praising crap like Blood Brothers, Interpol, and Fiery Furnaces (sorry, Blueberry Boat didn't do it for me at all) to the skies. And of course, metal is an indie no-no; sure, there are token nods to Mastodon, Meshuggah, Dillinger Escape Plan, Converge, and High On Fire (all of which I was pleased with), but there are more bands that deserve attention. How about Opeth? Neurosis? Agalloch? etc. etc. etc.

I still read from Pitchfork every now and then, but they are about as far from a credible source as you can imagine.

[Slosh]

I don't have much use for Pitchfork. Between their extremely pretentious reviews, indie-hipster smugness, obsession with novelty, and the fact they don't review a lot of music that I'm very interested in, it's hard to find anything good there. Half the time I'm reading their reviews I'll start saying to myself: "Stop trying to be clever or oh-so-ironic and talk about the damn album already!!"

That's funny, I was about to say almost the exact same thing about your reviews.

NP: Oxes - s/t

[mad rhetorik]

That's funny, I was about to say almost the exact same thing about your reviews.

Touché. ; P

[tentoze]

I tend to agree with all that. I doubt there is any one source that will be everything for everybody. I've hit many more winners than losers based on Pitchfork recs. Having said that, they're still a bunch of arseholes and losers for trashing Willard Grant Conspiracy's Regard The End, which, if I haven't mentioned it lately, is still the best record of the year........

[Dusty Chalk]

That's funny, I was about to say almost the exact same thing about your reviews.

I put about as much merit in one man's opinion as another's -- in other words, not much.

[Swish]

Yummmmm, I know what you mean! But she's married, isn't she?

Heehee, I bet your partime girlfriend thinks you're pretty cute when you're mad, huh?

you, Lonesome Dave, and Stoney Boy I suppose. Now that would be some catch. I saw her on a local "CN 8" show doing a couple tunes and showing lots of leg and looking really good. The host of the show made sure to point it out as well, like I needed his help.

Your fact checkin' cuz,
Swish