Showing posts with label pitchfork. Show all posts
Showing posts with label pitchfork. Show all posts

15 May 2007

Battles, Mirrored, Pitchfork

And after yesterday, they have to go and do something like this.

Battles
Mirrored

[Warp; 2007]
Rating: 9.1

We couldn't agree more. Tyondai "Son of Anthony" Braxton's band is tight; fierce; and sounds like militant smurfs. (We can't say more; and that's because we got work to do.)

14 May 2007

Wilco: Sky Blue Sky, Pitchfork, Stylus, & PopMatters

[Dude looks like a lady: Aerosmith and Robin Williams were the original sellouts.]





We can't believe the new Wilco album must be coming out tomorrow. Is that right? We've been listening to it for a while now (mad props to Oink!) and we think it's O.K. What's wrong with it? It's pleasant. The sun is sunny right now! What's wrong with pleasant? We were driving around with our girlfriend yesterday, after picking her up from the bookstore. In the store, we saw a book about Merzbau, the Kurt Schwitters' exhibition. Well. Naturally we put on in the car Merzbow. It was unpleasant: ahhh, but that's the point, you say. Well, we agree; but sometimes we just want music to sound nice.

Pitchfork loves Merzbow. (Well, they don't exactly, but all Merzbow albums are rated higher than this new Wilco album.) And they hate the new MOR Wilco. Is new Wilco MOR? Who cares. Giving the album less than five-and-a-half on the Pfork scale, they say


An album of unapologetic straightforwardness, Sky Blue Sky nakedly exposes the dad-rock gene Wilco has always carried but courageously attempted to disguise. Never has the band sounded more passive, from the direct and domestic nature of Tweedy's lyrics, to the soft-rock-plus-solos format (already hinted at on Ghost's "At Least That's What You Said" and "Hell Is Chrome") that most of its songs adhere to.



We really like the first two songs there on A Ghost Is Born. WTF? What's wrong with writing straight-ahead rock/pop songs? "Dad-rock" is just another name for "sounds pleasant," and not all music sounds like Merzbow. We're glad that all music doesn't sound like Merzbow. If "Hell is Chrome" is MOR dad-rock, well then goddamnit, we fucking love dad-rock.


PopMatters' review sounds like a direct, considered rebuttal of the 'Fork's review. The little thingy under the byline (or where the byline would be, which must have a technical name, but which technical name eludes me) says, "If you're prone to confusing honest musical maturity with banality, then you'll surely miss out on the treasures of Sky Blue Sky." Which, is exactly what Pitchfork seems to have done (according to PopMatters). PopMatters ultimately gives the album a 9/10. It argues throughout that the tunefulness of the new album conceals a deeper artistic integrity and musical complexity, which sounds like, say, what the Beatles did with their music. Or something. We're only interested in scores, and PopMatters scored the album almost twice as high.


Stylus (we read this trifecta of online music mags, obvs) gives the album a "B-," and compares Wilco's new effort to what the Grateful Dead recorded in the twilight or falling-action phase of their career. I think. The reviewer made some allusion to a place that seems from context to be related to the Dead, and then he mentions them, sure. But I think Mr. Cohen here knows a bit too much about the Dead to trust his taste. We exclude Stylus from our considerations because it's too much of an MOR review. A B-??? WTF. Pick "awesome" or "shitty." Our short attention span can only parse extremes.


Let's turn again to PopMatters. (We're really done with Pfork's divisive qua a fortiori polarizing reviews; nah, just kidding!) At the beginning of the review, the PopM says,

There is already considerable opinion and criticism in print and on the internet regarding Wilco’s sixth studio album. I’m writing this review approximately one month after the band streamed Sky Blue Sky in its entirety via its website (and the subsequent file-sharing leak of massive proportions) and one month before the album’s official release on aluminum poly-whatever.







[The noodles is boiling over, kid. The fix is in!]


This section gave us pause. Three big music online music magazines review the new Wilco album a month before its release--all on the same day?? This sounds like a conspiracy of Oliver Stone-ian proportions. What gives? Did the Big Three get together in a smoky back room somewhere and decide to review simultaneously the new Wilco album, thereby scooping traditional print media, whose natural restrictions already place them at a temporal/scoop disadvantage, which disadvantage only swells when the Allied Powers carve up Berlin a month in advance? We rather see the editors of the three, Stylus, Pitchfork, and PopMatters videoconferencing with their MacBooks, drinking Shasta and smoking parliaments in run-down but expensive apartments in various cities. Well. Really who cares? Much like ESPN pressured John Kruk to pick the Pirates as division champs, which he apparently admitted on radio, we think the three online mags drew straws: short one rips it, middle one stays lukewarm, and long one loves it. Either way, we can't see a better way at least to generate interest in the album than to conspiratorially ally in order to give the new Wilco album an aura of critical ambivalence.




UPDATE: Tiny Mix Tapes sides with PopMatters on the matter. They also reviewed the album today. Weird.

24 April 2007

Pitchfork: Two Things

Two things about Pitchfork's Arctic Monkeys review.

The opening sentence
No longer can Arctic Monkeys be considered underdogs; given the notoriously fickle English music scene, perhaps that means they should be.

need something: a "though," "but," or "however" we think. After the semicolon. And, were the Arctic Monkeys ever considered underdogs? Seeing as how the next sentence, the very next sentence, says,

Last year, the Sheffield quartet's Whatever They Say I Am, That's What I'm Not became the fastest-selling debut album in UK music history, spawning two #1 singles and winning the Mercury Prize.

we think not. Call it "created mythology," "straw man," or "unimaginative 'journalistic' tack." No matter.


We think more strange is this ad:


Coors? Not even Coors Light (with the frost blue can liner)?? If marketeers think Coors is going to usurp PBR for cheap hipster beer of choice, then they've got another thing coming. Fool us once shame on you; fool us twice shame on us.

Coors has no cheap-but-funny slogan (c.f., Champagne of Beers); no Dennis Hopper endorsement (Heineken? Fuck that shit! PABST BLUE RIBBON!!); there are no great debates surrounding it (More taste? Less filling?); etc. And that can. The rich, creamy color of the can just serves to illustrate the watery, urea coloring of the beer it conceals. Coors? Fuck that shit!