« thom yorke flies solo | Main | i f'ing love wayne coyne »

March 20, 2006

don't believe the hype machine

So my site has gotten a large number of hits from Googling "Band of Horses" today.
No doubt due to the 8.8 rating given to Everything All the Time on Pitchfork today.
Here is the review.

The internet hype machine...no one wants to be left behind.
People are frightened of missing the next big thing. Such a sad state indie
rock is entering where one website with sketchy reviews is the number one
barometer of cool.

I'm not knocking the record. I think it's pretty decent. I'm just a little surprised.

misc | By davidm | 10:42 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://chattablogs.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/30610

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference don't believe the hype machine:

Comments

So you don't have the album available for download? I'm leaving.

Posted by: Matthew at March 20, 2006 11:50 PM

pitchfork always feels like that one dude who is just now getting into My Bloody Valentine, but claims to know something about music.

heh heh I'm such a snob

Posted by: James at March 21, 2006 12:04 AM

here's the torrent for band of horses.

Posted by: davidm at March 21, 2006 12:47 AM

it's scary how i let my purchases be determined by a pitchfork review. i've acquired so many damn 9.0 reviewed albums that i couldn't listen to more than twice. however, they're very much right sometimes.

Posted by: safeguy at March 21, 2006 10:23 AM

yeah, or you can get it here too.

Posted by: safeguy at March 21, 2006 10:35 AM

I've had the same problem. I use Metacritic now to look at
scores. For more insightful reviews I look to Coke Machine Glow.

Pitchfork reviews (to the best of my knowledge) are submitted
by writers all over the country. While it's based in Chicago,
and they do have an office, there is little in terms of a
centralized editorial staff. The ratings are based on the
reviewer's opinion without accountability to an editor, or any
sort of predetermined criteria.

Basically, a 9.0 given by one writer should not be taken as
an official Pitchfork rating.

Sometimes they are right on, but a lot of times, people get
burned because they trust the site too much. I often wonder
how many people can make it through an unbearably
lengthy Pitchfork review and just look at the score.

Posted by: davidm at March 21, 2006 10:36 AM

Yeah, I in no way blame the reviewers for the problem. While there are some critics throughout the years for music, film, tv, etc that I tend to agree with more often than others, the fact is, it's always going to be subjective.

I rely on Pitchfork to fill in the blanks that word of mouth just doesn't fill. For instance, I bought Picaresque based solely on a Pitchfork review and it was definitely my 2005 top pick. That being said, I didn't really know what I was in for, whereas if you were to recommend something to me (JayMay, Mates of State, Justin Timberlake) I have about a 95% assurance that I'll like it, 'cause well we're friends and our listening habits tend to be similar.

Oh, and I think Pitchfork was pretty much responsible for breaking Clap Your Hands Say Yeah... and I think that's a good thing.

Posted by: safeguy at March 21, 2006 11:58 AM

Guys, I followed your links but still don't see where they're offering the album for free. I'm leaving again.

Before I go, I agree that Pitchfork has its uses and sometimes is spot on (and their news section is always a delight), what bothers me is the huge amount of clout they now carry. You can't even listen to a music review on NPR(!) anymore without NPR citing the Pitchfork review. I don't think Pitchfork is responsible enough to wield that kind of critical power, especially when their critical faculties are suspicious to begin with. Anyway, in twenty years Pitchfork will become our generation's equivalant of Rolling Stone magazine and will give our children's equivilant of Pinkerton "worst record of the year." Unfortunately I'll be too old to get any satisfaction out of it. I'll be too busy trying to get my sons to turn the album off and listen to DC Talk instead.

Posted by: Matthew at March 21, 2006 12:59 PM

"I don't think Pitchfork is responsible enough to wield that kind of critical power, especially when their critical faculties are suspicious to begin with."

You're certainly right, but who is responsible enough? The mere idea of one source becoming so popular to be the end all be all is scary, no matter how right or wrong they are on their opinions. Whether it be MTV, Rolling Stone, or your favorite local writer; it seems that credibility is always an issue the second that source becomes the source.

But that's cool, 'cause soon everyone will quit reading reviews at pitchfork and tune into DavidM at the Pulse!

Posted by: safeguy at March 21, 2006 04:35 PM

Hey now. It's not going to be me. I'm not a music critic. I just write about the records I like.

No one should carry that responsibility. For the moment, Pitchfork does. They should step up and be more responsible with their writing.

Meanwhile, readers should venture outside of their comfort zones from time to time and actually find out what other people say as well. (Who started this thread anyway? Bastard.) Pitchfork becomes a panacea only if you let it.

Finally, Pitchfork jumped on the CYHSY bandwagon after NYC bloggers. It wasn't like the organization discovered that band, but it was instrumental in breaking it.

All that to say, my original point was that people are too obsessed with finding the next big thing. To quote Thom Yorke, "it's just fucking noise."

Posted by: davidm at March 21, 2006 05:14 PM

Posted by: silvergiraffe at March 23, 2006 08:46 AM

Post a Comment About "don't believe the hype machine"










Remember personal info?






Email "don't believe the hype machine" to a friend!

Email this entry to:


Your email address:


Message (optional):