what pitchfork says is not historically relevant. to the contrary, we can expect pitchfork to fall apart in a three part process:
1) generational change. yeah, well, i've been clear that i think connecting music to generational change is bollocks, but that won't stop it from happening. well, actually, maybe the internet might put an end to that silliness. in five or ten years, pitchfork will be the uncoolest thing in the world. IT'S WHERE YOUR PARENTS GO TO GET MUSIC REVIEWS. so, some other site will replace it? no. radio was killed by mtv was killed by internet. it's the shift in technology that makes the difference. how did we end up with an internet music monopoly in the first place? what does pitchfork really provide besides lame opinions? in the end, this idea of a music review monopoly is just totally pre internet economy. we have the monopoly because consumers that were switching over didn't know any better. they've lived with music monopolies their whole lives. but in the end, once kids that have only known decentralization take over the interwebs, we're going to end up with a plurality of specialized sites rather than a centralized one. a big punk site. a big metal site. a big hip-hop site. it will be good for each genre, especially if we can get a substantial community-run experimental site up and running. pitchfork may become the pop site. they can keep being ignorant and close-minded from that perch, but their influence will be restricted entirely to the close-minded and ignorant mainstream. i think we might be closer to the last part than we realize.
2) mocking. when it happens, pitchfork is going to be the laughing stock of everybody under 30. then 50.
3) irrelevancy. in the end, nobody's even going to care that they slammed whatever record that is otherwise universally hailed as brilliant, or that they spent so much time promoting so much forgettable pop garbage. they'll become a sort of curiosity about the 00s that mostly elicits a sort of mocking laugh, like bell bottoms. or afros. or mtv.
wait until they start changing reviews. that's when you'll know the end of their idiocy is near.
in the end, allmusic will outlast pitchfork.
the thing that bugs me about them the most is their over-use of the idea "pretension". i'm a pretty ridiculous punk at my core. i'm all about ripping down pretension. basically, though, the writers there seem to think that anything that tries at all is "pretentious", which is itself actually pretentious. they're pretending they can tell the difference, when in truth they don't have the slightest clue. it's acted as a disincentive towards creativity, because everybody knows that trying anything different at all is going to lead to a bad review. from a marketing perspective, it's better to play it safe and just continue producing boring pop music.
well, unless you've made it to their approved list, which is entirely arbitrary. their xenakis reviews indicate they don't have the slightest clue what they're listening to, but on name recognition xenakis is approved as always 'not pretentious'. as a mathematician that's actually read some of his books? i think iannis' ideas are a little unclear at points, enough to label him...completely and utterly and totally fucking pretentious. we can forgive the staff for not knowing xenakis (i just wonder why they bothered reviewing xenakis in the first place). the animal collective are a more egregiously obvious example. this is the absolute height of pretentious garbage. knob twiddling high school flunkies pretending to be art rock icons. it's disgusting - makes me want to vomit every time i hear it. but they love it. and them loving it is fucking pretension...
so, let's make a few things clear.
pretentious:
- jimmy page playing pentatonic scales on a sitar.
- members of elp trying to write pop operas
- the clash insulting peter gabriel for being too upper class
- oasis placing themselves in the same sentence as the beatles
- djs thinking they're musicians
- in general, pretending you know more than you do and failing when you try to do it
not necessarily pretentious:
- working with a producer to hire musicians to write and record parts for you (usually on instruments nobody in the band plays).
- cryptic, difficult lyrics that combine together to a coherent point
- solos (guitar, synth, whatever) longer than four bars that don't merely form a melody
- non-standard instrumentation
- ambience
- in general, using knowledge you've assimilated to create something creative and/or different (which often confuses people)
in the end, this will all work itself out.
