Is anybody else inevitably infuriated by her reviews? I'm a writer myself, and I attribute a lot of my distaste for her criticism to her stupidly (and bafflingly) frequent use of modifiers in her alarmingly overwritten prose (yes, that was a joke). I swear to God, she exploits that same tortured parallel structure in everything she writes, and even when the structure isn't there I feel like I'm wading through a swamp and sucking in fumes as I try to make sense of her descriptions: "A nubile, dark-haired woman prances coquettishly." Vomit. That's lifted from her write-up of Dylan's Live in '64, which apparently is no longer on the site (perhaps for good reason), but I don't believe I'll ever be able to forget that horrifying sentence. I know most critics have to hit their length requirements one way or another despite not having much to say, but Petrusich is one of the worst offenders: her prose is possibly the most turgid and pretentious in all of music criticism, and it's a pretty big field. (And another thing: the woman needs to be completely literal at all times, because if I read another word about a band's "organ burps" or "drum hits" or vocal "caws," I will lose my fucking mind.)

Anyway, I know these private concerns are unlikely to be echoed by many posters on this board, so I should probably make this a little more timely: she is at her very worst writing about the artist for whom she seems to care the most, Bob Dylan. (Mandy's reduction of Bobby to the "boy who never loved us back" makes the sentiment uncomfortably literal, I would say.)

Her recent review of Modern Times is riddled with all the pet peeves I've already groused about, but as an added bonus we get to watch her embarrassingly miss the point (and *that's* how you use a fucking modifier). Example: Petrusich alludes twice to Dylan's mid '60s electrification, claiming (erroneously) that Pete Seeger "jerked the plug at Newport" and that Modern Times will "continue to infuriate those who cheered" when this piece of confused apocrypha, um, happened. I have to ask: was this really the most compelling context Petrusich could imagine for this album a full four decades after the drama played out? Who are these people who still feel betrayed by such a reactionary album as Moderm Times? And why does Petrusich not understand that Dylan showing his bones is the whole damn point? That his music has always had this reactionary slant in one way or another? I'm consistently surprised that it just hasn't been sufficient to some critics for this 65-year-old man to show "familiar influences" while neglecting to channel another Blonde on Blonde style mindfuck through the ether. But that's just me. I suppose another perfectly rational person could have the same evidence and hear Dylan's "least surprising release in decades."

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Bryan_K,

quote:

Originally posted by Bryan_K:
her stupidly (and bafflingly) frequent use of modifiers in her alarmingly overwritten prose (yes, that was a joke).

Heh, that made me laugh.

And agreed, although I rarely feel outraged nowadays. I usually just feel embarrassed for her and her colleagues.

quote:

Originally posted by m.leland:
I usually just feel embarrassed for her and her colleagues.

I can't remember Petrusich's reviews, but you're right that music reviews are often poorly written and incomprehensible. I think Pitchfork has good taste and (generally) bad writing.

Man, you guys are brutal. I feel sorry for that poor girl.

quote:

Originally posted by RavingLunatic:
Man, you guys are brutal. I feel sorry for that poor girl.

Yeah, I was being a bit too harsh. I've got nothing against Ms. Petrusich; I can't even recall her reviews (only because I rarely keep track of who authored what review). But I still think that much music criticism and music reviews would be improved through the use of clear, straightforward writing.

To be more positive, I think that The Guardian and All Music Guide's reviews are generally very clear and well-written.

I don't really even read reviews anymore. Most of the time they're just too long and I don't feel like wasting my time. I go to Pitchfork every day, but I can't remember the last time I read a review. Usually, if an album has a good score, I'll skim the first couple paragraphs in hope of finding either a genre or comparison to another band. If I don't find those, I move on.

Pitchfork is often verbose and incomprehensible. I agree that their taste is usually good but the writing can be...I think the perfect term is "wank"

Not specifically regarding Petrusich (don't apologize for your rant, Bryan: shitty writing is shitty writing!), but you mention her factual errors, and that's a huge pet peeve of mine. It's been corrected, but in the original write up of the #1 song of the 60's ("God Only Knows"), I'm 99% positive reference was made to BRIAN Wilson's singing on the track. Beach Boys fans would know that it was Carl singing on the track. I can't find any reference to a correction being made, but I'm positive that it was posted incorrectly and then quietly changed. If I'm wrong, then it's not an issue, but if I'm right, that's crappy writing. Get your facts right before you post that. If my facts (or memory) on that post are wrong, I'm excused. I'm not a paid music critic. I'm just a dude posting on a discussion board.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: philosopherEric,

I thought the Brian Wilson slipup was funny as well. Here are the two versions

Version 1
I'm sure you've read these: "the world's greatest song," "Brian Wilson's masterpiece," "the most beautiful piece of music ever recorded." Yes, the initiation into the Museum of Western Popular Music is always rough, as credible historians rush to summarize our collective experiences in short phrases. But for better or worse, "God Only Knows" is the kind of song that's almost impossible for me to talk about divorced from the way it makes me feel: sad, in love, honestly grateful, but also a little hopeless. Even in mono, it's like being swept up by a wave of compassion but still getting bruised.

The first words Wilson sings, "I may not always love you," are already uncertain, so if you need a tie into the legacy of 1960s youth culture, glance no further than the naïve but strained optimism locked inside this song. Yet, Wilson made this uncertainty sound gorgeous. The voices that sail behind his might just as well be a quartet of violas and cellos playing counterpoint that'd already been obsessed over a few times before they got it. "God Only Knows" is so ideally conceptualized and realized, critics can't help but support it. Somehow, even that can't turn it into an art exhibit; its humanity resists the attempt. To me, this song is a goodbye to being a kid, and hoping that love actually is the answer. And almost nobody knows if it is. --Dominique Leone

Version 2
The first words Carl Wilson sings, "I may not always love you," are already uncertain, so if you need a tie into the legacy of 1960s youth culture, glance no further than the naïve but strained optimism locked inside this song. Yet, Carl made this uncertainty sound gorgeous. The voices that sail behind his might just as well be a quartet of violas and cellos playing counterpoint that'd already been obsessed over a few times before they got it. "God Only Knows" is so ideally conceptualized and realized, critics can't help but support it. Somehow, even that can't turn it into an art exhibit; its humanity resists the attempt. To me, this song is a goodbye to being a kid, and hoping that love actually is the answer. And almost nobody knows if it is. --Dominique Leone

Yeah, that's bad. I admit, I hadn't noticed that one, but then I'm not a Beach Boys fan. Also, I guess you can only expect so much from a 20-something professing to explain the "legacy of '60s youth culture."

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Bryan_K,

quote:

Originally posted by Bryan_K:
20-something

If that.

I think we've all had our bouts with the writing over at Pitchfork. Personally I have several "most hated" reviewers and a few that I actually like as well. It does seem interesting that you guys would bring up their age. While some of them may be young(er), there have been allusions made in many reviews to some of them being considerably older. For example, in one review Mark Richardson (a personal favorite) made reference to having a wife and child and being born in the 70's sometime. I will say that most of the writing that I feel is outlandish or bad (sometimes both at once) comes from what I would presume to be the younger writers.

I don't want to be a complete jerk or anything, considering that I also write for an online mag and I'm in my mid-20's. I also try not to pretend I'm an astute English major and then embarass myself with awkward prose, inappropriate modifiers, and "grab a dictionary" adjectives. Nobody's perfect though.

I don't expect perfection. I prefer good writing, and we can quibble about the quality of people's prose, but I find it inexcusable to allow someone to write a review of a track who is unaware of the relevant details. I don't know Dominique Leone from a hole in the wall, but I could speculate that her review of "God Only Knows" was based as much on her awareness of the reputation of said song (and the oft-cited genius of Brian Wilson) than on any knowledge of the track itself. If she doesn't even know that Brian's not singing, I have to wonder how well she really knows the song. I'm not a Beach Boys scholar, but that's a pretty commonly known fact. And she could have easily checked her facts: even the Wikipedia, well-known for being filled with bad facts and misinformation, notes that Brian doesn't sing the lead on the track. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_Only_Knows

I'm not trying to single out P4K on this. I'm becoming more and more annoyed by the number of sites who mis-state the facts and/or quote from press releases and one-sheets and call it 'critical writing.' P4K is pretty repuatable, all things considered: there are whole lot of shit-awful sites out there. Most of the time, when a one-timer comes through these Forums to plug their awesome new site, it's pathetically bad. A reminder: recall the rave from a one-time visitor about The Music Box, where plagiarizing from press materials is apparently part of the journalistic process:
http://forums.metacritic.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/376108/m/62310452/p/8

If I don't like Petrusich's writing (I don't), I can at least hope she gets her facts straight. But I don't usually waste my time on essays that sound like they were written for a Freshman Composition grade.

quote:

I think we've all had our bouts with the writing over at Pitchfork. Personally I have several "most hated" reviewers and a few that I actually like as well. It does seem interesting that you guys would bring up their age. While some of them may be young(er), there have been allusions made in many reviews to some of them being considerably older. For example, in one review Mark Richardson (a personal favorite) made reference to having a wife and child and being born in the 70's sometime. I will say that most of the writing that I feel is outlandish or bad (sometimes both at once) comes from what I would presume to be the younger writers.

Mark Richardson is one of my favorites at Pitchfork. Nice, clean, rhythmic prose style, and I'm always impressed by *what* exactly he chooses to discuss in his reviews, so I wouldn't be surprised if he were a bit older. I'm almost positive, though, that I read Dominique Leone--possibly in the 200 Best of the '60s, though I could be wrong--mention being raised by "two boomer parents." Anything's possible, I guess, but that probably puts her in my age group, which is quite embarrassing for me, as you can imagine. That's why I get worked up about what they write--they're scribbling my legacy, to a certain extent.

But you're right, jon, they're not all college freshmen. I think DiCrescenzo was a little older during his salad days, and I still have a good impression of him, for whatever reason. Still, I'd say enough of P4K's writers are young to warrant that reputation.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Bryan_K,

quote:

I'm becoming more and more annoyed by the number of sites who mis-state the facts and/or quote from press releases and one-sheets and call it 'critical writing.'

Interesting that you mention this Eric. This is another of my pet peeves. When I was hired for DOA, I was told that I was to throw away press releases after getting the contact information and that none of our writers were allowed to quote from press releases unless it was absolutely necessary.

I personally think age is a moot point. There are great music writers in their late teens, I'm sure, and terrible ones in their 50's. I don't think you need to have bought the original vinyl of "God Only Knows" in 1966 to be qualified to talk about it. I do think knowing that Carl sings the lead is important, and maybe some of the other details of the background of the track, but all of that is readily available. My point is not to slight young writers, but only to criticize writers who don't do the appropriate research and fact-checking.

And maybe to say the same thing about proofreaders and editors?

quote:

And maybe to say the same thing about proofreaders and editors?

This comment reminds me of a time when I mentioned Kraftwerk in a review for my college newspaper, and the editor changed it to Kraftwork without asking me -_-

quote:

Originally posted by mark f:
And maybe to say the same thing about proofreaders and editors?

Excellent point. And maybe the uber-editor who assigns someone to write a synopsis on a song she's never even heard? Sorry. That was mean.

Not to turn this into a Mark Richardson post, but I agree that he's a great writer. When I find myself defending pitchfork to some of my friends, who find the site too pretentious, his reviews/columns are what I cite as good evidence to the contrary. For those who have a little time to kill, I highly recommend searching for his Resonant Frequency columns. They are some of the most entertaining and thoughtful pieces I've ever read on an online site.