Rock By Numbers: Hyde Park Musician Loren Wilson Tests A Formula For Making The Critics Team

This is the cover story in The Chicago Reader this week. No one but a U of C geek could have come up with this. It's hilarious.
http://www.pitchformula.com

quote:

---

So how do you get an A from a Pitchfork writer? Wilson's data suggest that they're really into "drones" (+4003.46) but not "repetition" (-107.88). "Reverb" beats "silence" by a nose (+1261.12 to +1242.36). Anything distorted, melancholy, or explosive rates high, and "wailing" (+779.08) is much better than "yelling" (-675.20). Of course, you shouldn't be "formulaic" (-1539.16) or "predictable" (-1397.99), and you'll also want to sound less "polished" (-56.84). While you're at it, work on those "lyrics" (-3141.48), and don't trade in your "guitar" (+17833.85) for a "sampler" (+2917.08) just yet. By all means try to "groove" (+3388.23).

---

Woe is any writer whose aesthetics can be objectively quantified in a consistent pattern (I'd like to think the 'X factor,' emotional response, would make my results look like a seismograph in an earthquake, but I'd be afraid to look). But it sure is interesting to look at the pattern of the most often repeated words. It'll end up being useful as a guide in cliche'd adjectives to try and avoid, heh.

I'm starting to think that hating Pitchfork is becoming the latest fad. Subpop did Pitchdork, and then Something Awful did RichDork (which seemed to be reactionary), and now this.

Now, I probably misunderstood a bulk of this experiment (I basically gave it a cursory read), but I don't see how "guitar" showing up in positive reviews makes Pitchfork predictable or formulaic. I also notice that people piss and moan about Pitchfork, and then when they praise, I dunno, The Unicorns, they run out and grab Who Will Cut Our Hair When We're Gone?. I loved how people were suddenly giving Of Montreal a second chance after Pitchfork gave Satanic Panic In the Attic a "Best New Music" title (before removing it due to some supposed confusion). Would Menomena have been as successful as they were if I Am the Fun Blame Monster wasn't given an 8.7 and a spot in the Top 50 of 2004 List? I doubt it.

Likewise, I don't see how Pitchfork is pretentious. When did "uses big words" become "pretentious"? Sometimes, they get really into expressing their thoughts on an album, but that just means their passionate. I don't think that what they talk about is influenced by "indie pretentiousness." If they were pretentious indie hipsters, then why the hell did they run that Top 50 Singles of 2004 feature? What indie hipster is going to write about Justin Timberlake being anything but a pop hack? I'd be more willing to say that Aaron of Almost Cool is your more typical indie hipster (who says he really loves an album and then gives it a 7.5), but I'm most likely wrong. Pitchfork are, essentially, good writers. They might repeat words, but I'm sure every critic does that. I'd like to see a rock site run for half a decade without using words like "guitar," "drone," "feedback," "drums" or "lyrics." Really, I would. I'd like to see him talk about how Interpol has really good words, especially on "NYC" when the musical contraption with six-strings rises with the noisy thing sound and then is guided to its climax by the guy in the back. It's more active than those slow, not-too-active-rock bands. Why not just pick up all of Thomas Pynchon's novels and accuse him of being formulaic because he uses the word "the" a bunch of times? It seems about as logical to me.

Maybe some people aren't willing to read something as much as I am (oh no, more words in sentences with punctuation in them! RUN FOR ZE HILLS!), but I get enough out of Pitchfork to justify the time I spend reading them. It seems that, out there, there are a group of uptight weirdos who hate the site and vie for its destruction, and then buy the albums they praise. Like it or not, they influence what people are listening to, and can bless a band with their attention. I don't see why people knock the site and then suddenly buy albums they praise.

Anyhow, from my perspective, that's my two cents. If I'm wrong about this (which I probably am), then please explain how I'm wrong.

quote:

---

But it sure is interesting to look at the pattern of the most often repeated words. It'll end up being useful as a guide in cliche'd adjectives to try and avoid, heh.

---

To steal from another thread, I'm shocked that "swirling guitars" isn't a high correlation in a Pitchfork review...

I can't hate on Pitchfork. Although some of their reviews(and reviewers) are annoying, for the most part I find Pitchfork a useful and informative site, second in overall music use behind only AllMusic.

I have to concur with Monheim, as well. It certainly seems like writing with your college education on your sleeve is a sin to many out there, which is a damn shame. But that all goes to further a sadder point: that our society encourages higher education but then ridicules those who dare to use it in public. The lack of respect for public intellectuals in this country is pretty sad. Which is NOT to say that I put Pitchfork reviewers in that category...but at least they can string sentences together...

Here's a recent story in our free weekly on Pitchfork that's NOT a hater story:

http://www.riverfronttimes.com/issues/2004-06-30/music.html

Well, I like Pitchfork. A lot. It's without a doubt my favorite music magazine (online or in print), though I do find it undeniably pretentious. They are out to turn the world into music snobs. But so what if they do! I find them inserting less political rhetoric into their articles than, say, the dubious Rolling Stone (a big joke nowadays) or Spin (which has been getting gradually worse for some time now).

VIVA PITCHFORK!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Monheim:
Maybe some people aren't willing to read something as much as I am (oh no, more words in sentences with punctuation in them! RUN FOR ZE HILLS!), but I get enough out of Pitchfork to justify ...

...If I'm wrong about this (which I probably am), then please explain how I'm wrong.

---

You are wrong in that you entirely missed the point. I couldn't resist quoting you, as you obviously didn't read the link. The kid isn't hating on Pitchfork. He only picked it because it was convenient and had a lot of reviews to make for a good data set.

The project is funny in many ways -- how silly our language can look when analyzed, the fact that he's attempting to write music scientifically/statistically calibrated to please critics. The whole thing is ridiculous but fascinating, worthy of good discussion. But it's not really about Pitchfork.

Here, I'll make it easy for you lazy sods

quote:

---

Are you trying to make Pitchfork writers look bad by doing this project? Do you hate music critics?
No. I read Pitchfork from time to time and find it a useful place to learn about new music. I'm also a big fan of Epitonic because you can actually download and listen to samples of music there, and I like Dusted too. I don't hate Pitchfork at all, and I don't think less of them after doing this project (although honestly I wish female pronouns got better wordscores... look at the end of chapter 4 for that). http://www.pitchformula.com/conclusion.html

---

Oh, for the love of Pete! I can't read all that! Can't you draw a cartoon or something?

I think Metafilter pointed to pitchformula.com recently. I thought it sounded interesting, but didn't look much further at the time, so I'm glad you've reminded me of it.

My kneejerk reaction to the site is that it's actually something of a left-handed compliment to Pitchfork. As Fastnbulbous points out, Pitchfork got the nod, as likely as not, for its convenience, which actually speaks highly of its usefulness as a resource.

I do think that Pitchfork receives a lot of unwarranted criticism. Personally, I think their reviews are often needlessly pedantic and self-indulgent. I don't know, though, if anybody has ever looked into the writers' backgrounds, but I think they are often needlessly pedantic and self-indulgent on purpose. Their reviews so often follow the classic "feisty-rock-critic" model that if it's not at least partially tongue in cheek, I would be shocked. More often than not, they remind of a good friend of mine who makes his living as a writer, but indulges in purple prose online as a means of getting the creative juices flowing.

It is worth noting, too, that editorial stance has as much to do with the subjects one selects to cover as the coverage itself. Pitchfork deserves credit for clearly defining its editorial stance in that respect and sticking to it. Jazz review sites, for example, sometimes decide to review pop and rock music and more often than not come up looking very, very foolish (or at least terribly L-7).

Now Playing: "The Things I Love" Rahsaan Roland Kirk Rahsaan: The Complete Mercury Recordings (Mercury)

I haven't contributed to the Pitchfork discussion yet (except the '70s list) because I haven't had anything specific or intelligent to say on why I don't like to read pitchfork.

But reading this, I think this is a big factor in it, and it was very much reflected in their best of the '70s list:

quote:

---

Sadly, female pronouns score very poorly compared to male pronouns:

1. his 22048.40
2. he 2950.50
3. she 315.38
4. her 276.60

There aren't as many women playing music as there are men, and it looks like Pitchfork haven't gone out of their way to cover female artists in a positive light. (The word “her” appears 23.3% as much as “his”, but only has 1.25% of the wordscore, which means that male pronouns are associated with 18 times more rating points than female pronouns.)

---

Not that I think anyone should go out of their way to positively review ANYTHING, but I have definitely noticed before among certain groups of indie hipster types the tendency to either overlook female artists or female driven bands or show outright contempt. I never specifically put my finger on it before, but I think perhaps that imbalance has affected me on some level leaving me feeling vaguely uncomfortable.

Add to that the tendency to use references to the relative intelligence levels of the musicians and/or listeners. It smacks of elitism, and I don't like elitism. I am pretty secure in the knowledge of my intelligence level. I'm not a genius but I'm pretty smart. It offends me for someone to tell me that I am stupid because I enjoy a certain album. That's a ridiculous proposition. Nor do I think it's fair to ascribe a certain intelligence level to someone based on how musically skilled or talented they are. Musical inclination is a completely different intelligence than say, mathematical, verbal, visual or other types of intelligence. To presume to know anything about an artist personally based on how well they play the guitar or write lyrics is a bit much.

That said, I don't hate Pitchfork the way some people hate it. I simply don't read it. I don't derive any pleasure in making fun of it, or actively hating it. And the only time I feel any sort of emotion towards the web site is after the few occasions I have gone there and read something that angries up my blood. But that's happened maybe once or twice ever.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fastnbulbous:
You are wrong in that you entirely missed the point. I couldn't resist quoting you, as you obviously didn't read the link.

---

Once again, I gave it a cursory read. Thanks for clarifying, although I'm still a little worried that someone out there is going to read this the way I formerly did.

I'm sorry that came across as a little rude, when I just meant to poke fun. Your misread is understandable, thanks for not biting back!

Add to that the tendency to use references to the relative intelligence levels of the musicians and/or listeners. It smacks of elitism, and I don't like elitism. I am pretty secure in the knowledge of my intelligence level. I'm not a genius but I'm pretty smart. It offends me for someone to tell me that I am stupid because I enjoy a certain album. That's a ridiculous proposition. Nor do I think it's fair to ascribe a certain intelligence level to someone based on how musically skilled or talented they are. QUOTE]

Their are very few reviews that I can think of that insult the artists intelligence level through their review (not even the tool one.... that just insults the listeners). And the tool album is the only one that I can think of where pitchfork's readers are insulted. And that was a joke... I don't think they're stupid enough to insult their fan base. But, I don't know how many tool fans read pitchfork.

The more popular ANYTHING becomes or the more attention that it gets, the more people are prone to hating on it.

There are haters everywhere, and that's a really sad statement. Why focus your hate on anything? I'd rather sing the praises of something I love than to hate on something. It seems like a waste of time, plus it promotes negativity; always a bad thing.

quote:

indie hipster types the tendency to either overlook female artists or female driven bands

Females are typically only extremely virtuoso naggers, and generally only work really hard on babies and baby-related activities and research. So, it's no wonder they don't commonly find the time to make top-notch albums.

Hahaha.

Seriously, when it comes to 'female driven bands' I get turned off. It doesn't really have anything to do with what gender the artist is, it is simply about how female vocals sound in my head. It's weird, I consider a large majority of female vocals either amazingly annoying or disastrously dull (hooray for alliteration!) Of course, there are exceptions.

I'm not sexist, I just have a thing with vocals...

This message has been edited. Last edited by: St. Mike,

I know where you're coming from, Mike. I'm the same way with female vocalist. I think a big part of it is being able to relate to the vocalist, for me. I just don't feel close to them like I do to my favorite singers. There are very, very few female-fronted bands that I like.

How did this conversation evolve to this? Kinda weird.

quote:

Originally posted by goathouse:
Females are typically only extremely virtuoso naggers, and generally only work really hard on babies and baby-related activities and research. So, it's no wonder they don't commonly find the time to make top-notch albums.

So goathouse, tell me - are you making deliberately misogynistic comments, such as this one and the one in the Men and Women and Music thread, simply to bait a woman into declaring herself and calling you out or do you really feel that way?

Because I can do the former.

Please do. We need a breath of fresh air, and I and several others will back you up.

(Not that I have have anything against goathouse or others, but, yeah, gimme some truth.)

Well. A little bit of both, really. When I was a kid and a teenager I was always the least misogynistic guy in the room. But, once I started to get to know women a little better, I realized that they really are bothersome in many ways that they seem almost completely oblivious to. I CAN'T STAND when someone has annoying traits that effect me, which are completely and utterly telegraphed. Women seem to be blissfully secure in their feminist religiosity, and will undermine the efforts of men willy-nilly and without any self-examination. Now I know there are exceptions to this, but the overall effect is pretty obvious if you look at the media. To me, the unwillingness of women to reexamine some of their female traits is akin to people of bad taste staunchly refusing to explore new things. I truely adore women and would not consider myself "anti-female", but many of the things that make women so special, are also used in misguided ways that undermine men's goals, ambitions, and day-to-day life. My comments on this board were made in a rather off-handed way and were supposed to be--at least a little bit--humorous, but I suppose they did carry a trace of venom. This issue just happens to be close to my heart at the moment.

blueskyoas? rebuttal?

Yikes! I am really curious and anxious to see what blueskyoas has to say.