quote:

Originally posted by L. R. William Spencer:
My biggest issue is that nowhere in the review did the reviewer really knock the album. The language in his review was very lukewarm, which should have resulted in a lukewarm score of between maybe 6.5 and 7.5.

I tend to agree with you here, and feel that the score is somewhat punitive. By that I mean that NP's "supergroup" status and recent past successes set them up for a very high level of expectation, which for this reviewer they apparently did not meet and for which they have been punished with what appears (to me) to be an aggressively low score.

I am in that group who feels that Challengers is not nearly as good as Twin Cinema; nonetheless I believe it certainly warrants a score of at least 7-7.5.

quote:

Originally posted by L. R. William Spencer:
Let me list the albums that have been scored better this year:

Montag - Going Places
Stars - In Our Bedroom After The War
The Magic Numbers - Those The Brokes
T.I. - T.I. vs. T.I.P.
Ryan Adamns - Easy Tiger
Paul McCartney - Memory Almost Full
R. Kelly - Double Up
Dntel - Dumb Luck
Young Buck - Buck The World
Amy Winehouse - Back To Black
Air - Pocket Symphony
Ono - Yes, I'm A Witch
Bloc Party - A Weekend In The City
The Good, The Bad And The Queen - The Good, The Bad And The Queen


Ciara - The Evolution received a 5.9, just .1 lower than Challengers...

And... the biggest slap in the face is the rating of:

Rihanna - Good Girl Gone Bad

It got a 7.4!

I hope you get my point.

This is absolutely the point! Terrifically put, LRWS. Because this list smacks of agenda. Stuff the indie supergroup sellout, but retain snarky indie cred by "appreciating" utter McMusic like Rihanna.
And what the hell is up with their, to me, inexplicable love for MIA. Freaking MIA is "Best New Music!"


Sorry. I'm raving. I'll stop now.

quote:

Originally posted by mark f:
I hope nobody enjoys an album any less because of what a reviewer says, including me. I know that I never do, if the tables are turned.

I'm certainly not proud of that. I had a more tender hide then, as well as entirely too much respect for the 'spork. At the same time, you can't be totally unaffected when somebody goes either way - praising or bitching.

For my part, I've learned to cultivate a state of (somewhat)suspended judgment - cos I'm learning that people say all kinds of crazy things for reasons that aren't what they seem. Of course, really good writing often helps sway me. I used to think Mitchum was a "good writer," but things have changed - I been readin. Just looking back at the Wilco review, I noticed some irrelevant Chicago elitism/nostalgia that must have slipped my eye the first time around. And I'm sure I could bitch about the NP review as well, but honestly I don't really feel the need to read it.

I agree with the not being unaffected part. It's just that I grew up where I pretty much sniffed out my own stuff with very few outside sources (you know, the '60s, '70s and '80s.) If I already like it, and I read somebody else doesn't, I certainly accept my opinion. If you think you want to support somebody because they've always given you your money's worth in the past, but you put it off due to lack of funds combined with some critical snubs, I'll admit that I've been guilty of that in the past. Some of those instances, perhaps 20+ years old, I don't really have a decent opinion of some music because I STILL haven't heard it, and that's what I consider a shame.

quote:

This is absolutely the point! Terrifically put, LRWS. Because this list smacks of agenda. Stuff the indie supergroup sellout, but retain snarky indie cred by "appreciating" utter McMusic like Rihanna.
And what the hell is up with their, to me, inexplicable love for MIA. Freaking MIA is "Best New Music!"

Kala is well-deserving of the praise it's getting.

And, like many of the posters, I feel that Challengers deserves something in the 7-7.5 range. It just isn't "Best New Music" worthy, IMHO.

I think Kala has two-and-a-half good songs, but that makes sense since I also believe that Inland Empire is a wankfest which I've already spent nine hours watching, even though I got it after 90 minutes. I was trying to give it the benefit of a doubt.

Sorry, just blame it on a conglomeration of senior moments and rigidity. I do know some younger folk who are also rigid though.

quote:

Originally posted by ezkcdude:
I've been streaming the album today after doing the "Buy Early Get Now" promotion. I think this one is going to get mixed reviews. It's not as peppy or up tempo as the previous albums, but on the flip side, it's a little more emotional and introspective, and dare I say, a grower. Anyway, as big a fan as I am of TNP, they would have to pretty much record an open mic for me to hate anything they do. Verdict? Get it!

How money was that? Now, seriously, I need to go watch the Inland Empire DVD from Netflix.

I think that what hinders this album is the lack of energy. Too many of the songs are throw-aways that never really do much nor get any where. The growing ballads on Twin Cinema were epic and beautifully arranged, the ballads on this one are tedious and rather stale.

The Danny Bejar songs--while some of the best--don't really fit and sound like out-takes off of Destroyer's Rubies. On their 2005 album, his songs fit in well and were married to the outside songs on that album. These don't really mesh well at all with A.C. Newman's songs. I also feel like Neko Caes's voice is wasted on a lot of songs, especially her leads on the title track--one of the worst songs on here.

This isn't to say that I despise the album but it definitely isn't their best one, by any means.

Re: Rihanna being McMusic -

That may be the truth, but I love Umbrella and think it's probably the best mainstream hit in years.

quote:

Originally posted by kendocubano:
Because this list smacks of agenda. Stuff the indie supergroup sellout, but retain snarky indie cred by "appreciating" utter McMusic like Rihanna.

Good lord, kendo. You're the forum's biggest pitchfork defender too! Smacks of agenda? If anything, it seems quite the opposite. They gave a mediocre review to a band that a large portion of their readers love. What could possibly be the agenda there??? Is it possible that
a) the reviewer just didn't like the album very much?
b) the reviewer had nothing to do with the score given to Rihanna?
c) the reviewer is human, and therefore didn't have an agenda but may have been affected by expectations?

I just don't understand. You guys are always so reasonable most of the time, but whenever Pitchfork gives a score you don't like, they're suddenly a part of this psychological war to slowly take over the world by ever so subtly altering the popularity of relatively obscure "indie" acts. They weren't founded by music lovers; they were founded by psychological masterminds! Don't you think you're giving them a little too much "credit"?

People, trust your own ears. If you like it, then it just doesn't matter what Pitchfork says.

Kendo can speak for himself, but for me the issue is not so much whether Challengers 'really' deserves a 6.0, but a question about what the real criteria for those number ratings are.

I don't have time to wade through the psychological crap when the reviewers are using extraneous qualifications to rate records. It seems as though the reviewers aren't trusting their ears, and that's what bothers me.

Call me paranoid if you wish, but when I read Pitchfork reviews anymore I hardly ever see simple "I like/dislike this, and here's why."

In the Challengers review, Mitchum takes a whopping 2 out of 7 paragraphs as a lead-in rambling about the NPs qua "supergroup." Then the next paragraph is about how Newman is the leader more and more. Which still has pretty much nothing to do with the music.

and the next paragraph:
"...the determination of Challengers to sound mature and not get too crazy is frustrating in the context of the Pornographers catalog."

Cart before the horse. He still hasn't talked about the songs in question yet. He goes on to effectively lament that slower ballads are in the majority instead of the minority as in previous NP records. He could have said that at the outset instead of the second half of the review! and he could have stated waaaaay more succinctly, but then if he used everyday language we would all know he's an idiot. I don't have time for this.

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

Heh, vitunk, if your argument is that Pitchfork reviews suck, are generally painful to read, and are filled with half-assed justifications then I fully agree.

Well kind of. I wouldn't use the word 'suck' unless my choices were limited.

We were talking about ratings, right? The problem with those ratings is that some are better than others . Which makes a 10 a huge status symbol. And when these reviewers have the power to give out these status symbols, it seems reasonable to think that after a while it might go to their heads.

You might argue against my last post by pulling the 'separation of number and word' ploy. I mean, you could say that Mitchum had perfectly good reasons to give Challengers the rating he did, but the text part of the review isn't logically connected to the rating. It was trying too hard, Bejar's songs were tired rejects from Rubies as someone speculated earlier, whatever. Anyway, if he did have good reasons, I didn't see evidence of that in the review. The thing about it dragging because of tempo....maaay-be. And that was his chance to explain himself.

I'm getting long winded again. Long story short, I think the written review is the only clue I have as to how these guys are giving out the scores they do. And if this clue isn't a red herring, they're giving out these 'status symbols' for all the wrong reasons.

ps - the 0.0 they gave today is a perfect example of the kind of crap I'm talking about. Why on earth would you even review such a shitty compilation in the first place(especially with so many big indie names having dropped albums yesterday), if not to "teach the bad guys a lesson?" They're getting bogged down in politics, if you ask me. Trying to make the world a better place, ....or something.

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

I don't know if I'm P4k's biggest supporter, though I do credit them, in large measure, for introducing me to a lot of the music that I love today.

And, in the end, it probably isn't really just about the NP album. I really like it. It's not the same album as Twin Cinemas, or Electric Version or Mass Romantic. Right now, I like it better, although I think Twin Cinemas is probably a better album. I don't think it deserves a 10, but I did think it deserved a freaking review.

I was really irritated by the review, and, in retrospect, it is probable that the reviewer simply didn't like or didn't get the album. I'm sure that it's true that the scores are not really meant to be strictly compared one against another. Is the new Paul McCartney album "better" than the new New Pornographers album? Maybe the Macca score was simply a confluence of a good day, and low expectations, and the New Pornographers the opposite.

I'm less irritated about it now, but still have some problems with it all. VKP, you didn't presume to speak for me, which was nice of you, but you very well could have. Your points were excellent. Review the damn album! That's your job here. Don't go on about whether they are a supergroup, or whether you like Dan Bejar better than A. C. Newman. Just review the album. If you're going to hand out a number like that, give people a reasoned argument why.

The bigger issue, I think, is what happened during the interval when p4k went from plucky little online 'zine, to gold standard arbiter of indie taste and credibility. Because, let's face it, one aspect of being "indie," is to be snarky, irreverent and not buy and believe something just because someone tells you to. Being "indie" is hating the term "indie," and denying that you are "indie." Being "indie" means that you think music isn't as good as it was before everyone found out about it. And hating what everyone else in your peer group loves.

So, Justin Timberlake used to suck. Now he's great! The Figurines used to be great. Now they suck! See how cool I am?

My disillusionment began with their "Best of" list of 2006. Bah.

quote:

Originally posted by kendocubano:
I don't know if I'm P4k's biggest supporter

I meant biggest in terms of size, not fandom

And yeah, that was perfect timing on the pointless 0.0 review that didn't even mention the actual music on the CD. It came just several hours after I argue that it's ridiculous to assume they're reviewing with an agenda. DOH!



I guess you could say the moral of this story is that my posts generally suck, are painful to read, and are filled with half-assed justifications.

I'm glad I was able to spark this debate... although I'm probably just flattering myself.

I don't know about Pitchfork's agenda (or lack thereof) but my gripe about this rating is that it is - in the context of other reviews this year - wrong. Pitchfork may feel as though it is a middle-of-the-road album, but they did not give it a middle-of-the-road score. While a 6.0 should mean average, at Pitchfork, the mean has inched much closer to 7.0 (seriously, look at Metascores... how often is the Pitchfork score one of the highest scores: almost always)

I guess my point is that their score is just plain wrong given their ratings of other albums this year and the language of the review.

I'm not sure I like the word "agenda" so much because it seems to imply that P4K has some kind of definite goal in mind and that they are working towards it. I'm more inclined to call something like a misguided musical moralism. I like what Kendo said about how pitchfork seems to hold itself as the gold standard these days.

They have some rationale, which probably includes a form of balancing earlier overratings, but they seem to be turning into AMG, and I'm one of the ones who likes AMG. AMG likes the new New Pornos better than the 4k, but they, too, still lower their rating a bit. Pitchy has lowered many bands recent releases, but I'm not sure why I even comment about Pitchfork because, of all the people here, with the possible exceptions of crazed and rockthief, I have less of an idea of what they do than others. I never even check the site unless somebody links to it or a group REALLY says they are corrupt. Even so, I think I've probably looked at Pitchfork maybe six times this year. Sorry for again contaminating this thread and doing so at other threads as well.

Finally picked the album up last night; obviously I'm going to keep listening to it, but my initial reaction is actually pretty similar to Pitchfork's - to the point where I'm a little confused by the seemingly knee-jerk reaction to their review.

My perspective (and again, this could change): where did the hooks and the sugary sweet pop go? So much of this album just sounds so... anonymous. Ballads, but without the joyful melodic exuberance of songs like The Bleeding Heart Show. Pitchfork has suggested that this is more of an A.C. Newman solo album than a true New Pornographers record - and I wouldn't object to this designation (The Slow Wonder is absolutely brilliant), except it ultimately sounds like a half-hearted collection of Slow Wonder C-or-D-sides - in other words, it's so far removed from Newman's past output that putting this all on him is quite unfair. None of the hook-filled saccharine sweetness that, for me, always defined the New Pornos.

As a side note - is it at all ironic that the New Pornographers are getting blasted for abandoning the sugary-sweet pop while Rilo Kiley is being blasted for embracing sugary-sweet pop?