You, you've gone too far this time
Confession: sometimes, when I feel particularly masochistic, or a little too comfortable, settled in my musical tastes, I head over to Pitchfork and look up their review for an album that I particularly love.
I don't know why I do it, really, because I don't always fully understand their reviews, whether they're deeming the album mediocre or aurgasmic. My understanding of music is entirely basic, often instinctive, though I will persist and try to figure out what's so good about an album if people whose opinions I trust insist that it is - an exercise that sometimes results in me finding the light, like when I finally got Radiohead one day, after two years of being inundated with propaganda (and Complete Works hastily burnt on a CD) from my fanboy friends in guitar ensemble.
Anyway. Albums that I have recently placed on the sacrificial altar and belatedly read Pitchfork reviews for: The Temper Trap's Conditions: 4.6. Damien Rice's O: 5.4 (and c'mon, how many of us adored this when it came out and we were, what, fourteen?). Mumford & Sons' Sigh No More: 2.1. Alexi Murdoch's Time Without Consequence: 5.7 (not that I profess to know what any musicians I like think, really, but though I imagine he, among these four, might care least about reviews and ratings, his songs just seem so gentle that I felt most dismayed by this score).
They make valid points in their reviews - points that I agree with. It's just...baffling, though, when you first encounter it, to realize that some of the reasons why you even like an album so much are drawbacks to others. Stephen Deusner, reviewing Mumford & Sons, writes that "Their debut, Sigh No More, is stocked with group harmonies straight from the Fleet Foxes warehouse". Me, I have no idea what group harmonies are, exactly, but I loved the sound of Fleet Foxes, and it crossed my mind that Mumford & Sons sound like them (except more...jangly, perhaps; FF have a more lush sound imho) and I like both a lot. Deusner also reviewed Fleet Foxes' self-titled album and gave it a 9.0, and that little orange "Best New Music" tag.
I just looked up Alexi Murdoch on last.fm (which I also trust, perhaps much more so because it presents opinion gathered from a bigger pool of listeners) and Bon Iver shows up under "similar artists", just as I guessed they might. For Emma, Forever Ago has an 8.1 rating on Pitchfork. Well, yeah, if you held a pitchfork to my throat, I like the latter better. But I can't decide which is better. I like Bon Iver's lyrics better, I suppose. But it's a heckload easier to hear Alexi Murdoch sing, honestly. Bon Iver is all tied up with Chuck for me, because I am a geek like that. Alexi Murdoch is all tied up with Away We Go, though I didn't like the movie all that much.
So, okay, maybe I am not listening to what Pitchfork thinks I should be listening to. No problemo! But they still approve of plenty else of what I love: Seven Swans: 8.1. Greetings From Michigan: The Great Lakes State: 8.5. Illinois: 9.2. All "best new music". Boxer: 8.6. High Violet: 8.7. Ditto on the "best new music".
And then I love how my one-time homeboys Jay Sean and Jason Mraz are not even reviewed on that site (they'd probably combust or something lol). But ah, my mad time-wasting Googling skillz show that the folks over at Pitchfork aren't all too cool for mainstream music! I see reviews of many Beatles albums that have nice 8-and-above scores and at least a couple of perfect 10s and this makes me happy because hey, if you hate on the Beatles that's kinda harsh :C
What is the point of all this rambling? I don't know, really. I just find it really interesting because listening to music is something I enjoy and do all the time, but there's sometimes such a disconnect for the casual listener-ardent fan between what is good and what we like. It must be a really cool job to review albums, but I feel like it comes with such responsibility! If there's a band that you love and their new album critically/theoretically/objectively sucks, can you objectively write that review? What if you fell in love with someone while a particular song played in the background, and you grew to love that band as you grew to love that person, and then things went topsy-turvy and you were single again and hated the band's guts for all the memories they hold, though they continue to make stellar records? What if you went to a music festival and saw your favourite fledgling band live, and they seemed as giddy and thrilled and excited to be there, next to their idols, as you were to be there watching them, and then in their sophomore album they decided to try out a different sound - new producer, new influences, new look - and it failed miserably but they were so damn earnest about it all the way through?
And really, what are the qualifications to be able to review music? Do you need to play five instruments, among them guitar? Have been in a band yourself? Been a groupie? Have a record collection? I feel like it's one of those jobs you could never entirely be prepared for, and maybe that's the beauty of it, really - you listen to the album over and over, discuss it with your colleagues, compare it to the artists' oeuvre, run through a list of influences in your head, type up that review, edit, edit, edit and then put it out there, and people will agree with you, and people will disagree with you, and silly overzealous college kids who really should just get off the computer and read a damn book will ruminate at great length on their livejournals about your review, by which time five more new records will be out and you will be working on your next review, or you might be home after work, rocking out to campy showtunes with glass of wine in hand, or trying to appreciate that Bieber kid, because your eight-year-old thinks the world of him and you think the world of her, and because damn it, life is full of uncertainty and when you finally can (because your parents were convinced Zeppelin was full of satanic messages, or because you think Akon is mad catchy but don't want your girls to think smack that till you get sore is in any way appropriate), you should be allowed to listen to whatever the heck you want.
It is funny that what got me started on this entry (though I've been thinking about this for a while now) was that I finally listened to The Suburbs. My inexpert opinion, which I will nevertheless proudly share.
me: yeah the album is pretty cool it feels like much easier listening to me than their first two
shirin: easier how
me: like it has more conventional tunes and like...singing, not moaning and choruses in the foreground? haha
I like it! It's pretty long and didn't HIT me the way High Violet did, but I will give it a few more close listens; I suspect I will like it better than Forgiveness Rock Record though. Pitchfork writes that the album is "proof that Arcade Fire can still make grand statements without sounding like they're carrying the weight of the world", which is exactly what I felt, except I didn't know how to say it. So, okay, Pitchfork, I will yield to you on this one :)
I don't know why I do it, really, because I don't always fully understand their reviews, whether they're deeming the album mediocre or aurgasmic. My understanding of music is entirely basic, often instinctive, though I will persist and try to figure out what's so good about an album if people whose opinions I trust insist that it is - an exercise that sometimes results in me finding the light, like when I finally got Radiohead one day, after two years of being inundated with propaganda (and Complete Works hastily burnt on a CD) from my fanboy friends in guitar ensemble.
Anyway. Albums that I have recently placed on the sacrificial altar and belatedly read Pitchfork reviews for: The Temper Trap's Conditions: 4.6. Damien Rice's O: 5.4 (and c'mon, how many of us adored this when it came out and we were, what, fourteen?). Mumford & Sons' Sigh No More: 2.1. Alexi Murdoch's Time Without Consequence: 5.7 (not that I profess to know what any musicians I like think, really, but though I imagine he, among these four, might care least about reviews and ratings, his songs just seem so gentle that I felt most dismayed by this score).
They make valid points in their reviews - points that I agree with. It's just...baffling, though, when you first encounter it, to realize that some of the reasons why you even like an album so much are drawbacks to others. Stephen Deusner, reviewing Mumford & Sons, writes that "Their debut, Sigh No More, is stocked with group harmonies straight from the Fleet Foxes warehouse". Me, I have no idea what group harmonies are, exactly, but I loved the sound of Fleet Foxes, and it crossed my mind that Mumford & Sons sound like them (except more...jangly, perhaps; FF have a more lush sound imho) and I like both a lot. Deusner also reviewed Fleet Foxes' self-titled album and gave it a 9.0, and that little orange "Best New Music" tag.
I just looked up Alexi Murdoch on last.fm (which I also trust, perhaps much more so because it presents opinion gathered from a bigger pool of listeners) and Bon Iver shows up under "similar artists", just as I guessed they might. For Emma, Forever Ago has an 8.1 rating on Pitchfork. Well, yeah, if you held a pitchfork to my throat, I like the latter better. But I can't decide which is better. I like Bon Iver's lyrics better, I suppose. But it's a heckload easier to hear Alexi Murdoch sing, honestly. Bon Iver is all tied up with Chuck for me, because I am a geek like that. Alexi Murdoch is all tied up with Away We Go, though I didn't like the movie all that much.
So, okay, maybe I am not listening to what Pitchfork thinks I should be listening to. No problemo! But they still approve of plenty else of what I love: Seven Swans: 8.1. Greetings From Michigan: The Great Lakes State: 8.5. Illinois: 9.2. All "best new music". Boxer: 8.6. High Violet: 8.7. Ditto on the "best new music".
And then I love how my one-time homeboys Jay Sean and Jason Mraz are not even reviewed on that site (they'd probably combust or something lol). But ah, my mad time-wasting Googling skillz show that the folks over at Pitchfork aren't all too cool for mainstream music! I see reviews of many Beatles albums that have nice 8-and-above scores and at least a couple of perfect 10s and this makes me happy because hey, if you hate on the Beatles that's kinda harsh :C
What is the point of all this rambling? I don't know, really. I just find it really interesting because listening to music is something I enjoy and do all the time, but there's sometimes such a disconnect for the casual listener-ardent fan between what is good and what we like. It must be a really cool job to review albums, but I feel like it comes with such responsibility! If there's a band that you love and their new album critically/theoretically/objectively sucks, can you objectively write that review? What if you fell in love with someone while a particular song played in the background, and you grew to love that band as you grew to love that person, and then things went topsy-turvy and you were single again and hated the band's guts for all the memories they hold, though they continue to make stellar records? What if you went to a music festival and saw your favourite fledgling band live, and they seemed as giddy and thrilled and excited to be there, next to their idols, as you were to be there watching them, and then in their sophomore album they decided to try out a different sound - new producer, new influences, new look - and it failed miserably but they were so damn earnest about it all the way through?
And really, what are the qualifications to be able to review music? Do you need to play five instruments, among them guitar? Have been in a band yourself? Been a groupie? Have a record collection? I feel like it's one of those jobs you could never entirely be prepared for, and maybe that's the beauty of it, really - you listen to the album over and over, discuss it with your colleagues, compare it to the artists' oeuvre, run through a list of influences in your head, type up that review, edit, edit, edit and then put it out there, and people will agree with you, and people will disagree with you, and silly overzealous college kids who really should just get off the computer and read a damn book will ruminate at great length on their livejournals about your review, by which time five more new records will be out and you will be working on your next review, or you might be home after work, rocking out to campy showtunes with glass of wine in hand, or trying to appreciate that Bieber kid, because your eight-year-old thinks the world of him and you think the world of her, and because damn it, life is full of uncertainty and when you finally can (because your parents were convinced Zeppelin was full of satanic messages, or because you think Akon is mad catchy but don't want your girls to think smack that till you get sore is in any way appropriate), you should be allowed to listen to whatever the heck you want.
It is funny that what got me started on this entry (though I've been thinking about this for a while now) was that I finally listened to The Suburbs. My inexpert opinion, which I will nevertheless proudly share.
me: yeah the album is pretty cool it feels like much easier listening to me than their first two
shirin: easier how
me: like it has more conventional tunes and like...singing, not moaning and choruses in the foreground? haha
I like it! It's pretty long and didn't HIT me the way High Violet did, but I will give it a few more close listens; I suspect I will like it better than Forgiveness Rock Record though. Pitchfork writes that the album is "proof that Arcade Fire can still make grand statements without sounding like they're carrying the weight of the world", which is exactly what I felt, except I didn't know how to say it. So, okay, Pitchfork, I will yield to you on this one :)