Pitchfork music critics are unknowledgeable cockwagglers

[bloodyjack]

For those of you familiar with this online publication, they gave the posthumous Elliott Smith LP "From a Basement on the Hill" a 7.2 out of a 10. I get the feeling the reviewer listened to approximately a minute of each song, composed a few quick summarily dismissive observations about the record and decided to spend the rest of her piece discussing the far more pressing matter of his presumptive suicide. So, uh, is this supposed to be an album review or a belated obituary?

Pitchfork wouldn't be so annoying if they hadn't given the new William Shatner CD a 7.5

[bbernardini]

1. I don't know, but "The Cockwagglers" would be a great name for a rock band

</Dave Barry>

[bloodyjack]

2. Take it, it's yours

[Mike Daniels]

3. Seems to be the general ranking I've seen for the album

Yeah, the review was ponderous and pretentious but most of the publications I've seen have been ranking the album around "high seven - middle eight" so I don't know that the grade is that off-base.

Smith was always one of those "heard of him and I want to buy some of his stuff eventually " artists for me for years and hopefully the budget will allow me to get some of this stuff before year's end.

Besides, the only review that counts in the end is "do you like it?"

If reviews really determined public awareness and success, artists like Richard Thompson and Scott Walker would be multi-millionaires and world famous and the Britney's and such would be little known and populating cut-out bins.

[bloodyjack]

4. Of course my opinion is all that matters to me, and yet

I'm not broadcasting an opinion of a given album to thousands of readers on any one of the internets. which puts me at something of a disadvantage.

The Guardian and a few others gave it a 10 (which I'm guessing they wouldn't have if he were not DEAD), some gave it a 9. Rolling Stone gave it a 7 though it totally lacks credibility.

None of these reviews, ultimately, determines sales but they add to the expectation surrounding any release. Yet "From a Basement on the Hill" is currently, like, #10 in Amazon sales ranking. I suppose his death generated more hype than any gushing review from Pitchfork or Entertainment Weekly could hope to.

BTW, if you're going to pick up an Elliott Smith release you should probably opt for "XO". Also the self-titled album is my personal favorite and hasn't a single unenjoyable track.

[asthmaticeog]

5. I take it you liked the album, then?

So if Pitchfork annoys you by disliking what you enjoy, and by talking about the only interesting thing about Elliot Smith (the fact that he stabbed himself in the heart, which made him skyrocket from mediocre whiner to god of cool overnight) why then do you read Pitchfork?

[bloodyjack]

6. I take exception to applying the term "mediocre whiner" to Smith

He really was an excellent songwriter with a beautiful voice, though a little wanting lyrics-wise.

Why do I read Pitchfork? Some of their reviews make for entertaining reading when they arent as bloated and pompous as the one in question, and I like to follow music trends.

I take it you disliked the album?

[asthmaticeog]

9. Actualy I haven't heard it yet.

But since I was lukewarm on his prior output, I'm not going to be running through any brick walls to get at it. But I know a lot of people who see God over his stuff (which I find puzzling - I don't think he's awful or anything, but the royal treatment, even before he snuffed it, is inexplicable to me), so I'll be hearing it somewhere, soon enough.

[Wat_Tyler]

7. Who cares? They're music journalists.

You like it a lot, they like it some. Who gives a shit?

[GoddessOfGuinness]

8. Those who can, do...

Those who can't, review.

[mvd]

10. I don't agree with Pitchfork very much at all, but..

at least I can find some obscure artists through them. I don't worry about critics. Depending on the source, I usually only agree about half the time at most. If I'm really on-the-fence about an album, I might look at a few reviews.