Reviewing the Fork's Best of '04
I read Pitchfork daily. It's usually the first stop I make on my musical tangent through the world wide web that also includes Pop Matters and a few blogs. Their news section I admire (I sure don't have the kinda time to search that info out on my own), and their reviews are often worthwhile reads (even if I don't agree with their assessment or rating, which happens often). This is all to say, I respect what they do and how they go about doing it.
But, they are hardly the perfect savior of underground rock coverage, as some people see them. Yes, they do break bands from time to time. But the Chicago-based publication also occasionally sucks the teat of the British or east-coast press and raves about bands that while deserving, quickly become a mountain of hype that's difficult to sustain. When the avalanche begins as the group's next album is on the way, Pitchfork, like most others, partakes in hopping on that big old snowball until it gets a'rollin' at a mighty quick pace. Which is to say, like most professional publications that employ professional writers, Pitchfork tends to enjoy tearing down what they've built up. They suffer from the same susceptibility to "newness" that many—myself included—are inflicted with. (Of course, that's part of what I'm attempting to cure this year.) They play to our desires as consumers for the "next big thing," which feeds directly into the record industry's philosophy of "fuck developing bands, we're out to make a quick buck."
Still, despite this flaw, in the past I've found their "Best of" list to be fairly similar to mine. The differences were ones that I could rationalize for the most part. But this year's list was simply confounding for multiple reasons.
Starting at the top and working down, Arcade Fire was given the No. 1 slot. I don't agree with that, but I suspected (on these pages) that Pitchfork would turn over their top honor to the year's most-hyped indie rock band, just as they did last year with Interpol. I thought that Fiery Furnances would finish No. 2, considering how much attention and praise had been heaped on them by the site throughout the year; but, they fell to No. 4. Animal Collective and The Streets filled the gap at Nos. 2 and 3. I have a big problem with both. The Streets, from my listens to their singles, are hardly doing anything revolutionary, nor are they doing anything particularly well. (Maybe the non-singles are stronger, I don't know.) And Animal Collective, while intriguing, doesn't have the urgency or cohesion I'd expect from one of the year's best albums. Pitchfork did resist the urge to place Brian Wilson's Smile at No. 1, bucking the year's trend, but they couldn't keep the old eccentric out of the Top 5. I still haven't heard Smile in its entirety, so I'll reserve judgment.
We're only through the Top 5, but you can already see some trendy selections being made. Animal Collective faired quite well in year-end polls, garnering many publication's "obscure wunderkind" selection. And what publications didn't select them probably selected the Furnances. On a different level, The Streets were insanely popular this year, making good on the crossover appeal of their radio singles. But "popular" does not equate to "Top 3" in my mind, and judging from what I've heard of the group, I just don't "get it."
Joanna Newsom's The Milk-Eyed Mender (No. 10) and Devendra Banhart's Rejoicing in the Hands (No. 7) both appeared in the Top 10, too, and I won't argue those as I saved room for both in my Top 10. However, Banhart's second release, Nino Rojo, didn't appear in the Top 50, period. Now, this was the case in a lot of publication's "Best of" lists; Rejoicing, which broke Banhart, made the cut, while Nino was more of an afterthought and didn't appear. But, I hold the Fork to a higher standard than most, and not just because they raved about BOTH albums this year, giving Nino a rating of 8.0 to Rejoicing's 8.4. And, as I stated in my critique of each in my Top 30, there's hardly a discernable difference between the two in terms of content or quality (as Pitchfork's ratings would attest). So, if one makes No. 7 on your list, it's easy to deduce that the other would at least make an appearance somewhere. Either their writers missed the boat on Nino (less likely), or they decided as a whole that one album per artist would be the limit for this list (more likely, and ridiculous).
Continuing into the teens finds more popular records (Kayne West, No. 18; Sonic Youth, No. 11; Bjork, No. 19) that were adored by many and that I haven't heard. It's quite possible that Sonic Youth and Bjork made records that were this deserving; however, Dungen at No. 13 is a disgrace. That record blows away most competitor's in the rock field this year. I have a very hard time stomaching Pitchfork's assessment that this album falls that far from the top slot. But, then again, they only placed two "rock" albums (Sonic Youth and Arcade Fire) ahead of it, and one was their top choice. I'm willing to let this pass, I suppose—but I don't agree with the fact that an album that scored a 9.3 rating in its review isn't in the Top 10.
Then again, The Walkmen scored a 9.2 in their Pitchfork review, and ended up 40th on the site's year-end list. That's just stupid. These are a sampling of some of the artists that placed ahead of The Walkmen, along with their rankings and review ratings: Morrissey (No. 38, 8.9), The Futureheads (No. 33, 8.3), A.C. Newman (No. 29, 8.8), Interpol (No. 27, 8.5), Franz Ferdinand (No. 26, 9.1), TV on the Radio (No. 24, 7.8), Modest Mouse (No. 23, 7.9), and Air (No. 20, 8.3). It's quite possible that what we're seeing here is the difference between the critic's opinion and the fan's opinion. When critics review records, they take into account such things as originality and artistic merit; but when it comes down to listening to records in a casual sense, sometimes those aren't the qualities that are valued as highly. So, while critically we may feel like The Walkmen produced one of the year's best rock albums (as the rating would imply), we might have enjoyed listening to Air and The Futureheads more. If that's the case here (it wasn't for me), then the original rating should have been lower for The Walkmen. Essentially, Pitchfork told you when they reviewed the album that this was one of the year's best, but when it came down to compiling a list of the year's best they more or less concluded that, really, there were several other rock albums that were better.
Now, I know what you're going to say...the review was just one writer's opinion, whereas the list is a collection of opinions. Indeed, if I located the reviewer's individual list (see those lists here), he did place The Walkmen No. 2. But, when you peruse the rest of the lists, you'll see that the next highest rating it received from another individual was No. 23. In fact, of the 25 ballots, The Walkmen's Bows + Arrows appeared on only 10: Nos. 2, 23, 23, 28, 31, 36, 41, 42, 49, and 50. This is the fundamental problem with year-end lists—they often conflict with what the publication previously had to say about the album. If anyone else had reviewed The Walkmen other than the person who sat in the back of the class with his knees locked tight and his hand anxiously darting toward the ceiling when the professor said, "Who would like to review The Walkmen?", they probably would have been given a much more down-to-earth 8.0 rating that would become the record's resting spot in the list.
This is one of the flaw's of reading any particular magazine, and why as a whole it's best to read several reviews of an album (or better yet, listen to it yourself if possible) before making a decision to purchase it. Hype that comes from the individual is often tainted; hype that comes from a mass is sometimes warranted. It's also a good argument for doing away with ratings, which can only come back to haunt you.
Anyway, I still strongly disagree with the Fork's treatment of The Walkmen in their year-end list, and I also have problems with other records I thoroughly enjoyed this year that fell to the end of their list: Loretta Lynn (No. 48, 9.3), Comets on Fire (No. 47, 8.5), and Iron & Wine (No. 46, 8.6).
Meanwhile, a record like Fennesz' Venice, which I've heard no-one else rave about, finished No. 21 on their list. It made 11 of the 25 individual lists, placing in the teens three times and in the Top 6 four times. Their description of Fennesz leads me to believe that it's a one-man Parisian group along the lines of Lanterna, except more shoegazer and less ambient. Pitchfork has reviewed several records by Fennesz over the past few years, and like this one, which received an 8.6 rating, they've been received favorably. But, the magazine has failed to "break" the artist, in part because they chose to spin their hype machine in a different, possibly more accessible direction. This is why the Fork needs to supplement their review section with a features section, so they can profile these interesting artists and give us a more well-rounded definition of each. (Luckily, in 2005, they claim they're ready to do just that when their site relaunches in a week!)
The flaw with Pitchfork's poll appears to be their method of determining who ends up where, which is never an easy task when dealing with a large number of writers which have diverse opinions. They collected a Top 50 list from each of their 25 contributors. One would think that the numbers are simply plugged in and a spreadsheet is popped out and with a snap of the fingers they've got their list. But, that's not the case. Each listing on an individual's list can be weighted by a certain number of additional points, which were not included along with said lists. That seems suspect, to say the least. Does that mean that if I think that Joanna Newsom's album was clearly the year's best, I can give it an additional five points? If so, how do those points figure in to the overall rankings? This seems quite confusing, to say the least. It would not surprise me if Pitchfork allows for an "X-factor," so that the publication's editor can ensure that certain albums end up in certain places. (Maybe that's just the conspiracy theorist coming out in me.)
Take Arcade Fire, for example, their top album of '04. It appeared on 15 of the 25 lists with the following rankings: 1, 1, 1, 4, 5, 8, 15, 17, 18, 21, 32, 34, 41, 42, 45. So, without taking the time to do the math, I can see how this record might have grabbed No. 1, despite coming up M.I.A. on 10 people's lists. That is, until I repeated the exercise for Animal Collective, which finished No. 2 overall. It appeared on 15 lists, too. But, it's rankings were better overall: 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 2, 3, 11, 11, 13, 18, 18, 41, 43. Hmmm...it's clearly the victor, no? Except, we don't know about that pesky X-factor.
I'm sure someone with some serious time on their hands and a better grasp of math could further explore this subject, but if nothing else my simple evaluation proves my point: Pitchfork's list is somewhat flawed, misleading, and like any list should be taken with a grain of salt. Moreover, the reader should not put too much stock in their actual daily reviews and their subsequent rankings, as it's obvious that they are entirely misleading when considered in a larger context.
Did we learn anything today? No, probably not. So, sorry if I rambled or displayed my shocking "nerdiness"; old habits die hard, I suppose, if ever.
N/P—iTunes Radio: KEXP
But, they are hardly the perfect savior of underground rock coverage, as some people see them. Yes, they do break bands from time to time. But the Chicago-based publication also occasionally sucks the teat of the British or east-coast press and raves about bands that while deserving, quickly become a mountain of hype that's difficult to sustain. When the avalanche begins as the group's next album is on the way, Pitchfork, like most others, partakes in hopping on that big old snowball until it gets a'rollin' at a mighty quick pace. Which is to say, like most professional publications that employ professional writers, Pitchfork tends to enjoy tearing down what they've built up. They suffer from the same susceptibility to "newness" that many—myself included—are inflicted with. (Of course, that's part of what I'm attempting to cure this year.) They play to our desires as consumers for the "next big thing," which feeds directly into the record industry's philosophy of "fuck developing bands, we're out to make a quick buck."
Still, despite this flaw, in the past I've found their "Best of" list to be fairly similar to mine. The differences were ones that I could rationalize for the most part. But this year's list was simply confounding for multiple reasons.
Starting at the top and working down, Arcade Fire was given the No. 1 slot. I don't agree with that, but I suspected (on these pages) that Pitchfork would turn over their top honor to the year's most-hyped indie rock band, just as they did last year with Interpol. I thought that Fiery Furnances would finish No. 2, considering how much attention and praise had been heaped on them by the site throughout the year; but, they fell to No. 4. Animal Collective and The Streets filled the gap at Nos. 2 and 3. I have a big problem with both. The Streets, from my listens to their singles, are hardly doing anything revolutionary, nor are they doing anything particularly well. (Maybe the non-singles are stronger, I don't know.) And Animal Collective, while intriguing, doesn't have the urgency or cohesion I'd expect from one of the year's best albums. Pitchfork did resist the urge to place Brian Wilson's Smile at No. 1, bucking the year's trend, but they couldn't keep the old eccentric out of the Top 5. I still haven't heard Smile in its entirety, so I'll reserve judgment.
We're only through the Top 5, but you can already see some trendy selections being made. Animal Collective faired quite well in year-end polls, garnering many publication's "obscure wunderkind" selection. And what publications didn't select them probably selected the Furnances. On a different level, The Streets were insanely popular this year, making good on the crossover appeal of their radio singles. But "popular" does not equate to "Top 3" in my mind, and judging from what I've heard of the group, I just don't "get it."
Joanna Newsom's The Milk-Eyed Mender (No. 10) and Devendra Banhart's Rejoicing in the Hands (No. 7) both appeared in the Top 10, too, and I won't argue those as I saved room for both in my Top 10. However, Banhart's second release, Nino Rojo, didn't appear in the Top 50, period. Now, this was the case in a lot of publication's "Best of" lists; Rejoicing, which broke Banhart, made the cut, while Nino was more of an afterthought and didn't appear. But, I hold the Fork to a higher standard than most, and not just because they raved about BOTH albums this year, giving Nino a rating of 8.0 to Rejoicing's 8.4. And, as I stated in my critique of each in my Top 30, there's hardly a discernable difference between the two in terms of content or quality (as Pitchfork's ratings would attest). So, if one makes No. 7 on your list, it's easy to deduce that the other would at least make an appearance somewhere. Either their writers missed the boat on Nino (less likely), or they decided as a whole that one album per artist would be the limit for this list (more likely, and ridiculous).
Continuing into the teens finds more popular records (Kayne West, No. 18; Sonic Youth, No. 11; Bjork, No. 19) that were adored by many and that I haven't heard. It's quite possible that Sonic Youth and Bjork made records that were this deserving; however, Dungen at No. 13 is a disgrace. That record blows away most competitor's in the rock field this year. I have a very hard time stomaching Pitchfork's assessment that this album falls that far from the top slot. But, then again, they only placed two "rock" albums (Sonic Youth and Arcade Fire) ahead of it, and one was their top choice. I'm willing to let this pass, I suppose—but I don't agree with the fact that an album that scored a 9.3 rating in its review isn't in the Top 10.
Then again, The Walkmen scored a 9.2 in their Pitchfork review, and ended up 40th on the site's year-end list. That's just stupid. These are a sampling of some of the artists that placed ahead of The Walkmen, along with their rankings and review ratings: Morrissey (No. 38, 8.9), The Futureheads (No. 33, 8.3), A.C. Newman (No. 29, 8.8), Interpol (No. 27, 8.5), Franz Ferdinand (No. 26, 9.1), TV on the Radio (No. 24, 7.8), Modest Mouse (No. 23, 7.9), and Air (No. 20, 8.3). It's quite possible that what we're seeing here is the difference between the critic's opinion and the fan's opinion. When critics review records, they take into account such things as originality and artistic merit; but when it comes down to listening to records in a casual sense, sometimes those aren't the qualities that are valued as highly. So, while critically we may feel like The Walkmen produced one of the year's best rock albums (as the rating would imply), we might have enjoyed listening to Air and The Futureheads more. If that's the case here (it wasn't for me), then the original rating should have been lower for The Walkmen. Essentially, Pitchfork told you when they reviewed the album that this was one of the year's best, but when it came down to compiling a list of the year's best they more or less concluded that, really, there were several other rock albums that were better.
Now, I know what you're going to say...the review was just one writer's opinion, whereas the list is a collection of opinions. Indeed, if I located the reviewer's individual list (see those lists here), he did place The Walkmen No. 2. But, when you peruse the rest of the lists, you'll see that the next highest rating it received from another individual was No. 23. In fact, of the 25 ballots, The Walkmen's Bows + Arrows appeared on only 10: Nos. 2, 23, 23, 28, 31, 36, 41, 42, 49, and 50. This is the fundamental problem with year-end lists—they often conflict with what the publication previously had to say about the album. If anyone else had reviewed The Walkmen other than the person who sat in the back of the class with his knees locked tight and his hand anxiously darting toward the ceiling when the professor said, "Who would like to review The Walkmen?", they probably would have been given a much more down-to-earth 8.0 rating that would become the record's resting spot in the list.
This is one of the flaw's of reading any particular magazine, and why as a whole it's best to read several reviews of an album (or better yet, listen to it yourself if possible) before making a decision to purchase it. Hype that comes from the individual is often tainted; hype that comes from a mass is sometimes warranted. It's also a good argument for doing away with ratings, which can only come back to haunt you.
Anyway, I still strongly disagree with the Fork's treatment of The Walkmen in their year-end list, and I also have problems with other records I thoroughly enjoyed this year that fell to the end of their list: Loretta Lynn (No. 48, 9.3), Comets on Fire (No. 47, 8.5), and Iron & Wine (No. 46, 8.6).
Meanwhile, a record like Fennesz' Venice, which I've heard no-one else rave about, finished No. 21 on their list. It made 11 of the 25 individual lists, placing in the teens three times and in the Top 6 four times. Their description of Fennesz leads me to believe that it's a one-man Parisian group along the lines of Lanterna, except more shoegazer and less ambient. Pitchfork has reviewed several records by Fennesz over the past few years, and like this one, which received an 8.6 rating, they've been received favorably. But, the magazine has failed to "break" the artist, in part because they chose to spin their hype machine in a different, possibly more accessible direction. This is why the Fork needs to supplement their review section with a features section, so they can profile these interesting artists and give us a more well-rounded definition of each. (Luckily, in 2005, they claim they're ready to do just that when their site relaunches in a week!)
The flaw with Pitchfork's poll appears to be their method of determining who ends up where, which is never an easy task when dealing with a large number of writers which have diverse opinions. They collected a Top 50 list from each of their 25 contributors. One would think that the numbers are simply plugged in and a spreadsheet is popped out and with a snap of the fingers they've got their list. But, that's not the case. Each listing on an individual's list can be weighted by a certain number of additional points, which were not included along with said lists. That seems suspect, to say the least. Does that mean that if I think that Joanna Newsom's album was clearly the year's best, I can give it an additional five points? If so, how do those points figure in to the overall rankings? This seems quite confusing, to say the least. It would not surprise me if Pitchfork allows for an "X-factor," so that the publication's editor can ensure that certain albums end up in certain places. (Maybe that's just the conspiracy theorist coming out in me.)
Take Arcade Fire, for example, their top album of '04. It appeared on 15 of the 25 lists with the following rankings: 1, 1, 1, 4, 5, 8, 15, 17, 18, 21, 32, 34, 41, 42, 45. So, without taking the time to do the math, I can see how this record might have grabbed No. 1, despite coming up M.I.A. on 10 people's lists. That is, until I repeated the exercise for Animal Collective, which finished No. 2 overall. It appeared on 15 lists, too. But, it's rankings were better overall: 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 2, 3, 11, 11, 13, 18, 18, 41, 43. Hmmm...it's clearly the victor, no? Except, we don't know about that pesky X-factor.
I'm sure someone with some serious time on their hands and a better grasp of math could further explore this subject, but if nothing else my simple evaluation proves my point: Pitchfork's list is somewhat flawed, misleading, and like any list should be taken with a grain of salt. Moreover, the reader should not put too much stock in their actual daily reviews and their subsequent rankings, as it's obvious that they are entirely misleading when considered in a larger context.
Did we learn anything today? No, probably not. So, sorry if I rambled or displayed my shocking "nerdiness"; old habits die hard, I suppose, if ever.
N/P—iTunes Radio: KEXP
Noiseboy-
Came across your blog today. Good stuff. Favorite Radiators song?
Noticed you were a college sports fan. Hoping you could add a permanent blogroll link to my College Basketball Blog, http://collegeball.blogspot.com. I'd greatly appreciate a link on your site.
And would gladly return the favor, adding a link from my site to yours.
Thanks!
Yoni Cohen, http://collegeball.blogspot.com
College Basketball Blog
By 
yoni cohen :: http://yocohoops.com, at 11:20 AM
I also read the 'fork on a daily basis, but I have learned to not take their declarations seriously. I have noticed a decided prejudice against anything that even veers towards a "goth" sound. At some point I'm going to write an article and pull together all the reviews.
By Jason Pitzl-Waters, at 4:18 PM
I think the perception, or misperception, amongst indie kids is that goth is superficial. Of course, the Fork writes about mainstream hip-hop, which you could easily argue is very superficial. So, go figure.
By thenoiseboy, at 5:24 PM
مؤسسة الوطنية للخدمات المنزلية
شركة تنظيف مسابح بالرياض
شركة تنظيف مكيفات بالرياض
شركة كشف تسربات المياه بابها
شركة عزل اسطح بخميس مشيط
By لمسات الابداع, at 4:52 AM
11:20 AMNoiseboy-
Came across your blog today. Good stuff. Favorite Radiators song?
Noticed you were a college sports fan. Hoping you could add a permanent blogroll link to my College Basketball Blog, http://collegeball.blogspot.com. I'd greatly appreciate a link on your site.
And would gladly return the favor, adding a link from my site to yours.
Thanks!
Yoni Cohen, http://collegeball.blogspot.com
College Basketball Blog
4:18 PM
I also read the 'fork on a daily basis, but I have learned to not take their declarations seriously. I have noticed a decided prejudice against anything that even veers towards a "goth" sound. At some point I'm going to write an article and pull together all the reviews.
5:24 PM
I think the perception, or misperception, amongst indie kids is that goth is superficial. Of course, the Fork writes about mainstream hip-hop, which you could easily argue is very superficial. So, go figure.
4:52 AM
مؤسسة الوطنية للخدمات المنزلية
شركة تنظيف مسابح بالرياض
شركة تنظيف مكيفات بالرياض
شركة كشف تسربات المياه بابها
شركة عزل اسطح بخميس مشيط