PITCHFORK

If you have any interest in new music - the kind, for the most part, that isn't heard on the radio, on MTV, i.e. the music that isn't popular outside a relatively small community - you check out the indie music mecca, Pitchfork.com.

History: music fan Ryan Schreiber starts music site/proto-blog (pitchforkMEDIA) in the late 90s about music he cares about, offers polarizing opinions, recognizes some quality, obscure music; the site slowly rises through the 2000s to become a trendsetting music site where all the artists that are, purportedly, worth the time of day will be showcased, through reviews, news, and features, from interviews, best of lists, and weekly columns.

Parallel History: a young, impressionable music fan named Dan Grgas has an insatiable thirst for new music; finds Pitchfork and, through the site, discovers tons of new shit that he truly enjoys, at times revering the opinions given by Schreiber and co., seeking out, to a certain degree, only the music that has been approved as worth the time of day by the gurus at Pitchfork.

But lately I have become very disenchanted with Pitchfork, as, I believe, many others have in the recent years/months. Why? Good question.

It's not something that can truly be distilled; there is no overwhelming reason that this site has gone downhill - some may argue that it hasn't gone downhill at all, and I may even agree: maybe I'm just getting smarter and less impressionable as I get older and am able to form opinions independently from Pitchfork whereas at one point in time I was not. The site certainly hasn't changed much, in terms of attitude and their general air of superiority. I am growing and their growth has not grown parallel to mine.

But, if we must try and understand all that is wrong with pitchfork, you can look at their opinions towards one band: Weezer. Ever since their first review of a Weezer album - Green - they have trashed them in almost every way; lately, they don't even take them seriously at all, it's all a bad joke to these guys. "Oh, how amusing! I'm so baffled by this choice that Rivers has made - ha ha ha, they're such parodies of themselves! They're music is so pedestrian and simple and silly!"

Now, I'm not going to make the claim that Weezer is for everyone, or that they should be considered great by anyone. It happens to be my cup of tea, but I totally understand where the haters are coming from. It is juvenile and silly. I just don't like the higher than thou attitude; I can see the smirks on these guys faces as they write these reviews, laughing it up while listening to more mature artists like Sufjan Stevens, who releases 40 track Christmas albums and fifth grade music projects based on the 50 states.

Unfortunately, the writers at pitchfork are not as smart as they think they are. This is their fatal flaw. Take their recent review of Julian Casablanca's debut solo album Phrazes for the Young. Ryan Dombal gives us a well written, well researched review. Obviously, this guy is a fine writer who took the time to seek out Phrases and Philosophies for the Use of the Young, Oscar Wilde's collection of witticisms that Casablancas drew inspiration from while writing and recording Phrazes. But instead of using this information as a background, the review turns into a comparison of past and present, between Casablancas' time as a Stroke and his current incarnation as a solo artist, all while incessantly referring to Wilde's book as if Casablancas were adapting it into a feature film, not simply drawing inspiration and nodding to it as an influence on him and his music. The review becomes a lesson - to both artist and fan - of what the album should have sounded like given Casablancas' past and Wilde's influence, all the while paying little attention to why an artist like Casabablancas may have created this album in the first place.

Adding insult to injury, Dombal accuses Casablancas of lacking humor, that he fails to instill some into this record; reading his review, it seems Dombal should take his own advice, as should the rest of the staff at Pitchfork. They forget that music hits you in the crotch and in the heart; only later does it hit your head, if at all. When reading a Pitchfork review very rarely does the reader come away with a sense that the reviewer jumped up and danced around to what they are reviewing; rarely can you picture them shedding a tear because a song moved them. Why? Because the reviews are a masturbatory exercise, more about the review than what is being reviewed; more about the reviewer than the reader. These are long, academic pieces that are best skimmed, searching through the review for the tidbits where the music is addressed directly, as what it is as it pops up out of speakers at any given moment, not as what it means in the context of history. These comparisons are fun and oftentimes shed light on a record, but when a review spends so little time addressing the music itself, something is wrong. Take a look at the first two paragraphs of any given Pitchfork review and you will see that oftentimes the record in question - the music in question - isn't mentioned.

This is not to say that Pitchfork has never produced a good review. They most certainly have. The problem is that the good reviews - that is, the ones that are readable and insightful the whole way through - are about artists that they favor; artists that have, time after time, gotten favorable reviews from the Pitchfork staff and have become their darlings. A good review should be as readable and insightful as a bad review - but you won't get that at Pitchfork. An album that gets a 4.5 will be mocked and put down in the manner described above: as an indulgence of the reviewer, looking down upon the fallen, the clueless, the hopeless, and, probably the greatest sin of them all, the popular.

It goes back to the thinking that if so many people like something, how can it be that good. But, if only me and a few other people like something then hey! there must be more artistic merit in this than what it is popular. And this is Pitchfork's downfall: elitism. I almost feel stupid saying it because it's so obvious and has been said - repeatedly - by so many people: they're snobs. But it's the truth. Pitchfork lacks the scope and vision to venture out and embrace the popular! Yes, there are some popular artists that garner favorable reviews or are still deemed worthy enough to be reviewed on their site, but they are few and far between. By now, everybody knows what Pitchfork likes and doesn't like, so much so that you can predict how they will rate an album with considerable accuracy before you even listen to it. Animal Collective gets 9's. Weezer gets 4's and 5's (or sometimes 0.5's - unforgivable). Pitchfork is in their own little world - some might say they're trapped there. How can they get out?

They can't because they would no longer be Pitchfork. It wouldn't be the same site -and nor should it be: it is what it is - who wants Pitchfork to become Rolling Stone? No one. But they can improve:

1) STEP DOWN FROM THE TOWER EVERY NOW AND THEN. We get it, you like what's weird, different, and unlistenable: how else can something be authentic and of artistic merit if it's easy to listen to?? But still, how about some humility now and then? Wipe the smirks off of your faces and then tell me why you don't like something. I may listen.

2) WRITE WITH YOUR HEART AND NOT WITH YOUR BRAIN. There's got to be thought to it, but this isn't a history lesson. This is...

3) MUSIC. Write about the music, always. If it doesn't directly relate keep short or lose it completely. Someone once told me, The best writer edits away the sentences and words they love the most because usually these words are just flash, just the writer showing off, in love with their abilities.

4) WRITE FOR THE READER, NOT FOR YOURSELVES. Should I have to say this?

5) CREATE A SPACE WHERE READERS CAN EASILY COMMENT ON THE OPINIONS EXPRESSED ON YOUR SITE. This is a glaring omission. There is NO feedback on the site. The fans are ignored. I guess that fits in with their image - pissing on the peons - but you can't have a site like this where there is no way for the masses to agree or disagree with the opinions you put forth. This should be in a place where, if your on the site, you can't help but find it. Are you guys afraid? What's the deal?

Lastly, I'd like to say that the reason I am writing at such length about these guys is because they represent so much of what is wrong in music today. Yes, they are part of the problem. Pitchfork would rather music reach as little people as possible, to keep it amongst the chosen - and who will choose? Pitchfork, of course. There is nothing wrong with reaching as many people as possible. There is nothing wrong with fame. If more indie artists would strive for the spotlight, if more would strive to be - OMG, is he gonna say this? For real? - like U2 and try to connect with as many people as possible, then music would rise again. People would buy CDs again. I'm not saying that artists have to change anything or water themselves down. Write what inspires you, that is always what it comes down to. But any willful dismissal of what is popular, of what inspires many, of what reaches out to thousands, millions, is to ignore what makes music so great. Pitchfork looks down on too many people; they embrace only what is in their comfort zone. They are in many ways more close minded and ignorant than those who listen only to American Idol - and at least I believe that those who love American Idol truly love American Idol. I cannot say the same for Pitchfork.

So, Pitchfork, listen up. You guys are good in so many ways - interviews, guest lists, NEWS (great fucking news updates, that's the best part) - just understand that you come off as pompous douche bags so damn often, it's tough take you seriously. You guys have really turned me onto a lot of good shit. In many ways I owe you. All I'm saying is try a little harder not to come off as such pompous, snide, close-minded, condescending douche bags.

Thank you.