I don't know too much about this band, but I do know that they're the latest victim in Pitchfork's shitting contest. After receiving a 1.6 from reviewer Ian Cohen, the band released a strongly and intelligently worded open letter echoing their confusion. And yes, they take some pretty sweet shots of their own:
Dear Ian,
Thanks for your review of our record. It's clear that you are a good writer and it's clear that you took a lot of time giving us a thorough slagging on the site. We are fans of Pitchfork. And it's fun to slag off bands. It's like a sport -- kind of part of the deal when you decide to be in a rock band. (That review of Jet where the monkey pees in his own mouth was about the funniest piece of band-slagging we've ever seen.)
We decided a long time ago not to take reviews too seriously. For one, they tend to involve a whole lot of projection, generally saying more about the writer than the band. Sort of a musical Rorschach test. And for another, reading them makes you too damned self-conscious, like the world is looking over your shoulder when the truth is you're not a genius or a moron. You're just a person in a band.
Plus, the variation of opinions on our record has bordered on absurd. Most of what's been said has been positive, a few reviews have been on the fence and a few (such as yours) have been aggressively harsh. We tend not to put a lot of stock in this stuff, but the sheer disagreement of opinion makes for fascinating (if not a bit narcissistic) reading.
And anyway we have to admit that we found ourselves oddly flattered by your review. I mean, 1.6? That is not faint praise. That is not a humdrum slagging. That is serious fist-pounding, shoe-stomping anger. Many publications said this was among the best records of the year. You seem to think it's among the worst. That is so much better than faint praise.
You compare us to a lot of really great bands (Arcade Fire, the National, Bright Eyes, Bruce Springsteen) and even if your intention was to cut us down, you end up describing us as: "lyrically moody, musically sumptuous and dramatic." One is left only to conclude that you m ust think those things are bad.
We love indie rock and we know full well that Pitchfork doesn't so much critique bands as critique a band's ability to match a certain indie rock aesthetic. We don't match it. It's true that the events described in these songs really happened. It's true we wrote about them in ways that make us look bad. (Sometimes in life you are the hero, and sometimes, you are the limp-dicked cuckold. Sometimes your screaming about your worst fears, your most trite jealousies. Such is life.) It's also true that the record isn't ironic or quirky or fey or disinterested or buried beneath mountains of guitar noodling.
As writers, we admire your tenacity and commitment to your tone (even though you do go too far with your assumptions about us). You're wrong about our intentions, you're wrong about how this band came together, you don't seem to get the storytelling or the catharsis or the humor in the songs, and you clearly have some misconceptions about who we are as a band and who we are as people.
But it also seems to have very little to do with us. Much of your piece reads less like a record review and more like a diatribe against a set of ill-considered and borderline offensive preconceptions about Los Angeles. Los Angeles has an extremely vibrant blogging community, Silver Lake is a very close-knit scene of bands. We're one of them. We cut our teeth at Spaceland and the Echo and have nothing to do with whatever wayward ideas you have about the Sunset Strip. That's just bad journalism.
But that is the nature of this sort of thing. It's always based on incomplete information. Pitchfork has slagged many, many bands we admire (Dr. Dog, the Flaming Lips, Silversun Pickups, Cold War Kids, Black Kids, Bright Eyes [ironic, no?] just to name a few), so now we're among them. Great.
This band was borne of some very very dark days and the truth is that there is something exciting about just being part of this kind of thing. There's this long history of dialog between bands and writers, NME ripping apart the Cure or Rolling Stone refusing to write about Led Zeppelin -- so it's a bit of a thrill that you have such a20strong opinion about us.
We hear you live in Los Angeles. We'd love for you to come to a show sometime and see what we're doing with these lyrically moody and dramatic songs. We're serious about this stuff. You seem like a true believer when it comes to music and writing so we honestly think we can't be too far apart. In any case, it would make for a good story.
all our best--
Mikel, Steven, Anna, Daren, Noah
the Airborne Toxic Event
17 comments:
good for them. good review of the review.
Pitchfork annoys the hell out of me. Especially Ian Cohen. After reading his review of The Kings of Leon's Only By The Night and The Dandy Warhols' Earth to... it was made clear he misses the point of music altogether.
I want to see him hurting, and I want to see him fired.
Never heard of these guys, but had to listen to clips after reading the rant/review. Bought the album on ITunes (first in over a year... hardcopy anyone??) Cheers to IGIF/Connor for the post. Well done.
nice letter from them. enough to prompt me to give em a listen to. unfortunately, i felt a lot of that review was pretty spot on. i wanted to like them based on their thoughts and eloquence in their letter, sucks that i didn't. so it goes.
I ran this on my page too. I added a list of Pitchfork's "Greatest Hits" - attacks on good projects for dubious and personal reasons.
Check it out and feel free to add your own.
Nice letter, okay band, valid point, but could they have named themselves something else? It's like calling a band Tatooine. Or The Lost Fans. It's transparent, and so, so, so not clever.
I've heard them played on WBRU in Providence, they are making waves. Their single isn't half bad either.
I don't like their music but I like their attitude. They're so right to take the opportunity the blogs give them to defend themselves. This is the Internet, Ian Cohen. You can't talk shit carelessly and getting away with it forever. It was high time someone took a stand against the Snobbish Gods at Pitchfork.
Oh come on, complaining about a review like this is petty.
They pride themselves on the comparisons to other bands but they fail to answer the main accusation: unoriginality and unlikeable, empty and simplistic lyricism.
Those sound like valid subjective complaints to me.
I'm with Pierre. By no means is Pitchfork the end-all of music reviews, but the fact that they follow the claim that "We tend not to put a lot of stock in this stuff" with "Many publications said this was among the best records of the year" in the next paragraph kinda defeats the purpose.
Haa, I also dislike Ian Cohen. He seems to use judge a lot of albums by how he feels about the artists, and not necessarily the music.
They start their second paragraph by saying they don't "take reviews too seriously," then write for NINE more paragraphs about the P4k review -- including talking about the good reviews they've gotten. I fear if they took a review seriously it would delay work on their sophomore album for six months.
I just watched a documentary called Heckler which focuses on people who are heckled by comedians but also spend time with movie reviewers who don't so much review a movie but "heckle" them with what seem like personal attacks. I've read more than a few music reviews with "heckler" written all over them. And when they read like that, they're worthless.
I know it's cool to hate Pitchfork. It's become the Starbucks of indie rock critics in most purists eyes, and cool kids don't drink that corporate bs. However, I think most of those accusations smell similar to the crimes of trend and gimmick P4f supposedly commits.
As a longtime reader of igif I'm aware of your dislike for P4k. They like to shit on everybody etc etc... but that doesn't mean they can't be right about a band.
I'm from LA and happen to have the same problems with TATE, and while I'd never attack someone's music to that degree, I'm glad someone is pointing this stuff out.
"Holding a tonic like a cross' isn't interesting writing. Period. It might be honest, but that doesn't make it good.
Ian lost me at the character accusations. He should stick to the music, and for that he's probably an asshole; however, you can't dismiss a valid criticism about a band just because the guy went a little overboard.
"All bad poetry springs from genuine feeling"
-Oscar Wilde
I found the review ok. Definitely, I dont think the band is by no means as bad as Ian makes it, but hey!, its his job to write about bands and give opinions.
Do we want him to be honest, or to be polite!? Give the man a break. I'd rather have a blunt honest critic destroying a band, than a nice guy pleasing the audience.
Critics are here to give opinions, for nice reviews we have the bands' myspaces.
finally..on the band replying..i think its a big lack of personality. however, for a reply, its not bad and quite classy.
too bad Pitchfork is right, and this is a shoddy publicity stunt from a mediocre band trying to save their record contract
fuck ian cohen he's a loser.
he gave kid cudi man on the moon a 4.1. and that album deserves a damn 8 on the low low low.
it's a 10 in my eyes.
fuck pitchfork.
they suck ass in my eyes.
let errybody know.
Post a Comment