
I’m not particularly fond of Black Kids. Sure, their song “I’m Not Gonna Teach Your Boyfriend How to Dance With You” was catchy and kind of cute. It made for a good party-mix track. The Killers-like attempt at gender ambiguity in the lyric “You are the girl that I’ve been dreaming of/Ever since I was a little girl” seemed gimmicky. But okay, whatever, I was willing to give their full-length a chance, depending on what the reviews looked like.
So I scooted over to Pitchfork to see how the site had reviewed the band whose reputation they made. The writer, Scott Plangenhoef, gave Partie Traumatic a 3.3 rating. And here is the entire “text” of the review:
Uh, you mean you jerks hyped this band to high heaven on the strength of a measly EP, and all you can give us is a picture of two sad-looking dogs and a lame “sorry”? Did Pitchfork get swallowed by I Can Has Cheezburger while I was sleeping? Are you so inept at admitting you bought into an utterly craptacular band that you aren’t even going to bother to explain what went wrong? I really hope Plangenhoef (who is also, frightening, the site’s Editor-in-Chief) doesn’t get paid by the review.
I mean, I understand what they were doing with their Jet review. They had never championed Jet, and they were just trying to say that the album wasn’t even worth considering. But I think publications are responsible for the hype they create, and with that in mind, this is totally unacceptable.
As Dan Gibson of Idolator wrote in a spot-on IM conversation posted by Maura Johnston, the site’s editor, “I would appreciate a more extensive apology.”
The question is, does Pitchfork want to be a reputable publication, or does it want to be a repository for hipster-douchebag humor? I appreciate irreverence as much at the next 20-something, but I wish they’d understand that you can’t have your elitism and eat it, too.


4 comments
Comments feed for this article
22 July, 2008 at 12:21 pm
Kern
Perfect.
This isn’t the first instance of them pulling this kind of thing, either.
As I saw the review I also flashed back to that horrendous Jet “review”. I remember thinking at the time that as much as I dislike Jet as a band, anyone who calls themselves a critic in any remotely serious fashion has at least some kind of obligation to actually point out the flaws of the piece of art in front of them rather than dismiss the whole thing out of hand with a smirk and a wink to all the hipper-than-thou jerkoffs who likely only peruse Pitchfork for their numerical ratings so that they know what to love or hate that week at a glance. A critic who can’t even be bothered to actually articulate a concept with words is one that I have a hard time taking seriously.
If this is all the better they can do, I suggest they just change the whole site into a repository for snarky in(die) jokes and leave the actual journalism to people who actually give a damn about the craft.
30 July, 2008 at 6:46 pm
Video: Black Kids Respond to Pitchfork Review | What did you mean ?
[...] review. If you haven’t, I really don’t feel like explaining it again, because I already bitched about it on my personal blog. Anyway, there’s been a lot of backlash toward Pitchfork for hyping the [...]
31 July, 2008 at 1:12 pm
Geoff
Yeah, it’s lame, but it does harken back to Pitchfork’s pre-tastemaker period, before they donned the golden laurel wreath and became so satisfied with their ability to start a backlash with a sub 5.0 review. You used to get the impression that these reviewers never really expected anyone beyond a small circle of similar-minded friends to see any of this, that it was all an in joke. Icanhaz10point0.com might be the best thing that could happen to the ‘Fork.
1 August, 2008 at 12:19 am
dontquityrdayjob
I totally see what you’re saying, Geoff. It all just points to this identity crisis they seem to be having: Are they journalists or are they wise guys? Are they dead serious (Best New Music!) or are they goofing around?
And as for Icanhaz10point0.com, you should probably register that domain name ASAP.