Pitchfork Hates the 90's
If you're a band that debuted and had a hit single or two in the 90's I have some bad news for you: the so-pretentious-it's-cute-sometimes
Pitchforkmedia hates you.
Now, I know I'm going to have to cover my bases here because if I don't somebody's bound to say, "The new Belle & Sebastian got a 9, asshole, shows what you know!" And I'm going to be forced to reply with, "Are you really bringing up Belle & Sebastian? What is this, High Fidelity?" and nobody will win. So let me clear things up before I continue with what I want to say.

1. When I say "had a hit single or two in the 90's" I mean they had a popular song. Not a popular song amongst you and your group of friends, I mean a popular popular song. What constitutes as a popular song? Everything from "Smells Like Teen Spirit" to that song by The Verve Pipe about the couple that threw their baby in the dumpster.
2. I'm talking about real new releases. Not re-issues, not live albums. And not bands that consist of members that had success in the 90's (i.e. Gorillaz, Audioslave, etc.) And no solo projects. Ben Folds Five had a hit in the 90's, not Ben Folds. There's a difference.
That being said, Pitchfork hates the 90's. Check out these new releases from 4 of the bigger 90's acts... and the Eels... and tell me if you see a pattern.
Beck "Guero" - 6.6
Nine Inch Nails "With Teeth" - 6.5
Eels - "Blinking Lights and Other Revelations" - 6.5
Oasis "Don't Believe The Truth" - 4.7
Weezer "Make Believe" - 0.4The highest rated of the bunch, Beck's "Guero" only got a 6.6, which on the Pitchfork scale (that they've oddly removed from the site) I believe loosely translates to "Like, it's good and stuff, but it's no Death Cab, who, for the record, totally jumped the shark when they were mentioned on the OC. Holy shit, did I just say jump the shark? That phrase jumped the shark back in '99. Lame."
So why can't any successful act that came out in the 90's score higher than a 7? Well, because everything new sucks, obviously. That, and no matter what they do they're going to have to deal with their legacy. Chuck Klosterman said it best (as he always does) in his Spin write-up about bands that are overrated and underrated. If you haven't read it, find it, I don't feel like rewriting it here. The point is, since these acts were "overrated" by Pitchfork's standards, their writers now feel the need to knock the wind out of their sails as only Pitchfork writers can.
Check it out.
Hell, Oasis weren't even the best band in Britpop. It's as though they succeeded solely by their own notorious conviction that they were the Beatles' rightful successors.So does Make Believe completely ruin not just present-day Weezer, but retroactively, any enjoyment to be had from their earlier work? I don't know...To some degree, Trent Reznor was a victim of his own success.Apparently these guys are trying to get a job writing for "Behind The Music." Reading these reviews I kept waiting for the line, "Life couldn't have been better for these lifelong friends... but what they didn't know was things were about to change. Coming up..."
Listen, I'm not going to argue that the albums I listed are all amazing. That's not what I'm saying here. All I'm saying is that Pitchfork shouldn't even bother reviewing albums from bands that formed before The Strokes came out because inevitably they're going to tear them apart. Stick to the new stuff, rate it high so you can say you liked it first, and then everybody's happy.
Especially The Wallflowers, who should be counting thier blessings that their last album slipped under the radar... I can only imagine...
|
b at 11:50 AM