Black Kids and Pitchfork: Screw-up or hubris?

I saw the 0.0 rating with the Sorry pug picture.

It is all very lame, and lazy.  You would think that after promoting them in such a positive light, they would make some effort to explain why the new record is bad.

Thom
mclean.thomas@gmail.com

Comment by Thom — July 22, 2008 @ 1:03 pm

Yup, I saw the 0.0 rating as well at around midday GMT. About 2 hours later it changed to the current 3.3 rating and I noticed that the writer had changed as well (it was originally Ray something or another).

I found the picture amusing at first but its pretty damn lazy of Pitchfork to not explain why they think the album is so crap.

Comment by Randomer from UK — July 22, 2008 @ 2:28 pm

Thanks for the comments above.  It’s good to know what happened here. 

There’s also this link with a screen-shot of the initial post/review of the album: 

Comment by Jason Gross — July 22, 2008 @ 2:53 pm

They weren’t the whole of Black Kids’ hype but a positive Pitchfork notice was definiteley a flashpoint.  Also, they would be fools if they didn’t know that just by virtue of this record’s release that they were gonna be in for a shitstorm.  If they give it a good review, they’ll catch hell for big upping another lame new-wave revival act/blog-driven mediocrity.  If they slam it eloquently, then they get called haters or pretensious or whatever else the people who hate pitchfork have been stockpiling.  This way, they have a pisstake that’s as much on themselves on the band.  They get to say “OK, we fucked up.  We have egg on our faces.  We pushed this band on our readership, they turned out to not have the goods, let’s laugh about it while we wait for the next round of disposably cute indie tossers to circulate up to the meat grinder.” It’s a cruel acknowledgement, but it’s a point for Pitchfork because it dispells the whole self-serious kingmaker characterization that seems to surround them by presenting themselves as being in it for the lulz as much as they are to give out talking points.  Whatever they lose in prestige, they get back in affability.  The band, on the other hand, will probably be forgotten by this time next year.

Comment by RaptorAvatar from LA — July 22, 2008 @ 3:07 pm

That doesn’t address their quick grade change that they did earlier today- that alone should make you wonder how well they did in covering this record. 

Also, does that mean that every time they talk up a band and the group then makes a lousy record, PF has to run an ‘apology review’?

Whatever the facts may be about whether all of their positive reviews have a noticeable effect on the respective bands, PF has a vested interest in maintaining their position as an important gatekeeper and this review is part of that.

Having said that, I do like some of the material that’s run in PF.  Like any publication, it has its faults.  I think it’s dangerous though when we automatically cede too much power to one place and the real or imagined effect they have on the music industry or a portion of it.

Comment by Jason Gross — July 22, 2008 @ 4:21 pm

I love that they had a different writer for the increased score - with no other changes.  That’s editorial value-adding in action!

Comment by dave — July 22, 2008 @ 4:48 pm

yeah saw both 0.0 and ‘Everyone makes mistakes’… shame they couldn’t back it up with reasoning. but generally Pitchfork are pretty spot on about stuff, even if they sometimes go about it in a horrendously pretentious way.

Comment by Sam from UK — July 22, 2008 @ 5:41 pm

scott plagenhoef responded to questions about the original review on idolator. his reply is linked from my name, but basically he said that there was an editing error linked to their recent server move.

i’m actually 100% OK with how they reviewed the album, as they were in a ‘damned no matter what they did’ situation since their rave about the EP was, as someone up there said, a flashpoint in the earliest stages of their fame. i didn’t take the apology as just to the audience, but also to the band for entering it (perhaps inadvertently!) into this grueling hype machine that is how certain people who fancy themselves ahead of the curve process music in the current moment.

Comment by maura — July 22, 2008 @ 10:59 pm

Thanks to everyone for creating a good dialog here!

As to Maura’s point, that’s an interesting angle.  While that might be true, it’s not made explicit in the review though.  Also, Scott’s explanation, if you want to take it at face value, should also be at PF itself.

Comment by Jason Gross — July 23, 2008 @ 7:57 am

It’s nothing more than yet another silly stunt for Pitchfork to generate publicity for themselves and make themselves the story and not the music. Very boring. Not sure why anyone is paying attention to such silly thing.

Comment by Alan from Los Angeles — July 23, 2008 @ 8:14 am

yo it was 0.0 11pm Sydney Australian time

peace

Comment by pope — July 23, 2008 @ 8:41 am

This is exactly the sort of thing that exposes blogs to accusations of not being “legitimate” journalism or criticism.

It is a gesture, but is in no way explanatory or even documentary. Because of this, there is no way to have a remotely useful discussion of what Pitchfork has said about the album. They haven’t said anything.

Comment by Matt — July 23, 2008 @ 10:09 am

Well, I stopped reading Pitchfork a long time ago, so it isn’t like I pay attention and knew. Really, they were the ones that got me into the band in the first place. Now, I actually thought Partie Traumatic was pretty funny, catchy, and an accurate end-of-the-world party for teenage horny kids. All into a good sound of a flashy meld of The Rapture-esque vocals and a bit of Motown sneaking into the sound. It’s pretty inevitable that they’d bring a band up, just to eventually let them down like that.

I don’t regret liking the album after being given the extra from a radio station that I was an intern at. Thank goodness for my good nature and self-esteem. :-)

Comment by Black Sunshine from Boston, MA — July 23, 2008 @ 4:00 pm

I also saw the 0.0 rating, at sometime around 10.00 AM GMT. The writer then was Ray Suzuki (I remember because I thought how cool it would be to share your name with a car brand...)

Comment by Japie Stoppelenburg — July 25, 2008 @ 4:57 am

So are we supposed to view this as “progress” because PFM was so inclusive as to remember to feature a black AND white dog in their oh-so cute wink?

All of white hipsterdom needs to not be in such a rush to prematurely anoint freaky/quirky/etc Negroes just to assuage their fleeting moments of liberal guilt. Obama aside, we see all too clearly this year that the rightful place for creators of color is still deemed to be the margins (however luxurious the updated slave quarters)

Comment by BlackRebelle — July 26, 2008 @ 8:41 pm

Maura, is it possible that your rapid defense of Pitchforkmedia’s lapse of critical judgement has anything to do with the fact that your primary Idolator collaborator was a longtime Pfork staffer, at the helm of what you deem the “grueling hype machine”? Also, have you given any thought to providing meaningful content on Idolator, rather than helping to grease the wheels of the deafening “grueling hype machine”? Thanks!

Comment by Questioner from Brooklyn — July 27, 2008 @ 11:57 am

Ditto the sentiments of BlackRebelle. The same thing applies to the white hipster embrace of crack rap.

Comment by Steve — July 28, 2008 @ 4:41 am