Pitchforking/Return Of Black Kids

Bashing Pitchfork on the internets for sport is...well, hardly unusual. Talk of indie-newcomers Black Kids...not exactly new either. So, the Pitchfork review of the new Black Kids full-length. I'm late to the party, I know. For those even later, a visual recap (via The Lipster). Basically, after an insane period of hype post-self-released-EP and pre-LP that prompted a number of us to get a little testy, Pitchfork has separated the e-chaff from the wheat a bit harshly - and very belatedly. As I've said from the outset, I started this blog in part as a reaction to this very "hype-then-trash" trend, so it'll come as no surprise that I have a few thoughts on the matter.

I'm not sure it really matters how good/bad/mediocre the Black Kids record is. I thought the much-loved EP was awful; the production was bad, the performances were worse. In both senses, the LP's an improvement. The songwriting remains remarkably unremarkable, and for those of us old enough to remember the last few Cure revivals (Hot Hot Heat anyone?), this bag of tricks has aged poorly. I'll grant the band and the starry-eyed hype fiends this, though: I've heard worse, and plenty of other acts with studio merits are this bad live.

I'm also old enough to remember the early/comparatively lawless days of Pitchfork 1.0 and 1.1, when Jason Josephes, Brent DiCrescenzo, and the mighty Ryan Schreiber used to fire off goofy, opinionated, and occasionally brilliant missives off into the void. But at this point, Pitchfork's come down too often on the side of "responsible journalism" (from DiCrescenzo's Beastie Boys review fiasco to the Nick Sylvester canning) to be engaging in this garbage. Maybe more importantly, the site's tacit acknowledgment of their starring role in this tragedy - the "Sorry:-/" bit - should have been accompanied with something a bit more explicit. Something more along the lines of: "Sorry, we're playing into this incredibly problematic and irresponsible cycle for the sake of our bottom line and/or continued relevance." With the early-mid decade high water mark past or passing thanks at least in part to a talent drain as severe as SNL's (DiCrescenzo, Sylvester, Breihan, Dahlen, and Harvell all mostly or entirely gone), Pitchfork seems to have settled for an out-blog-the-blogs approach. Taking a hardline stance on semi-controversies with your best writers I can accept grudgingly...as long as you don't turn around and do this.

Whatever the reasoning is to keep hyping obviously raw and marginally talented bands, readers are owed an explanation for the decision to shit on a band that was Best New Music less than a year ago. That explanation could be that the record sucks, that explanation could be that the hype outpaced the results, whatever. Ann Powers has an interesting take on the motivation (including the continued relevance bit), but regardless of the true cause for the about-face, Pitchfork has an obligation to make some kind of excuse for themselves.

Current Head P4ker Scott Plagenhoef is making the rounds defending the review on technical grounds (see the scottpl comment on this Idolator piece), and I'm inclined to take him at his word on the 0.0/3.3 rating switch. I'd still love to see an actual explanation of the review itself - feel free, Scott. After all, that's the real issue.