Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
4
One day in early 2010, the internet message board I Love Music began
discussing the Pazz and Jop poll, which the Village Voice had recently
published on its website. The Voice has conducted Pazz and Jop annually
since 1971. Hundreds of music critics submit lists ranking their favorite
albums and singles, and the Voice compiles two master lists identifying the
years best music. It is the main event in American popular music criticism.
On I Love Music, the Pazz and Jop thread chugged slowly along for a few
hours. Then Scott Plagenhoef, editor-in- chief of the music website
Pitchfork, began posting under the name scottpl, and things picked up
speed. 11 of the top 13 LPs and five of the top six singles are shared
between this and the Pitchfork list, Plagenhoef wrote. For what its
worth.
The suggestion that the nations music critics had copied their end-of-the-
year charts from a website just over a decade old was a clear provocation,
and twenty-four hours and hundreds of posts later the conversation was no
longer about Pazz and Jop. Man, Pitchfork circa 2000 and 2001 vs now is
night and day, Plagenhoef wrote. The size of the site now utterly dwarfs
the site then, and certainly the way its run and decisions are made are
different. Plagenhoef did his best to maintain a modest pose (I dont beg
for credit or claim to be responsible for things), but in the end it was hard
to resist a triumphal note. Weve succeeded at a time when nobody else
has, he wrote. We reach more people right now than Spin or Vibe ever
did, even if you use the bs print mag idea that every copy is read by 2.5
people . . . hell, I should stop caring, get back to work, and let people keep
underestimating us. Then he posted two more times. Then he wrote,
Alright, I will get out of this thread. Then he posted eighteen more times.
He may have been bragging, but Plagenhoef was right. In the last decade,
no organ of music criticism has wielded as much influence as Pitchfork. It
is the only publication, online or print, that can have a decisive effect on a
musician or bands career. This has something to do with the sites
diligently cultivated readership: no genres fans are more vulnerable to
music criticism than the educated, culturally anxious young people who
pay close attention to indie rock. Other magazines and websites compete
for these readers attention, of course, but they come and go, one dissolving
into the next, while Pitchfork keeps on gathering strength. Everyone
acknowledges this. And yet everyone also acknowledges something else:
whatever attracts people to Pitchfork, it isnt the writing. Even writers who
admire the sites reviews almost always feel obliged to describe the prose as
uneven, and thats charitable. Pitchfork has a very specific scoring system
that grades albums on a scale from 0.0 to 10.0, and that accounts for some
of the sites appeal, but it cant just be the scores. I could start a website
with scores right now, and nobody would care. So what is it? How has
Pitchfork succeeded where so many other websites and magazines have
not? And why is that success depressing?
Back when people still had to pay for music, money served to limit and
define consumption. You could only afford so many records, so you bought
what you could, listened to the radio or watched MTV, and ignored
everything else. Those select few who did manage to hear everything
record store clerks, DJs, nerds with personal warehousescould use this
rare knowledge to terrorize their social or sexual betters, as in the pre-
internet-era film High Fidelity. Napster made all of that obsolete. Today,
almost every person I know has more music on his computer than he could
ever know what to do with. You dont need to care about music to end up
like thisthe accumulation occurs naturally and unconsciously. My iTunes
library, for example, contains forty-seven days of music. According to the
column that counts the number of times Ive played each song, roughly a
sixth of that music has never been listened to at all. In the 21st century, we
are all record store clerks.
Most mashups are quite crudely put together. What made the mashup DJ
impressive was the breadth of his iTunes library, his mastery of it, and his
taste. This made him an ironically heroic figure, because while using
Napster for the first time was exciting, it also forced you to confront your
own inadequacy. Everyone on the internet had better music than you did,
or at least more of it. You could spend whole evenings downloading to close
the gap, but what were you actually supposed to do with all these new
songs? Listen to them? That could take years, and all the while youd be
downloading more music.
In the middle of 2000, having raised a few thousand dollars selling
records on eBay, Schreiber moved Pitchfork to an office in the Wicker Park
neighborhood of Chicago. His stable of writerspeople willing to produce
long reviews for very little money and a CDwas growing, and on the sites
Staff page, these writers posted irreverent profiles of themselves. Matt
LeMay, who still works for the site as a senior contributor, put up a picture
of a cactus instead of his face, and wrote, Matt LeMay wasnt like the other
cacti. On the Advertising page, the site bragged about a readership that
had tripled since January, 2000! Pitchfork is now receiving over 130,000
visits every month, more than any of our print competitors. This looks like
a dubious claimRolling Stones circulation was well over one millionbut
Pitchfork wasnt thinking that big yet. They meant other indie rock zines,
none of which survive today. [Our writers] genuinely care about music,
the pitch read, unlike some of the big time playaz thatre just in the
business for the bling bling. Charging $300 per month for a banner ad,
Pitchfork attracted indie bands with new releases, upstart record labels,
and online music stores like InSound, eMusic, and Spun.com. One good
reason to advertise with Pitchfork was that Schreiber was now publishing
four reviews a day, five days a week, and thus gradually turning his small
audience into a loyal one. Best of all, though, was the fact that Pitchfork
had a five-year head start on rating all the music that Napster had recently
made available for free: Our massive record review archive is one of the
most comprehensive indie-based review archives on the web with more
than 3,000 reviews spanning the past five years.
Faced with an album this new and this great, DiCrescenzo paid it the
highest compliment he could think of: he made a list of Radioheads
influences. In just over 1,200 words, he managed to mention the John
Coltrane album Ol, C. S. Lewis, the Warp Records label, Terry Gilliams
animations for Monty Python, David Bowie and Brian Eno, Aphex Twin,
Bjrk, and, finally, the White Album. Its clear that Radiohead must be the
greatest band alive, he wrote, if not the best since you know who. (He
means the Beatles.) It was a watershed moment for us, Schreiber later
said of the Kid A review. We got linked from all the Radiohead fan sites,
which were really big. We got this huge flood of traffic, like five thousand
people in a day checking out that one review. We had never seen anything
like that. Web boards were talking about our review. Of course, the review
told you little about Radioheads music that you couldnt have heard on
your own, but it told you everything about what kind of cultural company
Radiohead was meant to keep. This technique became Pitchforks signature
style.
Although the term indie rock didnt gain widespread use until the
early 90s, the music began to emerge from the wreckage of punk rock in
the mid-80s, and was variously referred to as college rock, post-punk,
and DIY (for Do It Yourself). Indie referred specifically to the
independent record labels that cropped up around the country in that
decade: Dischord in Washington DC; SubPop in Seattle; Matador in New
York; Merge in Chapel Hill, North Carolina; and Touch and Go in Chicago.
The music these labels released was diverse, to be sure, but at the core was
a dominant strain of direct, hard-edged, bitterly sarcastic music by bands
like Minor Threat, Black Flag, Dinosaur Jr., Fugazi, The Butthole Surfers,
and The Pixies. What held these bands togetherhowever looselywas a
belief in the cynicism and greed of the major labels, which would not have
signed them anyway. It is worth noticing that indie rock is one of the few
musical genre names that doesnt refer to a musical aesthetic: the genre
was founded on an ethic of production.
This ethic got complicated in 1991, when Nirvana, a three-man band out of
Aberdeen, Washington, became one of the most popular musical acts in the
world. Nirvana started out on SubPop, but in 1990 the group signed with
the major label DGC Records. By 1992, Nirvanas second album,
Nevermind, had landed at number one on the Billboard chart, beating out
new albums by Garth Brooks and Michael Jackson. In 1994, Kurt Cobain
killed himself with a shotgun.
Then that industry began to collapse. In 2000, the pop group N Sync sold
2.42 million copies of No Strings Attached in its first week of release. Six
years later, it took Lil Wayne six months to sell the same number of copies
of Tha Carter III. Each was the best-selling album of its respective year.
The period in between amounted to a Napster-induced, industry-wide
panic. One of the music industrys first efforts to address this crisis
emerged in the music itself. In the first years of the decade, a number of
rock bands trading in blatant formal nostalgia became both commercial
and critical favorites: The White Stripes, The Strokes, The Hives, and The
Vines all played direct, sexy versions of by-the-book rock and roll, and were
relatively untroubled by the ethical concerns that had dogged successful
indie bands. Some of this music was pretty good, but Rolling Stones
impulse to refer to The Strokes as saviors of rock had more to do with
denying the existence of a new world. Pitchfork, appropriately, was more
skeptical of this new music, but eventually they decided to like it, and its
hard to blame themit was so likable! Its Christ and Prometheus, Ryan
Schreiber and Dan Kilian wrote in a review of The White Stripes White
Blood Cells, eternally dying and rising again. . . . They dont innovate rock;
they embody it. The frightening implications of thiswhether the body of
rock was really a corpse, for onewere not addressed.
Most of these bands began to fade within a year or two, and as indie bands
watched the industrys collapse, the envy and contempt they had
traditionally felt toward major labels stopped making sense. What was
there to envy anymore? Wasnt it obvious that indie bands, with their
devoted networks of fans, critics, and performance venues, had it better?
Not only were the major labels soul-sucking money machines, they
couldnt even make you rich! This made early indies militancy and
paranoia look silly, and the hard lines began to soften. In 2001, The Shins,
a band from Albuquerque, New Mexico, released a gentle, nostalgic song
called New Slang, and within a year it could be heard not only on college
radio stations but also in a McDonalds commercial, and eventually in the
movie Garden State. The Shins were on SubPop, and when the Seattle
Times asked one of the labels creative directors about the bands reaction
to the McDonalds offer, he recalled, They were like, well we dont really
think this is compromising, someone wants to pay us to do what we do.
This turned the usual critique of selling out precisely on its head. Its a
way for a band that doesnt get signed for huge advances to be able to quit
their day jobs for a while, the creative director continued, and
concentrate on making music. By 2003, Fox was making indie rock a
staple on the soundtrack to The O.C., its biggest hit at the time. In an early
episode Seth, one of the shows main characters, even went so far as to
name-check the Seattle band Death Cab for Cutie.
Pitchfork, too, began to shift from angry mob to kingmaker. In 2003,
the site introduced a Best New Music designation to its review scheme,
and the following year Ryan Schreiber took his first trip to New York City.
Ryan spent a whole day in Times Square, one contributor recalled. He
was so happy. Schreibers trip had musical justifications as well. Amid a
wave of nostalgia for the 1980s, New Yorks last decade of musical
excitement, the citys indie musicians had taken an interest in post-punk
and dance music, and Schreiber was paying close attention. A group called
LCD Soundsystem had recently released the song Losing My Edge, in
which an aging James Murphy lamented how much cooler those younger
than him were becoming: Im losing my edge to the internet seekers who
can tell me every member of every good group from 1962 to 1978, Murphy
sang. Im losing my edge to the art-school Brooklynites in little jackets and
borrowed nostalgia for the unremembered Eighties. (I hear you have a
compilation of every good song ever made by anybody.) For Schreiber,
ascendant king of the internet seekers, this was like a dance-music
gateway drug. In fall 2003, another dance-punk band called The Rapture
released Echoes, and Schreiber was addicted for good. Finally, Schreiber
wrote, in a 9.0 Best New Music review, we are shaking off the coma of the
stillborn slacker 90s and now there is movement. Arms uncross, faces
snap to attention, and clarity hits like religion. Schreiber praised the new
indie rock for cultivating a new loathing and defiance for tired hipster
poses. It was time to dance:
You people at shows who dont dance, who dont know a good time, who
cant have fun, who sneer and scoff at the supposed inferiorits you
this music strikes a blow against. We hope you die bored.
Pitchfork, of course, did not become a site that promoted only dance music,
but it had begun to move away from the detached skepticism that
characterized so much of 90s indie rock. More and more, it found itself
promoting music that celebrated a certain kind of emotionalism. Earlier
that year, Schreiber had written about diving into boxes of promotional
records and coming to the surface with a Toronto band called Broken
Social Scene between his teeth. Broken Social Scene was in perfect keeping
with indies developing emphasis on nostalgia, collaboration, and empathy.
One popular track on You Forgot It In People, for example, was called
Anthems for a Seventeen Year Old Girl. Played in a warm major key, the
song featured a small harmonic circle that endlessly repeated as the
instruments swelled, as though the group were playing not a pop song but
a round or lullaby. The bands members, ranging from six to nearly twenty
in number, referred to themselves as a collective, and they highlighted
their own cooperative largeness by playing, in addition to the standard
rock instruments, woodwinds, horns, and strings. But in his 1,100-word
rave, Schreiber spent more time listing influences, DiCrescenzo-style: he
compared the group to five other bands from Toronto, as well as Dinosaur
Jr., Jeff Buckley, Spoon, Electric Light Orchestra, electronic musician
Ekkehard Ehlers, The Notwist, and (here they come again) Sgt. Peppers
Lonely Hearts Club Band. You just have to hear it for yourself, Schreiber
concluded. Oh my god, you do. You just really, really do. Schreiber gave
the album a 9.2, and suddenly Broken Social Scene, whose record had
essentially disappeared from stores between its 2002 release and
Pitchforks review, began selling out concerts. The idea that Pitchfork could
wield the kind of influence that causes money to circulatein other words,
the kind of influence that still matters, even in our file-sharing times
started to take hold.
One year later, the debut album by a Montreal band called Arcade Fire
received a 9.7. David Moore began his review with a historical excursus:
Like all rock nerds, Pitchforks writers had always come off as snobs, but
the Travistan review in particular struck bloggers and critics as an abuse of
the sites ever expanding power. Further evidence of snobbery was seen in
Pitchforks refusal to allow commentswhich really was unusual, given
that Spin, Rolling Stone, and other magazines were rushing to let readers
append their own record reviews to the professional ones. Perhaps
Schreiber sensed that because Pitchforks reviewers were themselves
amateursin another context, commentersa commenting feature would
have threatened the fragile suspension of disbelief that powered the
Pitchfork machine.
Pitchfork was commonly accused at this time of hipster cynicism, but the
charge was hard to square with the music Pitchfork liked. One of the sites
favorite musicians around 2005 was Sufjan Stevens, a sensitive young
composer and songwriter from Detroit. After announcing his plan to make
an album about each of the fifty states, Stevens went on to release Seven
Swans, an album of mellow, explicitly Christian folk-pop. When he finally
got back to the Fifty States Project and released Illinois, Pitchfork made it
their Album of the Year. Amanda Petrusichs review declared that Stevenss
beautifully orchestrated music (he really did use a small orchestra) made it
hard to know whether its best to grab your party shoes or a box of
tissues, and she approvingly quoted this lyric, from the song Chicago: If
I was crying / In the van with my friend / It was for freedom / From myself
and from the land. At its best, Petrusich wrote, the album makes
America feel very small and very real. This new interest in pastoral
nationalism seemed like a strange fit for indie rock; or at least it made
plain that indie rock was in the hands of a new and different generation of
fans. At the height of the Iraq war, college graduates poured into cities and
took internships at magazines, nonprofits, and internet startup firms. They
found themselves drawn, for some reason, to adorable music that openly
celebrated our national heritage. They dressed like stylish lumberjacks and
watched Sufjan perform dressed as a Boy Scout, and they remembered a
disappeared world of the small and the tangible.
Around this time, Pitchfork also began championing a woman who wasnt
an indie rocker at all, and who would go on to become one of the decades
most important musicians. As Sufjan Stevens was doing his best to imagine
a time when the internet didnt exist, British rapper M.I.A. seemed to pull
her entire aesthetic off her wifi connection. Originally a designer and visual
artist, M.I.A. dressed like a Myspace page, overlaying brightly patterned
neon spandex with piles of fake bling. She designed her website to look like
websites from the 90s, and on an album cover she obscured her face with
the bars that show how much of a video has played on YouTube. In her
music, she translated the musical ideas behind mashups into a vague but
appealing third-world cultural militancy. Her first mixtape was called
Piracy Funds Terrorism Vol. 1, as in online music piracy. Mashup DJs like
Girl Talk had begun redeeming mainstream pop songs by playing them all
at the same time, a perfect party soundtrack for the listener who, though he
didnt actually like Fall Out Boy or Gwen Stefani, needed at least to know
about them. M.I.A.s politics worked in the same way, making the
particular brutalities of oppression in Liberia or Sri Lanka danceable by
lumping them into a vague condition of sexy global distress. Shes not
exploring subcultures so much as visiting them, Scott Plagenhoef wrote in
a review of her first album, Arular, grabbing souvenirs and laying them
out on acetate. Plagenhoef didnt see anything wrong with this, although
in true Pitchfork style, he made sure to let you know that some people
might object: An in-depth examination of demonizing The Other, the
relationship between the West and developing nations, or the need to
empathize with ones enemies would likely make for a pretty crappy pop
song. Around the same time, a contributor reviewing M.I.A.s live concert
defended her politics in a similar vein. Maybe thats how brilliantly
innocuous Arular actually is, he wrote. It subtly imprints manifestoes in
the brain, inspiring the masses to pull up the poor, without ever really
teaching how or why. Reading these strained, convoluted efforts to justify
the cultural exploitation of global violence, I began to wonder why
Pitchforks writers had such trouble saying the things they knew to be true.
Maybe it was because they felt the truth would make for crappy pop songs,
and that therefore the best thing would be to ignore it.
And yet not all contributions are positive. The strangest thing about
Pitchfork is that, for all its success, it hasnt produced a single significant
critic in fifteen years. Brent DiCrescenzo was a bit of a star for a while, but
even with him the entertainment value almost always exceeded the insight.
There are other magazines that subordinate the writers individual voice to
an institutional voicethe New Yorker, for startersbut its strange for a
rock magazine to do so, and even the New Yorker occasionally lets writers
sound like themselves. Pitchfork couldnt develop intelligence on the
individual level because the sites success depended largely on its function
as a kind of opinion barometer: a steady, reliable, unsurprising accretion of
taste judgments. Fully developed critics have a tendency to surprise
themselves, and also to argue with one another, and not just over matters
of tastethey fight about the real stuff. This would have undermined
Pitchforks project.
What did we do to deserve Pitchfork? The answer lies in indie rock itself.
In the last thirty years, no artistic form has made cultural capital so central
to its identity, and no musical genre has better understood how cultural
capital works. Disdaining the reserves of actual capital that were available
to them through the major labels, indie musicians sought a competitive
advantage in acquiring cultural capital instead. As indies successes began
following one another in increasingly rapid succession, musicians working
in other genres began to take notice. Hip-hop is an illustrative foil. As indie
bands in the 90s did everything they could to avoid the appearance of
selling out, rappers tried to get as rich as possible. The really successful
ones stopped rappingor at least outsourced the work of writing lyrics
and opened clothing lines and record labels. But for all their corporate
success, rappers knew where the real cultural capital lay. When Jay-Z
decided, as an obscenely wealthy entertainment mogul, that he wanted
finally to leave his drug-dealer persona behind, he got himself seen at a
Grizzly Bear concert in Williamsburg. What the indie rock movement is
doing right now is very inspiring, he said to a reporter. One year later, his
memoirs were published by Spiegel & Grau.
Pitchfork has fully absorbed and adopted indie rocks ideas about the uses
of cultural capital, and the results have been disastrous. Indie rock is based
on the premise that its possible to disdain commercial popularity while
continuing to make rock and roll, the last half centurys most popular kind
of commercial music. Sustaining this premise has almost always involved
suppressing or avoiding certain kinds of knowledge. For indie bands, this
meant talking circles around the fact that eventual success was not actually
improbable or surprising. For indie rocks critics, it meant refusing to
acknowledge that writing criticism is an exercise in power. In 2006, two
years after Arcade Fire should have made this kind of claim implausible,
Schreiber tried to downplay Pitchforks importance in a newspaper
interview: So I think we maybe have this sort of snobbish reputation. But
were just really honest, opinionated music fans. Four years later, he said
the same thing to the New York Times: I dont think that we see ourselves
as anointers. Nine months after that, Arcade Fire won the Grammy for
Album of the Yearthe first indie band to be so honored.
Indies self-deception has had consequences for fans as well. One kind of
fan, at least originally, was the lower-middle-class white person, frequently
a college dropout, who got by on bartending or other menial work and tried
to save enough money to move out of his parents house. This kind of
person got involved in indie rock to acquire cultural capital that hed
otherwise lack. A pretty good example of this kind of indie rock fan is Ryan
Schreiber. In the last decade, however, indie rock has classed up, steadily
abandoning these lower-class fans (along with the midsized cities they live
in) for the young, college-educated white people who now populate
Americas major cities and media centers. For these people, indie rock has
offered a way to ignore the fact that part of what makes your dead-end
internship or bartending job tolerable is the fact that you can leave and go
to law school whenever you like. A pretty good example of this kind of indie
rock fan is me. In the two years since I graduated from college, Ive had a
pretty good time being broke in New York and drinking cheap beer
with my friends. But sometimes I remind myself that the beer Im drinking
is not actually cheap, and that furthermore I am not actually broke: if I
married someone who made the same salary I make, our household
income would be slightly above the national median, which is also true of
almost every person I spend my free time with. The truth is that I inherited
expensive tastes and moved to an expensive city, and sometimes I get
cranky about not being able to buy what I want. But when I dont feel like
reminding myself of these things, I can listen to indie music. In Sufjan
Stevens, indie adopted precious, pastoral nationalism at the Bush
Administrations exact midpoint. In M.I.A., indie rock celebrated a
musician whose greatest accomplishment has been to turn the worlds
various catastrophes into remixed pop songs. This is a kind of music, in
other words, thats very good at avoiding uncomfortable conversations.
Pitchfork has imitated, inspired, and encouraged indie rock in this respect.
It has incorporated a perfect awareness of cultural capital into its basic
architecture. A Pitchfork review may ignore history, aesthetics, or the basic
technical aspects of tonal music, but it will almost never fail to include a
detailed taxonomy of the current hype cycle and media environment. This
is a small, petty way of thinking about a large art, and as indie bands have
both absorbed and refined the cultures obsession with who is over- and
underhyped, their musical ambitions have been winnowed down to almost
nothing at all.
Its usually a waste of time to close-read rock lyrics; a lot of great rock
musicians just arent that good with words. What you can do with a rock
lyric, though, is note the kinds of phrasing that come to mind when a
musician is trying to fill a particular rhythmic space with words. You can
see what kind of language comes naturally, and some of the habits and
beliefs that the language reveals. This makes it worth pausing, just for a
moment, over Animal Collectives most famous lyric: I dont mean to seem
like I care about material things. The ethical lyric to sing would be, I
dont want to be someone who cares about material things, but in indie
rock today the worst thing would be just to seem like a materialistic person.
You can learn a lot about indie rock, its fans, and Pitchfork from the words
mean to seem like.
I sometimes have the utopian thought that in a better world, pop music
criticism simply wouldnt exist. What justification could there be for
separating the criticism of popular music from the criticism of all other
kinds? Nobody thinks its weird that the New York Review of Books
doesnt include an insert called the New York Review of Popular Books.
One of pop music criticisms most important functions today is to
perpetuate pop musics favorite myth about itselfthat it has no history,
that it was born from nothing but drugs and revolution sometime in the
middle of the 20th century. But the story of The Beatles doesnt begin with
John, Paul, George, and Ringo deplaning at JFK. It begins with Jean-
Philippe Rameaus 1722 Treatise on Harmony, which began to theorize the
tonal system that still furnishes the building blocks for almost all pop
music. Or, if you like, it goes back to the 16th century, when composers
began to explore the idea that a songs music could be more than just a
setting for the lyrical textthat it could actually help to express the words
as well. Our very recent predecessors have done many important and
wonderful things with their lives, but they did not invent the musical
universe all by themselves. The abolition of pop criticism as a separate
genre would help pop writers to see the wider world they inhabit.
Most of all, though, we need new musical forms. We need a form that
doesnt think of itself as a collection of influences. We need musicians who
know that music can take inspiration not only from other music but from
the whole experience of life. Pitchfork and indie rock are currently run by
people who behave as though the endless effort to perfect the habits of
cultural consumption is the whole experience of life. We should leave these
things behind, and instead pursue and invent a musical culture more worth
our time.