It looks as if every other blog in the world has a "whoa, dude, did you see what went down at pitchfork?" entry on the subject of Brent DiCrescenzo's highly fictionalized, since-retracted, replaced-but-with-middle-finger-outstretched review of The Beastie Boys' To The 5 Boroughs, and, though I know I should be posting a "check it out" on Walter Horn's provocative and rigorous review of Eddie Prévost's latest book (Minute Particulars), I cannot allow Bagatellen to lag too far behind these times.
I never got a chance to read the offending review DiCrescenzo turned in, but the 7.9 parting shot he has left online for posterity @ pitchforkemedia.com is one or several of the following:
I can certainly sympathize with being frustrated with writing about music. I too don't think I can ever really write another record review, even though I have committments to fulfill. But music is also a subject I have been unable to abandon. Music is contagious in my imagination, and not in the way it is -- I suspect -- for practicing musicians. My real subject, then, must be this helpless fascination with sounds. Or I can thus rationalize this subject into being.
Has ptichfork changed the face of music criticism? Editor Ryan Schreiber believes it has, or at least has the potential to effect such changes. Schreiber recently told a reporter from the Dallas Observer,
"As far as the Internet being revolutionary, sort of a next wave? You know what? I think it is. In a way it's similar to the punk revolution in the '70s--'Oh, I don't need to know how to play an instrument. I don't need to sign with a major label to make the music or express myself.' The Internet has basically allowed the same thing. You don't have to go through four years of an English program at Columbia to get your opinion out and get your voice heard. And I think it's breeding a lot of people who are inherently talented, sort of naturals at it."The wrinkle now is that pitchfork has had to reprimand, if not shitcan -- I think one would be remiss in taking DiCrescenzo's "resignation" at face value in the context of the body of work he has generated for the site -- its best writer, "best" in the sense of being the writer who most completely and most recklessly lived out this ideal. If pitchfork's readership figures are not dented hard by DiCrescenzo's departure, then what are we to make of their accomplishments in this regard? Were individuals visiting the site because of DiCrescenzo or in spite of him? Who reads this stuff, and why? Does DiCrecenzo's work communicate anything, does it merely express, to paraphrase Richard Hell, in spurt after spurt? It's a question that nags at the hem of why I myself write, and why I almost never, ever turn down any writing gigs: any opportunities for public acts of subversion. Such professional indiscretion is the price paid for articulation.
"I have more interesting stories to tell."
I admit that I don't. The trick is, if I am very adept at teasers (record reviews being a form of such), I might be able to convince you that I do. I think, finally that such sleight-of-mind is the secret of the true artist.
A couple off-the-cuff comments before I read Joe’s new post in toto.
1.) Finally vindication, a bit of honest-to-goodness discussion about the Beastie Boys’ new rekkid.
2.) I don’t know DiCrescenzo’s [cue decrescendo] writing, but you gotta love that surname for a rock critic- toots sweet!
Is there such a thing as an internet scenester? Read the pixelrag in question and you'll find your answer. Bagatellen., on the other hand, is a microbeacon of journalistic integrity. And with a handsome staff, I might add.
I love how there is no link to Pitchfork in this entry.
I do love that.
Posted by: al at July 1, 2004 4:29 PMWord, Namor. Aside from a persistent five o’clock shadow, bed head & slightly ripe pits, I still got it goin’ on.
Posted by: derek at July 2, 2004 5:58 AMI read the original, long-form review. Somebody transcribed it onto I Love Music, but they're on a two-week hiatus, so I won't be able to grab it until long after everyone's stopped giving a shit.
Anyway, it was a pretty funny (and "true" even if not factually correct) assault on the way high-powered music biz PR firms use writers' need/desire to talk with high-powered stars to squeeze coverage of no-name clients out of 'em, and the way publicists have all the power in the high-level rock-hack trade. I've only had to deal with major label PR gatekeepers a few times (once when I was writing this piece), and I'll never do it again if I can help it.
Posted by: phil at July 2, 2004 8:19 AMhttp://www.esselle.org/blog/lepage/fullpitch.html
or
http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2004/6/22/1545/47181
This has provided my intersting bit of reading for the day. Thanks guys! (Also meant to mention I enjoyed reading the Munge Rock article, though couldn't conjure a clear-headed comment about it).
Al, isn't the link on 'parting shot' at top link to pitchfork?
I can sympathise with the issues at play here, though I feel it more as a musician trying to get his stuff reviewed, rather than a journalist trying to get an interview/review made. Both I guess are just trying to do their job. In my experience, I'm often asking myself 'Who the hell do I need to know in order to get _____ Magazine to just write a little review?' I'm not familiar with pitchfork, really, though I've sent them stuff, which has never been reviewed on the site. People I know have gotten reviews, which makes me wonder 'Who the hell do they know in order to get reviewed in ______ Magazine?'
And that's just a little bit of grime to cut through really in comparison to the world of PR, 'real' record label stuff. I can't fathom it, just as I sit, looking at list of cds sent out, comparing it to list of actual reviews/responses, I can't imagine that should I get to any level of /success/ as the Beastie Boys have, I would become part of such a terrible 'rock biz' system. Do people get jaded prematurely because we now have access to so many stories of other people becoming jaded?
I think if the article were some vindication of writer's frustrations, it would indicate that there was some re-write involved. The only thing that makes me think the article as listed is controvertial is being referred to it as such by this post [how's that for 'internet scene'? ;) ] Otherwise I'd just read the review as his, and think 'Oh, he's not too happy.'
His closure of the review about giving up, moving on, etc: well I've read that kind of thing before, thought it before myself, it doesn't indicate to me that some internet journalistic mini-crisis has occurred. But perhaps it's firing round the journals of the net can make it so?
Perhaps I don't know enough about what trouble Brian got into with pitchfork? I don't know any of his writing; I've only known about pitchfork for a few months (maybe that's I don;t get reviews there). I've probably known about Bagatellen for longer! You can thank Nat Catch for that!
anyway,
Michael
"Al, isn't the link on 'parting shot' at top link to pitchfork?"
Aww Michael, spoiling my fun, I didn't notice that. Good to see you around these parts. I like your question: "Do people get jaded prematurely because we now have access to so many stories of other people becoming jaded?"
I've had issues along similar lines in the past, and it's probably safe to say we've all at one time or another had our opinions prematurely soured because of something we hear before experiencing. To be honest, I hardly ever read traditional reviews for the purpose of dope any more. For that, I mostly rely on friends and acquaintances. There's simply too much to sift through and often the music ends up obscured by the review itself. It still serves the musicians well, I think, especially the little-known ones, to send out review copies. Advertising 101, but then there is the old adage that "sometimes no press is better press." I don't necessarily buy into that as theory but there are those recordings that are sometimes so dull they might be better left unmentioned.
Message boards and fine sites such as this one can come in really handy too, what with as many recordings are name-dropped and discussed without any real semblance of agenda. Rather, people shooting the shit about what is/isn't giving them kicks these days, simple as that.
The whole issue surrounding the Beasties review seems a natural consequence for a rag and individuals overly concerned about their own images.
Posted by: al at July 3, 2004 9:54 PMI agree with that last point, for sure, al.
Further, I'd say a better parody of the aforementioned webzine than that of Popdork is what I came across the first time I wanted to check out Pitchfork:
I've wondered how many indie seekers have fallen into the same (comic) trap.
Michael
Posted by: Michael Rodgers at July 6, 2004 7:58 AM"The sixth Beastie Boys album holds much more intrigue than some young dudes with bedhead thinking they're going to evolve rock and roll."
The part about dudes with bedhead is great. I would also like to point out my interest in rock and roll from dudes who have stylists that give them bedhead.
Posted by: Cary Ralston at July 10, 2004 2:03 PM.................................................. © 2003 - 2006 bagatellen ..................................................