I was, once again, floating around the Internet when I, once again, stumbled upon a site of interest: http://www.theonion.com/content/news/pitchfork_gives_music_6_8.
In a heroic piece of satire, The Onion, a satirical online newspaper, reported that Pitchfork Media, a “webzine” devoted towards the criticism of music, had valued music, what Pitchfork editor-in-chief Ryan Schreiber reports to be a 7000-year-old phenomenon, to merit a score of 6.8 out of 10. Here’s the article in full:
*
CHICAGO—Music, a mode of creative expression consisting of sound and silence expressed through time, was given a 6.8 out of 10 rating in an review published Monday on Pitchfork Media, a well-known music-criticism website.
According to the review, authored by Pitchfork editor in chief Ryan Schreiber, the popular medium that predates the written word shows promise but nonetheless “leaves the listener wanting more.”
“Music’s first offering, an eclectic, disparate, but mostly functional compendium of influences from 5000 B.C. to present day, hints that this trend’s time may not only have fully arrived, but is already on the wane,” Schreiber wrote. “If music has any chance of keeping our interest, it’s going to have to move beyond the same palatable but predictable notes, meters, melodies, tonalities, atonalities, timbres, and harmonies.”
Schreiber’s semi-favorable review, which begins in earnest after a six-paragraph preamble comprising a long list of baroquely rendered, seemingly unrelated anecdotes peppered with obscure references, summarizes music as a “solid but uninspired effort.”
“Coming in at an exhausting 7,000 years long, music is weighed down by a few too many mid- tempo tunes, most notably ‘Liebesträume No. 3 in A flat’ by Franz Liszt and ‘Closing Time’ by ’90s alt-rock group Semisonic,” Schreiber wrote. “In the end, though music can be brilliant at times, the whole medium comes off as derivative of Pavement.”
While Schreiber concedes that music is still “trying to find its aesthetic,” he also claims the form has not yet lived up to the lavish praise heaped on it by pop culture journalist Chuck Klosterman and 19th-century French romantic composer and critic Hector Berlioz, among others.
Schreiber concludes his critique by calling on music to develop a more cohesive sound in its future releases.
“We can only hope that [music] will begin to grow with its fans over the next few millennia,” Schreiber said. “If it can stick to what it does well, namely the song ‘Peg’ by Steely Dan, and Tuvan throat singing, then a sophomore effort will indeed be something to get excited about.”
The review has split the music community, with many decrying Pitchfork’s lukewarm reception of music as a contrarian move designed to propel the publication’s tastemaker status.
“It’s elitism for the sake of elitism,” said Rolling Stone senior editor David Fricke, who refuted Pitchfork’s middling rating, describing the entire art form as “transcendent.” “I’ve been listening to music for over 30 years, and it’s consistently some of the best stuff out there.”
Despite music’s defenders, the Pitchfork review has made a deep impression on the thousands of music fans who slavishly follow the website’s advice when it comes to enjoying things.
“Music used to be great, but let’s be honest, it’s a 6.8 now at best,” said Los Angeles resident Lowell Radler, 23, who admitted that he just looked at the rating rather than reading the whole review. “I seriously might never listen to music again.”
Still, most analysts agreed that the impact of Pitchfork’s scathing review of music will be dampened by the 2.4 rating it received from Pitchfork staff writer Dave Maher just moments after the initial critique was published online. Maher termed Schreiber’s assessment of music “overwrought, masturbatory posturing intended to make insecure hipsters feel as if they’re part of some imagined elite beau monde.”
*
But this piece, as a satire, is equipped with a meaning that far transcends the relative trivialities of music. The Onion has caught on with one of the world’s most prevalent mental reflexes: the urge to assess, to categorise, to assign with numbers and letters that hold little significance on their own. It’s a beautiful function of the human mind to be able to assess and to analyse; especially when we’re equipped with a language that people universally use and understand, it is this ability of critical thought that really enables us to come up with unforeseen connections and with invisible connotations that no other species can establish themselves.
But moreover, what’s even of greater note is that Ryan Schreiber and Dave Maher came up with different ratings for music. I’d personally like to read what kind of clever reasoning Maher made use of to come up with such a low rating, but in any case, the way in which Schreiber and Maher are both correct in their own ways is essentially illogical, yet possible. I know for a fact that No Line on the Horizon, to which I assigned a solid A, was given a similar five-star rating by Rolling Stone reviewer David Fricke, but was assigned a rather measly 4.2/10 by Fricke’s Pitchfork counterpart, Ryan Dombal. When one considers how people can come up with such polar opinions about the same thing, one has to wonder: do we really NEED to constantly analyse, to categorise, to assess?
To those who always fret about organisation and assessment, about the fulfillment of their meticulous desires for perfection, I say this: take a step back. Breathe. In the spirit of one brazen U2-ism: “Shout for joy if you get the chance!” And enjoy the view. Meanwhile, to that meticulous, tireless part within your psyche that constantly shouts for recognition: who says you’re even right? With all due respect, it’s about time you shut up.
Image credited to: http://www.seoco.co.uk/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/ii_earth_in_space.gif
Comments(2)
This is one (rare, mind you) stage in time when I actually contemplate where on Earth I’m getting to with this blog.
