As someone who often feels as though I've either done an album a disservice with a prematurely lukewarm write-up or, conversely, got too caught up in the hype/excitement and overrated something, I can understand wanting to retract a review - or at least revisit and reassess with the benefit of hindsight and a different context.
Pitchfork's rescoring article - clickbait for music journalists the world over - seems to have attracted a lot of mockery and negative comment. For what it's worth, I'm personally inclined to salute their willingness to publicly admit errors of judgement - especially when that means giving PJ Harvey's Stories From The City, Stories From The Sea the credit it richly deserves but was initially denied, recognising Discovery as the peak of Daft Punk's career, and acknowledging that Interpol's Turn On The Bright Lights, while doubtless a fine album, is blighted by the silliness of the lyrics ("there was something about how poetic and dour they thought they were that drove me nuts", writes Jillian Mapes). (What is absolute nonsense, though, is adjusting the scores - not least when, in some cases (Knxledge, Regina Spector), that adjustment is minimal and for little discernible reason.)
Mojo editor John Mulvey, however, has implied (not without reason) that it's a performative, self-indulgent exercise: "Sorry, but I STILL think talking and writing about music is more interesting than talking and writing about music criticism." And the response of former staffer Lindsay Zoladz was more cutting: "honestly the Pitchfork score I'd most like to retroactively change was my starting salary lmao"...
(Thanks to Ian for the link.)
No comments:
Post a Comment