Infighting among critics?

[Michelle*s_Farm]

There used to a fun consensus back in PB, CYH, IC and HN days.
Beastie Boys always received fantastic reviews from the critics that mattered (i.e., critics that generally had no problem skewering big selling artists). There may have been a tide turn in 1999 right around the time Alive was released on the anthology. Funny thing is that some critics think they can make a name for themselves by dissing Beastie Boys. It generally is a failing technique and uninteresting in my opinion. Regardless in this context I am wondering what is going on over at Pitchforkmedia.com -- are they divided over the quality of Beastie Boys?

On at least two occasions they have retracted comments made by one of their staff writers about Beastie Boys. Below is the latest. It seems to have been up for a short period and deleted (does anyone know what is going on over there at Pitchfork -- are they indeed divided about the Beastie Boys and feel like they need to appear that they are not; and who cares anyway each writer at Pitchfork or any record critic is entitled to their opinion). Division may be a signal of an artist's quality anyway. So why hide should pitchforkmedia bother hiding it?

Does anyone have any thoughts on why the following was retracted from pitchfork's website?

"There’s been an amendment to the album’s title. It’ll now be called Hot Sauce Committee Part 1. Also, the LP is due for release on September 15. Previously announced guests Nas and Santigold will both make appearances. And the song titles are vintage Beasties; I feel like I already know exactly how “Nonstop Disco Powerpack” and “Funky Donkey” will sound. (We already know what “B-Boys in the Cut” and “Lee Majors Come Again” sound like.) Odds are “OK” and “Crazy Ass Shit” will be the obligatory hardcore punk bangers, and “Bundt Cake” and “The Bill Harper Collection” will be the Meters-esque funk instrumentals. Prove me wrong, Beasties! (via Pitchfork: Beastie Boys Reveal Hot Sauce Details )"

I found this below (also you can tell pitchfork changed the news story by simple google searches):

http://upbeetmusic.com/

The edited version:

http://pitchfork.com/news/35696-beastie-boys-reveal-ihot-saucei-details/


http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=+%E2%80%9CLee+Majors+Come+Again%E2%80%9D+sound+l ike.%29+Odds+are+%E2%80%9COK%E2%80%9D+and+%E2%80%9 CCrazy+Ass+Shit%E2%80%9D+will+be+the+obligatory+ha rdcore+punk+bangers%2C+and+%E2%80%9CBundt+Cake%E2% 80%9D+and+%E2%80%9CThe+Bill+Harper+Collection%E2%8 0%9D+will+be+the+Meters-esque+funk+instrumentals.+Prove+me+wrong%2C+Beasti es%21+%28via+Pitchfork%3A+Bea&meta=

[acamus]

nice find. i remember that there was a retraction before too. was it on TT5B? it would be interesting to know why they've done this twice with the Bboys now. i wonder how often it happens in general at Pitchfork.

[Mr. Smacktackle]

Does anyone have any thoughts on why the following was retracted from pitchfork's website?
i'd say cause at this other site (http://drownedinsound.com/in_depth/4137233-first-listen--beastie-boys-hot-sauce-committee-pt-1) folks actually got to listen to the entire album and there was a song by song analysis where, among other things, it is stated that bundt cake and the bill harper collection are actually skits, which then proves these pitchfork fantasies based solely on the title of the song, such as: “Bundt Cake” and “The Bill Harper Collection” will be the Meters-esque funk instrumentals, are simply false.

interesting nevertheless

[Michelle*s_Farm]

nice find. i remember that there was a retraction before too. was it on TT5B? it would be interesting to know why they've done this twice with the Bboys now. i wonder how often it happens in general at Pitchfork.


Yes it was the TT5B review. I too wonder how often this sort of thing happens with Pitchfork's coverage of other bands. Is Pitchfork paranoid about lawsuits?

I bet the Beastie's are probably much more easy going with this sort of thing compared to other bands. The Red Hot Chili Peppers were (or are) engaged in a lawsuit over the TV show Californication:

http://www.out-law.com/page-8652

[acamus]

and as i recall the first TT5B review was biting and harsh. the second evolved into talking about the importance of lives and backstory. it was from this review that i started to drift away from even reading criticism. then last year a friend introduced me to his blog which covered music in this way. then this year several friends, Facebook-friends and i had long meaningful exchanges about the music we liked by talking about it in this way.

the last four paragraphs of that 2004 Pitchfork review of TT5B changed the way i look at music and music criticism. as a fan i've got to say thanks once again guys. it's sometimes the stuff and people who surround what you do that i get the most excited about and learn the most from. here are those words:

Still, my interaction with music goes well beyond simple, academic analysis of sound. Nostalgia, emotional context, the continued story and history behind the artist, the packaging, and everything else matters in my love and fascination with music. This is why writing for Pitchfork, which prides itself on discovering unknown underground artists, means so little to me anymore. Listening to music as some form of continued, insular experiment with recording driven by faceless, MP3-based rock bands bores me. I was immediately prepared to love To the 5 Boroughs from my history with the band-- from listening to Ill while playing Atari with Andy Eberhardt, to mowing neighborhood lawns with Gregg Bernstein and Paul's Boutique in a walkman, to holding my portable CD player off the front cushion of my Buick Century to keep Check Your Head from skipping as I passed over the speed bumps in the Marist parking lot every day after my Junior year, to shooting bottle rockets from poster tubes at passing trucks on 400 off the roof of the AMC multiplex I worked at when Ill Communication came out. It is not mentally possibly for me to switch on apathy towards the group.

When all is said and done, I have spun To the 5 Boroughs at least 30 times while working on some of the most rewarding and enjoyable creative work of my life in the past couple weeks, while visiting a city I love, and seeing people I missed. The album has become intrinsically linked to these experiences-- from my movie premiere this week to the surreal tour of the Manhattan Mormon Temple last week. The little number at the top of this piece reflects little of personal relation to the record. It's an arbitrary guide to how I would expect people to gauge the intent of this review. I will listen to this album for years to come. You might. Or not. It depends on your own complex web of past interaction with the Beastie Boys, linked memories to the music, or preconceived notion of how hip or not it is to listen to them in 2004.

Though I would fail to quantify the comparative "quality" of such albums, as I said before, I love Carl & The Passions as much as Pet Sounds. Divorcing the lives and backstory from the recorded product of a musical artist equates to making movies without characters. The sixth Beastie Boys album holds much more intrigue than some young dudes with bedhead thinking they're going to evolve rock and roll. I've ended up listening to it more than any other release this year.

This process has become unexciting and routine, which is why I bid the world of music writing farewell. Explaining why I love a record in the confines of its production, lyrics and instrumental "tightness" without detailing the first time I heard the band's song drifting from bowling alley in Poland or whatever confounds me. More power to those who discover new music from this site. I've figured out where I stand at this point, as have the readers. Like the Beastie Boys, I could continue to crank out divisive pieces of writing here until I go gray. I have more interesting stories to tell.

— Brent DiCrescenzo, June 14, 2004

[acamus]

oh, and thanks Michelle*s Farm for bringing this section of the boards back to the meat.

[Kid Presentable]

Yep, says the vegetarian.

[Late-Night Lion]

Interesting you brought this up, great discussion.

I really do like that TT5B review that is posted on the website, but there is certainly some dissent among the reviewers at pitchfork.

I was looking through the "The Pitchfork 500", a book in which the people who run the website choose their favorite albums from punk to the present.

A certain section was called "Career Killers", and one of the songs they selected was Ch-check it out.

Here's the quote:

"Rap has yet to find a way to age gracefully, and returning to your old-school roots after your hair's turned gray is never the solution. So bad they were shamed into making an instrumental record."

Pretty harsh words that I don't agree with.

[acamus]

it's been five years and i just decided to Google that retired Pitchfork author, Brent DiCrescenzo, is and i get this:

http://www.dallasobserver.com/2004-07-01/music/pitchfork-s-progress/

[acamus]

here's the retracted part. so apparently it had nothing to do with TT5B itself.

http://www.beastieboys.com/bbs/showthread.php?t=21070