Quote:
|
Originally Posted by po'ed
Actually, I read PF every day -- 7.9 is a mediocre rating -- over the past few years their rating system has experienced serious grade inflation. Nobody who reads the site regularly would say "wow, 7.9, gotta go get that!" (I recognize their guide says 7.5 to 7.9 is very good -- but they've handed out ratings in that range and higher like candy recently). The point is that PF didn't bow down and give its highest rating like those played out folks at Rolling Stone and coincidentally the band's publicist threatens legal action if they don't retract the review.
Notice that now the ENTIRE review is retracted -- not just the parts that were "false" (keep in mind that PF reviews are and always have been satirical and satire is protected by the 1st amendment). Why force an entire retraction if you aren't trying to bias the review system? I'm guessing that if PF said all kinds of crazy stuff and gave the album a 10 that it would still be up there, falsities and all. Martin is just doing his job -- trying to keep the press on the Boys in as positive a light as possible. However, the band shouldn't support the bullying of an independent like this. The bigger picture is corporate squashing independent. If Martin is so worried about his livelihood then maybe he should fix his damn website ( http://www.nastylittleman.com) -- you can't even get press kits from it because the links are broken! |
OK, I am fine that you admit that 7.9 is technically speaking not a "mediocre rating" but a borderline rating on strong (see below):
8.0-8.4: Strong
7.5-7.9: Very good
I also read Pitchfork everyday and this controversy regarding the review is serious because it could have the following consequences:
1) Beastie Boys, The Wrens, Radiohead (among other great bands) dump Nasty Little Man because they have lost trust that they have made a good choice. Any musical artist choosing Nasty Little Man wants a small ma and pa outfit that does a respectable "grass roots" job without acting like a mindless big corporation.
2) Pitchfork loses credibility for publishing blatant (not funny) falsehoods that may have affected the rating given to the artist. If people believe that Brent gave To The 5 Boroughs a 7.9/10 due to his conflicts with Nasty Little Man (or due to some other psychological stress) they may refuse to trust the reviews they are reading in the future.
Alternatively, there may be a happy ending here. Pitchfork does not write a review for the LP, Brent screws over his former employer (I am assuming he did it on purpose to fuck Pitchfork - maybe due to its grade inflation of bed-head rock artists who do not deserve such high ratings), and Pitchfork publishes the sought-after retracted review in 2000-2010 print only music retrospective (with Steve Martin's permission of course).
I am interested in how this turns out (I noticed that the entire review was removed). Pitchfork could be worried that they: (a) get sued for a review that one of their former writers wrote (bummer to be sure); (b) lose credibility that they do not write objective / fact-checked pieces (even worse outcome IMO and probably why they decided to retract the entire review this morning).
If I was writer for Pitchfork I would have give the new Beastie Boys LP a 9.0/10.0 - but that is based on my personal experience with music which may be entirely different that Brent's. Although a difference of 1.1 is sort of trivial in the big scheme of things (and could be due to 'measurement error'). It will be interesting to hear what reviewers have to say at the end of the decade.