Retracted portion of Pitchfork's "To the 5 Boroughs" review

[tommyalma]

To quote Mike Doughty opening the last Soul Coughing show, "Hello everybody, everybody hello." For my first post on the Beasties forum, I figured I'd give ya what ya want: The full, unedited version of Brent DiCrescenzo's review of TT5B at pitchforkmedia.com. Unfortunately, I can't do that, as the post length exceeds the forum allowance. So here's the retracted portion:

Beastie Boys
To the 5 Boroughs
[Capitol; 2004]
Rating: 7.9
June, 1999

Viale Vittorio Veneto, Corso Venezia, Corso Buenos Aires, Viale Piave,
and Viale Luigi Majno converge into a clogged traffic circle on the
northeastern corner of the Giardini Pubblici in northeastern Milan.
Flanked by my overpriced hotel and the park's Planetario, I punch a 26-
digit number into the red Italian payphone which looks like an EMT
heart resuscitator. Fiats and scooters drown the faint, distorted
ringing. I check my watch. Is New York five or six hours behind? I have
two hours until Clinic goes on before Radiohead.

"Hello, Nasty," the girl on the phone says.

I ask for the cellular number to Steve Martin, head of Nasty Little Man
public relations. I'm supposed to meet him now at Villa Reale for a
Radiohead story. They won't give me the number. It's private. Right, I
know. I flew to another continent to meet him. I need that number.
Villa Reale, a Renaissance mansion, hides a couple copses behind me,
and there's no sign of Steve Martin, or Radiohead, or bleachers, or
white semis, or fans, or any other expected Radiohead concert
signifiers. They will call Steve and call me back. Look, I'm on a
payphone in Milan, Italy, can you give me the goddam number? They will
call Steve for me.

I hang up and watch skaters wipe out on bench grinds. I call back.

"Hello, Nasty."

Right. Brent D. Milan. Steve. Radiohead. What the fuck.

"Oh, Steve forgot to tell you that the concert was moved to Monza."
Monza is a suburb 30 minutes north of Milan. I had passed it on the
train from Frankfurt.

I hang up.


* * *
June, 1998

In one of the first "concept" reviews at Pitchfork, and one of my first
for the site in general, I review Hello Nasty. I make some stupid Tibet
joke, give it an 8.5, and say:

Hello Nasty is a New York salad-- diced beats, trans- oceanic
influences, traffic, noise pollution, construction, b-ball speak, bold
pop- culture billboards and neon, tossed well in braggadocio.

I always hated that review. I held back. Eventually, Hello Nasty would
become my favorite Beastie Boys record because, for a band who had sold
tens of millions, it seemed overlooked. As I age I become more and more
fascinated by records by artists in the autumn of their careers. I
reach for Holland and Lodger before Wild Honey and Hunky Dory.


* * *
June, 2004

After booking an airline and a TriBeCa hotel blocks from the Beastie
Boys' studio on Canal Street, I call my editor at Mean magazine. We
discuss the cover story I am to write. The editor envisions an
insightful, personal look into the lives of the Beastie Boys that goes
beyond the obvious press kit-based fluff pieces. Fantastic, I refuse to
take typical approaches, and Mean magazine is run by people from the
defunct, excellent Grand Royal magazine, so what better chance? One
problem: After six weeks of planning the story, Steve Martin, the Boys'
publicist, has not gotten back to us about the interview. Mean even
delayed their publication to accommodate Steve Martin's procrastination.

The interview is set to take place the next business day, and I've
cleared two days in New York for the story. I've also booked meetings
for my film endeavors, but those will just be for five or six hours on
Tuesday. Nasty Little Man will call Steve who will call Nasty Little
Man back who will call my editor who will call me. Well, I leave for
New York tomorrow, so could you work that out? Also, could I get the
new album? When writing a cover story about an album, hearing the album
typically offers important insight.

Steve Martin, presumably between bites of a Shea Stadium hotdog,
initiates his chain of communication. No, the album is under tight
security and could Brent please be on call this Tuesday? I'll call him
an hour before he needs to show up at the Canal Street studio. He'll
get an hour. With two of the three members.

I cancel the story. The Beastie Boys are a 23-year-old rap group.
Despite the fact that my entire adolescence revolved around their first
three albums, I could care less about squeezing out a mundane magazine
piece about their new paean to New York. The city puts its garbage on
the sidewalk. "In a World Gone Mad" sucked. The publicist- and press-
controlled structure of the entire music industry only allows for trite
magazine fluff as ad revenue; access to major artists are dangled like
carrots to the media in an attempt to blackmail press for features on
nothing bands like Matt Pond, PA and Ultimate Fakebook.


* * *
June, 1999

My night's schedule cleared, I wander the city of Milan. I shop for a
watch in Gucci. I eat gnocchi under the great iron and glass atrium of
the Galleria Vittorio Emanuele. After the meal, I climb to the top of
the gargantuan Duomo, a cathedral that appears to have been built by
the hand of God reaching down and drizzling wet sand from his fist. In
the piazza below, a large concert stage is being constructed. I descend
the cathedral and mill about with Italians with prams and cellphones.
As twilight spreads, Caetano Veloso, one of my heroes, comes on stage
and performs a free set under the stars.


[review goes here]

* * *
June, 1992; June, 2005

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-- and
immediately hate this record because the Beastie Boys associate
themselves with pricks like Steve Martin and his sycophantic fleet of
product pushers who fail to see the benefit of funny, creative magazine
pieces.

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. (Hey, that would
make a great pull-quote for the Nasty Little Man presskit. You can add
an exclamation point, Steve.)

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 15th, 2004

If you want the full deal, you may be able to catch it at google's cache at http://216.239.57.104/search?
q=cache:fQ7E_gyX8ccJ:www.pitchforkmedia.com/record-reviews/b/beastie-
boys/to-the-5-boroughs.shtml+%22to+the+5+boroughs%
22+pitchforkmedia.com&hl=en or I can e-mail it to ya. tommyalma@hotmail.com

[Michelle*s_Farm]

Thanks for the retracted portion - I was kickin' myself for not saving it on my computer on June 15th.

Originally Posted by tommyalma

To quote Mike Doughty opening the last Soul Coughing show, "Hello everybody, everybody hello." For my first post on the Beasties forum, I figured I'd give ya what ya want: The full, unedited version of Brent DiCrescenzo's review of TT5B at pitchforkmedia.com. Unfortunately, I can't do that, as the post length exceeds the forum allowance. So here's the retracted portion:



If you want the full deal, you may be able to catch it at google's cache at http://216.239.57.104/search?
q=cache:fQ7E_gyX8ccJ:www.pitchforkmedia.com/record-reviews/b/beastie-
boys/to-the-5-boroughs.shtml+%22to+the+5+boroughs%
22+pitchforkmedia.com&hl=en or I can e-mail it to ya. tommyalma@hotmail.com

[po'ed]

I think it is TOTAL BS that the Beasties or anyone associated with them would force retraction of a portion of a review. Anyone who reads Pitchfork knows that their reviews are often satirical. Maybe insted of trying to free Tibet the boys need to focus on FREE SPEECH.

Pitchfork gave a mediocre review to the new album. Forcing retraction of some of the article paints the boys as very poor sports -- babies even. Waaaa -- we got a poor review -- lets set our legal team on the little guy.

Beasties -- if you are reading this and if you have any credibility left, you need to contact Pitchfork and allow them to retract their retraction.

[tommyalma]

Originally Posted by po'ed

Beasties -- if you are reading this and if you have any credibility left, you need to contact Pitchfork and allow them to retract their retraction.

Oh, they'd contact them, but they're too busy crashing PC's with their spyware. Don't think they deserved that?

[solid_servo]

for christ's sake people...why do you think the beastie's have fucking time to bitch at pitchfork?? IT"S CALLED THE FUCKING LABEL!!! THAT IS THE PROBLEM WITH BEING ON A FUCKING COPORATE LABEL!!! THEY DO BULLSHIT LIKE THIS AND THE COPY PROTECTION!!! it's not the fucking beasties for fucks sake...mediocre??? what the fuck is your problem?? 1-10 is the range...5 WOULD BE MEDIOCRE!!! 7.9 or 8.0 is pretty fucking good...nothing deserves a 10...

[DforDustin]

Originally Posted by po'ed

.

Beasties -- if you are reading this and if you have any credibility left, you need to contact Pitchfork and allow them to retract their retraction.

Wow. Not to be a dick....but some people are straight up retarded.

[po'ed]

Wow. Not to be a dick....but some people are straight up retarded.

Well argued -- that degree in rhetoric is paying dividends!

[Michelle*s_Farm]

Originally Posted by po'ed

Pitchfork gave a mediocre review to the new album. Forcing retraction of some of the article paints the boys as very poor sports -- babies even. Waaaa -- we got a poor review -- lets set our legal team on the little guy.

Beasties -- if you are reading this and if you have any credibility left, you need to contact Pitchfork and allow them to retract their retraction.

You know shit about Pitchfork's rating system. The review for the new Beastie Boys' album was "Very Good". Indeed, the writer even hedged his bets implying that "To The 5 Boroughs" could be Pet Sounds caliber (at least this is my interpretation of the review). The reviewer also stated that he has not listened to any album more in 2004. As for Steve Martin, he works for an entirely different entity than the Beastie Boys called "Nasty Little Man". Steve Martin has every right to get pissed off if untruths are being spread by a Pitchfork writer that could affect the likelihood of musical artists wanting to work with him (fuck this is the man's livelihood). Can't you see the big picture here?

[Michelle*s_Farm]

Originally Posted by po'ed

I think it is TOTAL BS that the Beasties or anyone associated with them would force retraction of a portion of a review. Anyone who reads Pitchfork knows that their reviews are often satirical. Maybe insted of trying to free Tibet the boys need to focus on FREE SPEECH.

Here is the 'low-down' from Pitchfork. I wish I knew why Brent made up these apparenly hurtful lies - albeit directed toward Steve Martin:

>> RETRACTION

Last Tuesday, June 15th, Pitchfork published a review of the Beastie Boys' To the 5 Boroughs by Brent DiCrescenzo, a frequent and trusted contributor. In his review, Brent detailed experiences with the Beastie Boys' public relations firm Nasty Little Man, and its president Steve Martin, over the course of several years. Pitchfork has since determined that a number of DiCrescenzo's assertions were false, based on corroborated statements from the two parties he claimed were participating in the chain of events referred to in the review. With apologies to Steve Martin and Nasty Little Man, we have retracted the original review in its entirety, and would like to make the following known publicly, to correct any and all falsities perpetrated by Brent's review:

1) Radiohead were never in Milan in June 1999.

2) Radiohead never moved a concert from Villa Reale in Milan to Monza in 1999, 2000 or otherwise.

3) Steve Martin never "forgot to tell" Brent that the concert was moved, as it was not.

4) Neither Steve Martin, nor anyone working for Nasty Little Man, ever confirmed a Radiohead interview with Brent DiCrescenzo or Pitchfork.

5) Brent DiCrescenzo's declaration that Steve Martin had not gotten back to him or Mean magazine about a possible Beastie Boys interview after six weeks is untrue: Martin was in constant contact with Mean publisher Kashy Khaledi and editor Andy Hunter throughout that period.

6) Mean magazine never "delayed their publication to accomodate [Martin's] procrastination." Kashy Khaledi did so of his own volition in order to keep the Beastie Boys cover story Martin had confirmed and saw through with him every step of the way.

7) Steve Martin has never, to Brent DiCrescenzo's knowledge, "dangled [his] major artists... like carrots to the media in an attempt to blackmail press for features" on less established artists or bands.

Sincerely,
Pitchfork Media

[po'ed]

Originally Posted by Michelle*s_Farm

You know shit about Pitchfork's rating system. The review for the new Beastie Boys' album was "Very Good". Indeed, the writer even hedged his bets implying that "To The 5 Boroughs" could be Pet Sounds caliber (at least this is my interpretation of the review). The reviewer also stated that he has not listened to any album more in 2004. As for Steve Martin, he works for an entirely different entity than the Beastie Boys called "Nasty Little Man". Steve Martin has every right to get pissed off if untruths are being spread by a Pitchfork writer that could affect the likelihood of musical artists wanting to work with him (fuck this is the man's livelihood). Can't you see the big picture here?

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!

[Michelle*s_Farm]

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.

[Michelle*s_Farm]

Pitchfork put the review back up again (without the Steve Martin 'Defamation of Character' stuff). It is confusing what Pitchfork is doing regarding this issue. I guess they realized (fortunately) that they must stand by the review to retain credibility. If they do not stand by the original version, readership may perceive the review as biased due to the writer's (mis)perceived slights by Steve Martin. I do wonder if another Pitchfork reviewer would have given TT5B's a lower or higher grade. Too bad Nasty Little Man has not issue an official statement.

http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/record...boroughs.shtml

[JohnnyChavello]

Bump...

[dave790]

man, fucking po'ed the pitchfork fan.