[Opinion] The Fr0k is Full of Failure

So.

It HAS been a while. >.>

I know, I know...aren't we all getting tired of every post starting the same way? "Can't you ever think of some new and refreshing way to say it?" you ask. Or, better yet, "Why don't you just update WHYH regularly and avoid this whole song-and-dance altogether?"

To which I answer: "No. Writing is a pleasure, and thus is denied me during the school year. Now sit down and read the damn post."

Well, we'll leave the last part optional. See, this is a different sort of article for WHYH...sure, we've touched on these topics before, but never in a full, limelight sense.

So no, there are no new Calgary bands being highlighted in this particular post. You'll have to wait for our coverage of the phenomenal Sled Island Festival 2008 for that stuff.

No, young ducklings...here is entirely a rant.

A rant against Pitchfork, nonetheless.

Some of you might gasp. "Blasphemy!" Or you might yawn, because our dislike has always been...well, at least rather obvious. Also, a few might think that we're ganking this sh*t from Hipster Runoff, but rest assured, you doubters; we disliked them first, and I can't stand reading a blog full of chatspeak, even if it is for the sake of irony. >.>

So, why now? Why the full post instead of merely snidely making remarks in the margins of our show reviews and band features, like usual?

The answer might seem a little innocuous at first:

Kensington Heights.

(For the uninitiated and, on the whole, asinine group that might have question marks over their heads, Kensington Heights is the name of the rather good, nay, fricking awesome new Constantines album. Ju would also like to add that you should all go buy it, or die in a fire)

Truthfully, Kensington Heights isn't the first album I've disagreed with Pitchfork's rating of. Usually, I can even concede the points they make, though whether or not said points are enough to break the album for me is a different matter. Hell, they're even right a lot of the time, like on the last Trail of Dead album. >.>

However, this might be the first time that I've felt so strongly. Possibly due to the fact that the review did not, in actuality, list any real points in justification of the poor rating the album received. Possibly because I hate the "build them up and knock them down" attitude that seems to purvey the blog's reviewing on the whole. Also, quite possibly, because I'm a rabid believer in the Second Coming that the Constantines and their music represent. ^^;

I've realized, though, that the issue seems to go deeper. For a while now, I've felt slight frustration with the overall jaded mentality of the review staff; the enthusiastic ones are kept entirely to news reporting, it seems. Above all, I begin to see that blog as damaging to the fledgling nature of a lot of indie music.

When was the last time you saw an album rated above a 9.0 on that site? Okay...now, when was the last time you saw a perfect 10?

I can understand the attitude of hyper-criticality that seems to grow and permeate the spaces of the "educated" in any subject, mainly because I'm in a very similar environment at school. Critique is an important and valuable tool to any artist. However, the fact remains that Pitchfork has vastly grown in both size and influence; now, the review your album receives DIRECTLY influences the amount of attention you, as an artist, receive...and sometimes your very reputation. Thus, this hyper-elitist critical sense no longer works as a balancing force, but an overwhelming one.

What I'm saying is this; while it makes sense that jaded critics might never give out a perfect album score these days, it perpetuates the belief that good/influential, nay, perfect music is something that could only happen ten-plus years ago. That good, influential, and classic albums aren't being made anymore; in turn, this stagnates the creation of music, because it keeps artists turning to the same old references, the same old albums, and the same old sounds.

See, this wouldn't be such a problem if the Fr0k wasn't so damn HUGE. But it IS huge; anyone can see that the place has expanded massively over the last few years, especially to become a powerhouse media force; since the digital realm is essentially the place where indies and majors compete on almost level playing ground, it's not a far stretch to compare Pitchfork to what MTV used to be back in the 80's; a venue for bringing music that doesn't get exposure through regular means to a larger audience.

And much like that media mogul, it's only a matter of time before the force that used to be an "in" for the little guy begins to act much like the forces that provoked its inception in the first place.

Anyways, I've taken the ball and run with it...if we focus this back down to a personal level, I'll leave it at this: Pitchfork is, above all, just one opinion. Too often, readers tend to hearken that opinion to some omniscient and all-powerful god of indie, but the truth really is that it's still run by average people. People who may get the news first, due to media connections and budget; people who are actually right many a time about positive reviews for bands; and people who generally have been around the circuit for a while...but still people.

As such, they can only suggest to you what to check out and what to ignore, but the final decision in terms of taste comes down to the individual; what we, as indie listeners often pride ourselves on is the fact that we've got a personal opinion on music that hasn't been force-fed to us via a glossy marketing campaign and sheer repetition. We've discovered these bands through personal effort and discerning taste, and decided ON OUR OWN that it's good. Why would you want to hand over that power to someone else all over again?

~Ju


P.S: Really. Everyone should check out Kensington Heights. At least in MY opinion, it's a great album; probably my favourite next to Shine a Light. ^^