Pearl Jam’s Ten was recently reissued, and the $200 limited edition version had a ludicrous slew of extras (though it would be kinda cool to have the original Vedder audition tape); even the basic edition includes an entirely new mix of the album. Most publications took the opportunity to review the album as a chance to look back on Pearl Jam’s career, or on the legacy of grunge. Critics who tend to run with a mainstream rock kinda crowd generally gave the album high marks, but the more muso members of the commentariat took a different view. For one thing, not having really kept up with the band’s career in the last decade, they tended to see Ten as a sort of singular achievement and almost treated it like a reissue from some long-dead band. In a way, that makes sense, of course: for those like me who hit adolescence with Pearl Jam, the album is as irrevocably consigned to the past as The Goonies. But it got a very different treatment than other reissues.
Take Pitchfork, for instance. The ‘Fork tends to give high marks to reissues: Dinosaur Jr.’s You’re Living All Over Me (9.1), Pavement’s Slanted and Enchanted (10.0), Sonic Youth’s Daydream Nation (10.0), Serge Gainsbourg’s Histoire de Melody Nelson (10.0), etc. It makes sense; all are iconic, canonized albums, even if the Dinosaur Jr. one kinda sucks. Pearl Jam, however, got a different treatment, receiving only a 6.7 from Stephen M. Deusner. While respecting the album’s importance and trying to sincerely describe the band’s appeal (”the earnestness with which Vedder sang and the band played these songs belies the decade’s reputation as a period of pervasive irony”), Deusner nevertheless can’t resist throwing a volley of snarks at everything from Vedder’s melodramatic tendencies and questionable subject matter to Jeff Ament’s hat. (I find it hard to make too much fun, given that I was wearing jams at the time.) While he seems to really like the album it’s ultimately too embarrassing to get behind fully, like your parents when you’re a teenager.
The pattern continues in others’ takes on the album. Julianne Shepherd’s liveblog of the album makes the same swing from jokes (”is he singing about Viagra? I guess it wasn’t invented then, so no”) to embarrassment (”My roommates are DEFINITELY getting skeptical at my loud song choices right now”) and concludes that the album wasn’t all that after all (”THEY WERE OK IN JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL”). Meanwhile, Mark Eglinton at The Quietus questions the whole idea of grunge, calls the album “corporate,” chalks its success up to timing rather than quality, and pronounces himself thoroughly unimpressed by an album with “some half-decent tunes.”
Now, I’m sure all of these responses were genuine, and certainly our tastes in music can change drastically from when we’re teenagers to when we’re, uh, older than teenagers. (Shepherd’s especially, given that she precedes her evaluation with excitement about receiving a DVD called Cocaine City 12, featuring rappers I have never heard of.) At the same time, though, all of these takes seem to share a conviction that our teenage selves’ adoration of the album was somehow inauthentic or inaccurate. (Shepherd, in a passage I’m quoting both because it is indicative of this and also awesome, writes: “I’m not sure if my love of these tracks comes from being a rural teen desperate to hear any song that was vaguely interesting or if it is actually a great album or if it’s cause my first real boyfriend, Jeff Chavez, god love you wherever your ungoogleable ass may be, listened to it constantly when we were youths falling in baby-love.”) Like the aforementioned jams, liking Ten was an objective mistake, something we should have known better about and something that our older, wiser selves can see for the folly it was.
Maybe this is so, but it goes against my own experience rediscovering the album. About five years ago, I purchased it on a whim and blared it from a cheap boombox in the kitchen, and it sounded great. I wouldn’t say it sounded good, necessarily, but that was never the point of Ten. It wasn’t supposed to be something of quality, but something of feeling, something that made you feel like NOBODY GETS YOU and THE WORLD IS HARD and WHY DOESN’T ANYONE LOVE ME. And these things are stupid and adolescent, yes, but they’re feelings a lot of us still have, at least if Tumblr is anything to go by. Ten is, and was, ridiculous, but it is also true, and we critics, and indie-rock listeners in general, increasingly seem to have a hard time understanding how those two things could go together.
We seem so afraid of looking stupid that we shy away from anything that seems embarrassing, that seems ridiculous or strange or less than self-aware. It is as if, at the age of, uh, more than 19, we are still at the mall with our parents, falling behind and looking down and trying not to be noticed because they are laughing loudly or wearing stupid clothes. It mainly turns out, though, once you get older, that your parents are a blast, weird and funny and interesting and a hell of a good time once they have stopped (legitimately) worrying all the time about how you are going to ruin your life. I look forward to one day embarrassing my kids and having them lock themselves in their room and blast whatever the current version of Pearl Jam is. And maybe, when I am feeling unappreciated, I will steal it from them and blast it myself. Angst is a peach at any age, and as long as you know not to take it seriously, why not enjoy it?
More importantly, though, let’s not pretend like the ’90s were something other than what they were. Yes, there were some great indie bands at the time, and the albums they produced should certainly be celebrated. But as much as I like Pavement, I would hate to get to a day when people thought they were more important than Stone Temple Pilots, because they weren’t. The pop of the ’90s was embarrassing and stupid and trite, just like the pop of every decade, but it’s alive enough still that we can prevent it from being sanitized like pop always, slowly, is. The ’50s are fully converted to it-was-all-good nostalgia now, and the ’60s are mostly there; the ’70s are at about the halfway point with the rehabilitation of disco and the oversampled presence of punk, while the ’80s are well on their way given current trends. But the ’90s still stand; many of the era’s big bands are still touring and even somewhat important, and revivalism has not yet allowed the good sounds to be elevated and the bad ones to be forgotten. But I think there was ultimately something valuable in even the stupid parts of the ’90s—at least the pre-Korn era—and as long as we remember why we liked what we liked instead of chalking our tastes up to the folly of youth, we might be able to remember that pop is nothing without the folly of youth.
Ten: Deluxe Edition [Pitchfork]
LIVEBLOG: PEARL JAM’S “TEN” [Cowboyz 'n' Poodles]
Pearl Jam: Ten (Reissue) [The Quietus]
Michael, I love you man.
I think there was ultimately something valuable in even the stupid parts of the ’90s-at least the pre-Korn era
So what happens when the reissue of their first album comes out?
“…even if the Dinosaur Jr. one kinda sucks”
That does it, no Christmas card for you this year.
as much as I like Pavement, I would hate to get to a day when people thought they were more important than Stone Temple Pilots, because they weren’t
Thank you for this above all the rest. Nothing pisses me off more than the idea that albums that sold less than 50,000 copies - indeed, that were mostly distributed for free, to rock writers - were somehow massively culturally influential. It’s bullshit, and I’m sick to death of it.
I remember where I was the first time I heard Alive and I really can’t say that about too many songs. Great post.
No sorry, The Stone Temple Pilots were dreck and so was Ten, 6.7 from Pitchfork was too high, more like 3.2.
Even though I grew up with Pearl Jam and Nirvana, I was never a big fan of either “back in the day.” It was only when I ended up getting their greatest hits collections that I was like, “Hey, this stuff is pretty good.” I appreciate it more now than I did when I was at the “appropriate” age.
(FYI, my fave band in high school was prolly Soundgarden.)
@MhS: Not going to bother arguing with you but I think the point was that everyone is taking the “Ten was good when we were teenagers but I feel wierd listening to it now” kind of approach in their review.
My personal opinion is that those songs still sound great. Despite being billed as “alternative”, Pearl Jam was and still is a classic rock band.
Very interesting read, man. My Antiquiet review of the Ten remix was a labor of love that kicked my ass, but I felt I owed to myself after listening to the album for nearly two decades. Perspectives like these are why I dig Idolator.
Who’s surprised by Pitchfork’s rating? Seriously.
Like a few years prior w/Jane’s Addiction, I read about Pearl Jam in Rolling Stone before actually listening to their music, so when Ten came out I went and bought it. And I was pleasantly surprised that it sounded exactly as I thought it would, based on how the band’s passion and intensity came across in the article I’d read.
Though I’ve always held them in high regard, I sorta lost interest in PJ after that album, although I was aware of what they were up to and have liked a handful of songs since. Ten is a unique album in that it was written mostly by Stone and Jeff, who were more dexterous on their respective instruments than Vedder–who took over more and more of the songwriting from them as time went by–and it shows. (That’s not a dig at Vedder, just a fact.) The reissue sounds great and reminded me of why I enjoyed the album as much as I did back in the day.
Kudos, Mike. And yeah, excellent point re STP.
I’m a massive Pearl Jam stan and Ten was the first album I ever loved, but it hasn’t aged well and they’ve made better records. 6.7 sounds about right to me. The O’Brien remix of “Deep” sounded pretty awesome this week, though.
@Al Shipley: Yeah, I tend to agree. Pearl Jam got better and more interesting after Ten. If you’re gonna give an album a trash job at Pitchfork then Stephen Deusner is not your guy. He’s as fair as they come. I think the record just has some crappy songs on it, and it can’t help but be tarnished–in my mind–by the myriad ripoffs that came after. It’s not their fault, sure, but like I said I can’t help it.
“Black” just sounds ridiculous to me now, even though it was so deep when I was a kid.
And You’re Living All Over Me sucks? That’s news to me.
I just don’t see how STP is more “important” because they sold more records. Is that all we’re going on here? Culturally important or influential art doesn’t necessarily have to have unanimous approval around when it appears.
@goldsounds: Agreed.@Lucas Jensen: Everything Vedder did post Ten (when he became the pre-mumbly, Ticketmaster-hating Vedder) is shite.
@owenmeany: MUMBLY Ticketmaster-hating Vedder, rather.
@goldsounds: Yeah, STP managed to get out from underneath their Atlantic songwriters to make two or three tolerable records. I’ll take Pavement every time in every category. And Pavement actually did sell some records for a (semi-)indie band.
@goldsounds: The thing about STP is, for better or for worse, they were more of a singles band than the majority of the big-name rock acts of the time. And while quite a few songs have not dated well, some of those tracks still hold up and will in all likelihood always be popular. I guess their importance hinges on the latter.
I think it’s less about the pop of the 90’s being as embarrassing as the pop of other decades and more about the pop of the 90’s being as good as the pop of other decades. There does seem to be a knee-jerk refutation of the musical contributions of the 90’s that I think is very shortsighted. I don’t think there is anything embarrassing about “I’d Die Without You” or “Hero” in the same way I don’t think anyone would claim there is anything embarrassing about “Ooh Baby Baby” or “What The World Needs Now Is Love”. All good songs that stand out from most other songs from their respective eras.
The best pop isn’t necessarily embarrassing, stupid and trite. Instead, the best pop is earnest, well-crafted, and unique and something that should stand the test of time.
There’s no need to justify the importance of Stone Temple Pilots. Not every band need to be the pinnacle of idealized artistic actualization. “Innerstate Love Song” is better than anything by Tortoise, just as “One of These Nights” is better than anything by Faust. It’s the music critic/college radio dj’s that are usually on the wrong side of history when it comes to these things.
Let’s see what people are saying about Yeasayer in 30 years and see how many people still pay to see Eddie Vedder sing “Evenflow”
I never got into Pavement or STP so I’ve no dog in this fight, but album sales don’t necessarily translate into culture influence or longevity.
Kim Deal was on Wait Wait, Don’t Tell Me recently and Peter Sagal brought up the fact that, like Velvet Underground, the Pixies weren’t hugely popular but the people who *did* like them went out and started their own bands thus their cultural influence was far greater than you’d expect based on their album sales.
I’ve heard Pavement cited as an influence by working musicians far more often that STP .
I’m not surprised by Pitchfork’s rating, since Pitchfork categorically hates anything that’s still getting spins on rock radio. I was but a wee lad when Ten came out, but I still have an old, jacked-to-shit copy of it on CD. I love that album consistently every time I listen to it. Pearl Jam may have done more interesting stuff since then, but in my mind it all starts with that one.
I just kept listening to Led Zep and Black Sabbath the whole decade. There was no reason to listen to grunge because it did EXACTLY what had been done before, only much worse.
That’s what I said then, and that’s what I say now.
In hindsight, Pulp and Belle & Sebastian did some pretty great stuff in the 90s, but the attempt to make “grunge” a genre was false media spin then, and remains so now. It was 3 or four white dudes with sguitar, bass, drums and some mumbled semi-coherent do-gooder lyrics. It was rock music as it existed since at least 1968, just done very poorly. Grunge was a fashion trend and a marketing campaign, and that’s all.
Seriously, you’ve never heard of Jadakiss, Tony Yayo or Styles P?
@krisskraft: Interestingly, 15 years ago Dave Marsh made a list of artists that critics mistakenly ignore. I don’t agree with a lot on there, but it was refreshing to come across that incredibly rare sort of mea culpa.
Also, “Evenflow” will outlive even the cockroaches. heh, heh.
Just to be clear, here, my argument was that STP was more important than Pavement, not that they are. At the time, STP was more important to more people than Pavement was. They were to me! And now Pavement is more important. Just let’s not confuse critical acclaim and musical influence with contemporaneous popular importance.
@revmatty: Whether it’s true or not, it’s always a safe bet–not to mention “cool”–to cite Pavement over STP as an influence. Pavement were an indie band who resembled their audience on various levels; STP were on a major label w/rock star aspirations. Different strokes, and all that. (For the record, I appreciate both.)
I never actually listened to Dino Jr. in the 80s/90s, aside from that song with the golf video, so I’m sure that colored my impression of the album, but when I heard it for the first time it reminded me of when my dad played me an MC5 tape in like 1994: clearly influential and important bands who had the misfortune to influence people who could do the same thing better than they could.
@krisskraft: I would say that I like both Tortoise and Faust better than either one of those things ten times over. And Yeasayer is boring, so I’m with you there. But once again, your musical populism doesn’t mean that people were right about something. I still hear “In The Year 2525″ on oldies stations, and it’s just about the worst piece of dog squeeze ever. Does that mean it’s more enduring than stuff that never gets played on the radio? Poppycock.
@krissfraft I think one of Mike’s points was that a lot of the genuine pop hits of their day get wiped out of history courtesy of a rewrite by excessively geeky music critics. So while we might not be hearing about Yeasayer 30 years from now, I wouldn’t be surprised to see bands like Arcade Fire and Spoon getting more play historically than the Three Doors Down and Nickelback stuff most of America was listening to instead.
On that tack, @revmatty, you might hear more musicians cite Pavement as an influence (and as music blog readers, we by default are going to be reading about Pavement disciples more than STP disciples), but no matter how many shitty Pavement rip-off bands are out there, there will always be more shitty STP rip-off bands, at least until STP is written out of music history. The bands that like Pavement will naturally appeal to the same critics that heralded Pavement, and you end up with an extremely narrow critically approved canon.
Occasionally a band from the critical canon will cross over into widespread success - to beat a dead horse, in your Pixies example, we can certainly see Nirvana taking the Pixies’ influence to the masses - and I think it’s important to acknowledge that true innovators sometimes do emerge to reshape the cultural landscape. But for the most part we end up with this inbred canon of so-called influential bands, and the question becomes, “Influential on who?”
@Lucas Jensen: I guess I was trying to cite artists that had some sort of longevity or foothold in the public consciousness during their era.
Plus, I would categorize Zager & Evan’s contribution to one-hit wonderdom in the purely novelty category alongside something like “Barbie Girl”. Novelty is not my favorite song form by any stretch, but it could be argued that it has it’s place. Ask the English.
But yeah, that song is complete bullshit. I hope it finally stops getting played by the year 2525. See, Evans was smart. He knew that people would keep playing it as long as the titular date was in the future.
Revisiting ‘Ten’ with the reissue, I was struck by how nakedly emotional it is. I was also amused at just how many (mostly adolescent-centric) societal ills get specifically addressed:
“Once”: murder
“Alive”: Incest, parental absence
“Even Flow”: homelessness
“Jeremy”: teen suicide, parental neglect, bullying
“Why Go”: mental illness, parental neglect
“Deep”: suicide, rape, drug abuse
“Release”: parental neglect
Notice the pattern? ‘Ten’ summed up Generation X’s notion that their (our) Baby Boomer parents cared more about themselves than their children.
“I’ve got two treasures in my handbag tonight. The first one, Felipe tossed to me just before I left the office: Cocaine City 12 DVD starring Jada, Styles, Yayo, French Montana and Max B, and et cetera.”
ADMIT IT: YOU’VE HEARD OF JADAKISS.
(j/k)
Plus, I would categorize Zager & Evan’s contribution to one-hit wonderdom in the purely novelty category alongside something like “Barbie Girl”.
I would, x1000
“Ten” and its ilk never really went away. Alterna-Rock has evolved more than underwent a revolution, and this record in particular never really faded away. There has been no chance to get enough distance from it in order to gain a new perspective. Previous decades had their time in the desert to allow people a chance to rediscover the “lost” era.
@revmatty:Maybe not Stone Temple Pilots; but I’d say it’s about a tie the number of times I’ve read Pavement as an influence v. Audioslave as an influence. Of course, these were seldom written in the same place. The other guys are just as insular and sure of themselves as we are.
I still listen to Ten at least once a month to this day. It’s on my Desert Island Disk list and may be my favorite album of all time. The problem, as you stated so eloquently is that I run with a lot of music snobs and could probably never admit this to them. Ever.
It sucks. I want to scream from the rooftops that side two of Ten made my adolescence a lot less bad and that if I were to ever meet any of those guys, I would turn into a quivering blob.
All of this from a person whose record collection is revered by most people she knows. Boo on society!
@itsmejill: Hear, hear!!
This is one of the most honest pieces of music journalism that I’ve read in a long time. Well done, sir. I’m still reflecting on your closing line, “pop is nothing without the folly of youth”. 100% brilliant and I wish I’d written it. :)
To be fair it sounds to me like Pitchfork (who I’m not a fan of, although I’m kind of against the entire concept of music reviews in general) gave it a 6.7 not necessarily for the album itself but for the fact that the reissue kind of sucks:
“Ten deserved better than Ten Redux and the paltry bonus tracks.”
Remember, these deluxe edition reviews are more about what new is being brought to the table (i.e. what makes it worth buying for people who already own the album) then they are about reviewing the core album.
@itsmejill: I wouldn’t worry to much about the music snobs. The good music lovers love people who are proud of their musical decisions. I know I do!
@DeVille: I wouldn’t be surprised to see bands like Arcade Fire and Spoon getting more play historically than the Three Doors Down and Nickelback stuff most of America was listening to instead.
So true. I mean, I love Big Star to pieces, but let’s be honest: people then were listening to stuff like Humble Pie or Nazareth in huge numbers, yet those bands don’t even get a name check these days. Meanwhile Big Star’s champions in the press–and the musicians who idolized them–kept the name alive for decades.
@KikoJones: Would your argument work if you had used The Beatles and Rolling Stomes as examples rather than Humble Pie and Nazareth?
Great discussions on this here that I really find I dont have a lot to contribute that hasnt been said already.
I am happy for this release…hearing these songs without the choking compression, overdone reverb and overall muddiness really brings the tracks to life in a way they werent before. It shows the disservice that was done at release and explains why every one of their subsequent records sound like they do.
I was 20 when this record came out and in 2nd year of college…it wasnt an adolescent statement to me really as much as a recognition that rock had moved past Hair Metal and that strong rock songs could be written that werent about needing “nothing but a good time”. For a short perion of time the cartoon characters that were “rock stars” were replaced by real personalities…that of course faded as the “grunge” cartoon characters rose to the fore.
When I was in high school, STP was one of my two favorite bands (Alice in Chains was the other one). Like Silverchair, I was fascinated by STP because the band evolved as time went on and their albums were very different incarnations, yet I liked them all.
I feel STP is a perfect example of the inability of certain distinguishing music fans — some of whom just might exist in this comments section — to appreciate something simply because it achieved mainstream success. To that I’d say: Get over yourselves. Just because something’s popular doesn’t take away any of its merit. And how’s this? STP blows Pavement away.
As for Ten, along with Nevermind, it simply defined the generation I grew up in. I wasn’t a huge Pearl Jam fan, but you simply had to have this CD, and Vs. My dad — who’s more of a Simon and Garfunkel guy — knew when they released Vs. and offered to buy it for me so I’d be in the loop and understand what the musical voice of my generation was. AIC’s Jar of Flies and STP’s Purple will always mean more to me because of what they meant during my high school years, but I respect Ten, and I can put it on today and it’s no less fresh than it ever was.
@LeBron: “AIC’s Jar of Flies and STP’s Purple will always mean more to me”
Jar of flies is a forgotten gem of that era…
While I like STP I recall that alot of people seemed to be down on them due to what sounding “trying to hard to be alternative”…not on CORE’s songs but in the press…the item that sticks out was claiming that they all first met at a Black Flag show and thinking that conveyed instant credibility…
That said how many bands in the last 15 years have sited Velvet Underground, Pixies and Pavement in interviews in an effort to only get the attention of critics and indie record store clerks? I am betting more than we know.
“Ten is, and was, ridiculous, but it is also true, and we critics, and indie-rock listeners in general, increasingly seem to have a hard time understanding how those two things could go together.” Others have made this point already, (2ironic4u: for example), and made it well - and this is a point I’ve hammered on in other posts - most of the “Seattle” scene were classic rock bands that happened to fit a marketing trend that the major labels had determined as convenient. Soundgarden was a metal band that had chorus pedals. Alice in Chains was a metal band that stole Ozzy’s bassist. Pearl Jam was my generation’s Foghat.
@DeVille:, @KikoJones: Whenever these debates flare up, I always find it pretty instructional to refer back to the oft-quoted old saw about “only 30 people ever saw the Velvet Underground live, but all 30 of them started their own bands.” Maybe this is my own contrarian take, but I have never, ever understood the acclaim that the Velvets get. I’ve been flamed on this site before for may failure to understand the magic allure of the Pixies (who I concede are very catchy songwriters), and I’ll probably get flamed for this admission as well. However, there are just some bands that are too precious for their own good. The Velvets are one of those bands, as are Big Star, as are Pavement. Fantastic, you have your bands that are arty and literary and daring etc., etc., etc. Regardless of how often Vedder scrawled “Pro Choice” on his arm, Pearl Jam was never going to be one of those bands.
For better or worse, for those of us that were 10 in 1991 when Ten came out and didn’t have a cool older brother to guide our tastes, Pearl Jam, Soundgarden, Nirvana, and everything else that we could find at Sam Goody was going to be what we listened to at the time, the same way Guns ‘N ‘ Roses, Poison, and Mr. Mister were going to be big in 1990.
I’ve stretched on long enough, but the point I’d like to make is that a 6.7 is a bit low. I think as a classic rock record, Ten is remarkably solid, and the recent Brendan O’Brien re-master only serves to highlight the big riff-tastic record that was hiding underneath oceans of reverb. Especially once I heard what Mother Love Bone sounded like, I always felt that Ten suffered as compared to it’s Class of 1991 compatriots in that it wasn’t nearly as immediate a sound - Badmotorfinger and Nevermind sound like aggressive rock records from the late 60s/early 70s, and those grabbed my attention much more than Ten did at the time (I was 10, after all.) The new re-master addresses these criticisms, and does so in such a way that it respects the fact that a whole generation of folks have the orignal mastering job in their head as the definitive statement of the band. Easily worth an 8.2 +/- 1.3 points. (In my opinion, anyway).
@slowburn: Word
@spankyjoe: I get why the Velvets, Pixies and Pavement–isn’t that a direct line on the rock family tree?–are held in such high regard, but don’t share that love. I enjoy them all but find them to be overrated.
Regardless of how often Vedder scrawled “Pro Choice” on his arm, Pearl Jam was never going to be one of those bands.
Nor was the mainstream audience going to stick around with the politically progressive vibe associated w/many of these acts. The flannel shirt never fit them that well.
On the other hand, irony and detachment are a big deal in indie rock circles; anything that is nakedly earnest like, say, Ten is going to be frowned upon by the likes of Pitchfork.
@LeBron:
@Mick Kraut:
“Interstate Love Song” will outlive us all.
Are there people here trying to suggest that Stone Temple Pilots and Alice in Chains were truly good bands? Alice in Chains were a terribly boring band, who did one thing over and over again unless they were recording an EP. Then they busted out an acoustic guitar.
Stone Temple Pilots put out some interesting records made interesting by the fact that they weren’t derivative pieces of grunge poo, but derivative of other things like Redd Kross. I mean, I even like a lot of that stuff, but c’mon.
@spankyjoe: Big Star wasn’t arty, literary, and only occasionally daring. They wrote super-catchy songs with charming production. The Pixies, also, were a pop band, and even Pavement could jam a 1 4 5 chord progression with the best of them. These are hardly bands that people hold up as “arty” if they know what they are talking about. These are bands that wrote interesting, but catchy songs.
@KikoJones: I bring this up again: If Pitchfork wanted to do a hit piece on Ten, they wouldn’t have hired Stephen Deusner to do it. He’s one of the fairest writers there, and probably the guy who covers the most traditional stuff favorably (he’s go-to for Americana).
@Lucas Jensen: AIC and STP both put out a bunch of uneven albums. Arguably, even their best–Dirt and Purple, respectively–were spotty. But they each have a significant core of solid songs (especially STP). After acknowledging that, like everything else, it comes down to a question of taste.
I don’t believe Pitchfork necessarily meant “to do a hit piece on Ten” and I will defer to your knowledge of Deusner’s work. But I feel–and quite a few others commenting on this post, obviously–that there’s a particular sensibility over at PF that leads one to believe they would thumb their noses at this album and others like it. And to be honest, the fact that you’re sticking up for Deusner and his impartiality over that of their other writers in this regard, seems to confirm that hunch.