Idolator

I'm sorry, but I totally agree with the Pitchfork review. Whom is this for? I have no problem with indie success, but this is a callow marketing move perpetuated by a fake indie to trade in on the success of other people's success. And it's targeted right back at the people who made these bands big. There is NO REASON to buy this if you are a Pitchfork reader or, well, anyone who would be online and read this review. Because you are already online. And with the power of Google could rustle up these songs pretty quickly. Therefore: 0.0. Totally worthless. Why would Pitchfork care about reviewing something for the people who shop at Target who would never, ever read that site? At some point you have to target an audience, and that's what they are saying: you--average P4k reader--have zero reason to own this. Maybe it's contradictory insofar as the news section crows about indie sales figures, but I don't find it so.

Short version: if you are reading Pitchfork Media to find out the score given to this comp, there is no reason for you to own it. That's not snobbery. That's about who the audience for this comp is intended to be. Pitchfork readers aren't it.

@Lucas Jensen: Hits compilation released in callow marketing move shocker! I think you answered your own question, too: Whom is it for? People who don't read Pitchfork (which is still thankfully, lots of people).

Maybe the CD is intended for college and high school students looking for their first taste of "cool" music. They wouldn't be familiar with the bands to start with, nor are they completely uninterested.

People need to lay off of criticizing compilations. If you're complaining, it's probably not for you, but there's someone out there who would buy it.

@Lucas Jensen: So then why write about it? Surely there are other records out there that could use the coverage. If it's so unimportant, so *not* meant for Pitchfork's readership, then what is it doing as the lead review?

Yeah, it is! But to Pitchfork's audience--who are reading the review--it is a 0.0. It's context-sensitive.

@Lucas Jensen: I am so using "My review was context-sensitive" the next time a band complains about me trashing them. Thanks!

@Lucas Jensen: Why would they even bother reviewing it at all?

I see what you're saying and I understand your argument, but outside of all that...at least people who aren't prone to seek out music on blogs/college radio, etc. will get to hear something other than what's playing on top 40 radio and MTV reality shows. I myself don't mind that stuff--sometimes it can be really awesome!--but if that were my ONLY source of music I'd be really grateful for a compilation like this to come into my life.

But, like you said, it's not like anyone who would buy this out of sheer ignorant curiosity is reading Pitchfork. So that person will never read this review. If a tree falls in the woods with nobody around to hear it...?

Next week: a 2.8 for the "juvenile and overly glossy" High School Musical 2.

Well, looks as if I've been beaten to the punch several times.

Creating a compilation like this is only worthless if you think that indie music's importance comes from its obscurity - in other words, the status it conveys on you. If, on the other hand, you think (or hope) that indie is just pre-famous pop music, than this compilation should be lauded. I am constantly surprised I live in a world where MIA and Of Montreal are not burning up Billboard's charts, and I don't think their (relative) obscurity adds even a grain of importance to their creations.

@maura: I think you know as well as I do that when something has engendered this kind of pre-press you have to weigh in on it. I mean, if everybody hates the new--I don't know--CYHSY album or something, you still have to add your stamp of disapproval to it, I think, as a publication of some renown. I wish it weren't so, but I think it's pretty common practice.

@Lampbane: Maybe it is. But I don't think that Matt is dissing the songs. I think he is dissing the concept. And he notes--to the chagrin of some here, I'm sure--that many of these songs are available for free on their site. Also, I grew up in a small town devoid of much musical happenings, so I understand what it is to be out of the loop musically. But Maura even says herself that this is NOT being targeted to those folks. It's being advertised on MTV2's Subterranean. If it's at Best Buy for 6.99 then great! I have no problem with that. But for a Pitchfork reader? 0.0

Oh. My. God. I just do not understand why American Girl released that Nicki doll, like at all. It's for dilettantes, not committed doll collectors! And anybody who spent the least amount of time on the internet and seen the serious doll-collector sites already know enough to not need or want an entry-level doll like this, it's totally ridiculous, an insult to the doll-collecting community, it is time to take arms against this cultural contagion that threatens our way of life, etc. etc.

@The Mozfather: Oh, I agree. I'm not saying that obscurity leads to anything good and there is a whiff of that in the review. But are you really surprised that Of Montreal is not burning up the Billboard charts. If only, but I'm not surprised one bit. The comp could be great for a high school kid, but for P4k's audience I think it is worth nothing. It's not even for charity or anything...there are no rare tracks. There's no nostalgia. It's nothing.

I think Matt LeMay is just upset that a Get Him Eat Him song wasn't included on the album.

[www.pitchforkmedia.com]

As for saying this album doesn't apply to Pfork's readership - I'm not sure that's too true, either. Presumably everyone who reads Pfork has heard Aeroplane Over The Sea, yet they don't hesitate to gush about it everytime it gets re-released. If everyone knows that Aeroplane is so great, shouldn't it deserve 0.0 because there's no need to talk about it? But they don't do that cause they like the songs. Clearly Pfork likes all of these songs - why couldn't they talk about that, then?

Yeah, the stunt-score 0.0 is stupid every time they do it, but it's especially stupid when they do it for a CD full of bands and songs that PF has published countless positive things about in the past.

@The Mozfather: Because they already have talked about it. And these are single songs. NMH released a monumental achievement that's worthy of a 10.0. This is a comp of recent songs that are available--for free in most cases--on their own site and in other places. Repackaging NMH's album (in the UK, btw) got a 10.0 because it's a 10.0 album and it was reissued as such (it is still in print in the US)--as an album. There was no time, no historical reason to repackage these songs other than making easy money and maybe driving some album sales. Which is fine, but completely unessential. Sure, maybe Matt could have talked about the bands and whether the songs were good or not, but that's not the point. He felt--as do I AND Maura and most everybody commenting here--that the reasons for its reissue were shallow.

And I wish people were still gushing over NMH all of the time. I believe it's only been reissued once.

Pitchfork has made an art at pointing out the obvious. Douches... There I said it.

Do you think this makes Travis Morrison feel slighty better now?

"I'm hard pressed to think of who the audience for this would be."

That's kind of an incredible statement, and indicative of the kind of cocoon this jerkoff must live in. Either that or he's just being wilfully dismissive.

When I first heard of this comp, and saw the tracklisting, I thought, "That's kind of funny," and "[Insert names of about five friends} would probably love this." Amazing but true: there are people out there who like the types of tracks on the album, but for whatever reason don't spent much if any time trolling around the web for music.

Wow, just a thought: did Spin or any other print rag ever bitch about Theodore, or Stanley, Son of Theodore, or any of the other billion comps (including the the My Name Is or the Red White and ... comps) that were utter goldmines to isolated kids in the early 90's?

No disrespect to Mr. LeMay and the Pitchforkians, but this piece needed some serious editing -- or hell, it didn't even need to be run at all. Isn't ignoring something in this day and age better than subjecting us to a circular rant about it?

The thing is, the kids in the Midwest and the outer 'burbs are online now too, everyone. They're on LJ and MySpace and Facebook and they're sharing music with their friends over legal networks like Ruckus at colleges. Stating that this CD is redundant is about as revolutionary and insightful as pointing out that the sky is generally blue.

Instead of ranting, let this thing molder in stores. Let the industry learn its lesson when no one buys these things off the endcaps at Target and Best Buy and Circuit City.

Though, honestly, since this is "released" by Vice, I can't get help but feel that we're all being pranked. ALL OF US.

@Lucas Jensen: So we grade music on the motivation of the record label for releasing it, and not on the content of the ... uhm, actual music? What if you found out Jeff Mangum was only motivated by money when he wrote AOTS? Would that change your listening experience, and if it did, why should it?

And bands do all sorts of money-making Essential Hits releases all the time and Pfork wades in and gives them appropriate scores based on the music and not the motivation. Or even better - Pfork just ignores releases when they don't need to talk about them. If they love indie so much, why not save that review space for some punk band from DC?

I'm not suggesting that this is any way a well-thought out compilation, but on the strength of the songs alone, it deserves at least a 5 or a 6. It's just Pfork's attempt to ground its indie cred that gave it a 0.0.

@Lucas Jensen: One constituency I can think of who might not find this totally worthless would be the bands on it, since unlike when people use google to rustle these songs up pretty quickly, in this case I'm assuming they probably get paid at least a little something.

Beyond that, this seems pretty much just like the opportunistic "New Wave" and "College Radio" comps that Warner Bros. or Sire or whoever put out in the 70s/80s which introduced me to a few bands I wouldn't have bothered listening to otherwise when I was in junior high and high school.

Here's why it gets a 0.0: if more people buy this comp, then more people will be listening to these bands, and then Pitchfork readers will have to stop listening to them because they're popular.

*goes back to listening to Sky Blue Sky*

@Jay:

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!

That thing deserves a 0.0 for that cover art alone. Christ, is that a CD cover or a discarded website design for some worthless Web 2.0 company?

I say bring back Sire's "Just Say..." series, the sole reason anyone in the world cares about the Ocean Blue.

God forbid people who don't read blogs all day get exposed to these bands in an easy way.

People bitch and moan that mainstream radio doesn;t sound like "x indie band" and when people actually try to market this stuff, they;re the first ones to yell "shameless marketing ploy."

Let Deerhoof make some money for once.

@The Mozfather:
@sjc:
Agreed.

If this thing irks P4K so much, just ignore it and give a review to a band that could actually fucking USE it instead of stroking your own supposed indier-than-thou superiority.

Or yeah, just review the actual music on the compilation.

The write-up is curious and P4K sounds like the integrity (ha) of the music is in jeopardy by this CD or something.

And as said before, there's plenty of people out there who don't live in this indie bubble and thank Ford for that.

@Catbirdseat:

I was sort of hoping it was a subtle Bastards of the Young homage.

Someone please reassure this guy that This Is Next will have about as much cultural impact a.... In other words, there's no reason to be afraid.

And yet PF selectively reviews - and lauds -"popular" music by Justin Timberlake, et al. It must be hard defining what you're allowed to listen to and not listen to.

"As the retail market for independent music shifts from mom and pop stores to big box stores like Wal-Mart and Best Buy, major label-owned distributors such as ADA are growing in size and influence." -- my favorite line. Like this review is going to make us all aware of how the local independent record store is a dying breed.

Um, Matt, that ship has sailed . . . like in 1993.

oops - my first post above should have had the following link to Nowcore! The PUnk Rock Evolution:

[www.amazon.com]

@raihala: Ain't that the truth.

It's typical Pitchfork "Ugh, look at these uninformed plebs" showboating. They do subscribe to DIY/Indie-ish ideals (the way the festival was organized is a great example of that), but I find it very hard to believe that no one on staff ever shops at Target or buys a coffee at Starbucks, two companies they've slammed in various news items. Or that, as teenagers, they never bought Rolling Stone or Spin or any other mainstream music magazine. How is getting a recommendation from one of those entities different from buying an indie all-star comp? It's all motivated by money. Labels want their bands to sell records and they'll promote them however they can.

That said, even thought there will undoubtedly be some nerdy 30-somethings cashing out for this, I think the target audience is teenagers and college students. If we can divert their attention from the Maroon 5s of the world for an hour, great. Because of the Internet, there is almost no hope of keeping your favorite band a secret anymore, so you might as well get used to the idea of others listening to Of Montreal.

Sorry. Pitchfork riles me in a very special way.

I'm no psychologist, but it seems to me that those people who get most fired up about "successful" indie bands don't really like music much at all - their primary concern is how it will affect THEM personally in terms of their own cred. I should know: it took me until my 30s to stop feeling that way.

I think Lucas and Mozfather are both sorta right. It's true that, considering that the average Pfork reader is pretty familiar with the artists included and most of the songs on the comp can be found free elsewhere, they probably don't have much use for it. But to just give it a 0.0 assumes that the Pfork readership is a closed community. I'm sure they get new readers showing up all the time, people who want to know some good bands to check out but don't have the time to pour over all the "best of" lists in the archives. So, yeah, it holds no value for the seasoned Pfork reader, but it might be worth something to those less in the loop, so to speak. Shit, if they gave that ridiculous Bob Pollard "comedy" album two scores, they could do it for this one.

@bg5000: Let's face it...Pitchfork has never been what you might call a model of consistency when it comes to record reviews. Last year's 2.1 is this year's Best New Music. Why would they feel they have to qualify any given review?

Between all of these posts, the word "Indie" like it means anything, the -Complete- Hoogie Boogie, and Drunken-Deadbeat-Daddy-Drummers, I'm so glad I stopped playing music for/with ANYONE else, and never drank the Pitchfork's Kool-Aid.

And Fake Bowser? Yeah. He strolled through my town.

@Lucas Jensen:

Seriously, you're saying that albums should be graded on their concept, not their content?

Seriously. Seriously! I want to say that's retarded, but that would be insulting to the concept of retarded people.

@Lampbane: I think in this case, yes, grading the concept (which MAURA herself clearly attacks above) is important over grading the music. No one says the songs suck (and that's the weakest part of Matt's review)...it's whether this thing, this release, even needs to exist. And I'm saying it's inessential. Criticism of art can be done at many levels, including the symptomatic one, where you rate something's worth under a much larger cultural rubric. It's okay to judge something on its intent, and since these artists' intent wasn't to create music to be a part of a compilation then we must judge the label and producers' intent. The music has been judged as worthy, but does its repackaging justify its release? No.

And, by the way, saying retarded in this day and age? Fucking classy, man! Way to go!

@AquaLung: I totally agree. I think they should review an indie band in its stead. But I understand why they did do it.

@WhineyPTW: Chris, I like most of these bands and have no problem with them making money. Do you really think they will on a comp that's not coming out on their label? I'm not convinced. And you know that I am open-minded and egalitarian about this kind of thing. I am the last person to give a good goddamn about corporate vs. indie, but I think if Target or Wal-Mart REALLY wanted to push indie music they could do it pretty easily. Do you think that's what Vice Records, ADA, and Atlantic really want to do with this?

@Lampbane: And retarded people is a concept?

Anyway...

@Lucas Jensen:

Well, as you point out, no one is supposed to say "retarded" to refer to people with mental disabilities anymore, so yes, it is a concept. A horrible, politically incorrect concept.

And it seems that Maura is attacking the marketing of the album, not the actual album concept.

So yes, anyway...

Is this thing on?

It's a losing battle.

Eh, screw this indie crap, I'm going to go laugh at the "50 Seconds with 50 Cent" thing again. Because I think we can all agree on that one.

Hey, Pitchfork, I think what you meant to say was "Waaah, bands we like will be sold at Wal*Mart, and that will ruin our carefully cultivated cred."

What I find interesting, is that several years back there was an album attempting to (successfully) perpetuate the same task of acquainting the casual music listener to the "cool" side of music - this album was the "GARDEN STATE SOUNDTRACK".

For a few months following its release, you couldn't make out with a sorority girl in a Jetta, without her forcing you to listen to this "great new band", who was "edgy" named the "Shins".

Maybe if Zack Braff was on the album cover, or in the commercials - this album would have relevance?

I think any publication that gives a rating for music is a load of wank anyway.

Tell me about the music, and then shut the hell up.

since i think most of the people who buy those "now that's what i call music!" comps are 9 years old, maybe that's who this is for - super cool, aware 9 year olds.
and btw, that american girl comment was pure gold.