[dug]

http://no-trivia.tumblr.com/post/646605 ... s-at-p4k-i

[kafkaesque]

gabaraptor wrote:

joby wrote:

like this whole narrative of "animal collective used to be deep and pure but they just never really figured out where it was going and they took a wrong turn somewhere after MPP and now they're just a parody of themselves cuz they didn't become the band they meant to me in 2007-2009" is just barf worthy. like santa claus isn't real, the world sucks, animal collective is just another band like every other band, now review the damned album like you would any other band....

this

[Vovenarg]

Maury wrote:

hatredcopter wrote:

I can't really buy a dude talking about how desperate and poor he is knowing how comfortable and rich he is. and the reviewer can't really buy animal collective...using loop pedals...knowing that they...have kids.

Are you talking about the Pitchfork reviewer? Do Pitchfork reviewers really make bank? Cuz that doesn't seem like a super high paying job to me. Just because they're prominent doesn't mean they're affluent. Like, I know a guy who makes cartoons that get published in the New Yorker, and he's getting like 500 a cartoon, but they only pick one out of 100 cartoons he sends them. My point being: it's a widely read publication and gives a person a lot of attention, but 500 doesn't even pay somebody's rent for a month. That's a lot of work for not a lot of payoff. I doubt being a Pitchfork reviewer is an exceptionally lucrative job, even if it gives a person a lot of exposure.

unsure but think he meant like if a punk rocker or rapper did this sort of thing....

[hybrination]

Can someone rename this thread pitchforking with

[kafkaesque]

this is the worst part about the negative review. all the people who had initial reservations suddenly becoming so sure of the negativity and now being "justified" in projecting that into this thread.

here's the thing: pitchfork has been wrong countless times before (they have literally gone back and changed scores, erased reviews, etc.), and this is just another one of those times.

[Takyon]

hatredcopter wrote:

I can't really buy a dude talking about how desperate and poor he is knowing how comfortable and rich he is. and the reviewer can't really buy animal collective...using loop pedals...knowing that they...have kids.

It wasn't an elegant analogy on his part but I think he's basically saying that AC have descended into safe territory where they are no longer pushing major boundaries and just want to make good enough music to sell a record, have a tour, and make enough income to support themselves. It's sort of an offensive generalization to make but I agree with his insinuation that AC have sort of descended into this safe zone that really isn't all that interesting.

And I feel bad expressing these thoughts because interviews have suggested that they did a number of pretty bold things in CHz, saw the lukewarm reaction, and decided to do a more straight-laced album. I'm sure that Portner is reading some of these reviews and thinking "they dislike us when we change but they dislike us when we stay the same". But for me, it's less about the direction of their stylistic evolution and more about their execution.

gabaraptor wrote:

Takyon wrote:

All music is experimental, and some experiments are more successful than others.

yea, and some music is more experimental than other music. hence the usage of the term "experimental" to describe a certain type of music.

Some music is definitely more experimental than other's but a band like Black Dice can do some crazy, audacious things and even their biggest failures are admirably wild. If you want to do experimental music, you need to be bold. I don't really hear boldness in PW.

kafkaesque wrote:

this is the worst part about the negative review. all the people who had initial reservations suddenly becoming so sure of the negativity and now being "justified" in projecting that into this thread.

Seriously. This thread should have been hugs and kisses. What a bunch of assholes.

kafkaesque wrote:

there's the thing: pitchfork has been wrong countless times before (they have literally gone back and changed scores, erased reviews, etc.), and this is just another one of those times.

Why are you so sure of yourself? Not trying to be mean but it's like you know something I don't.

[moop]

i'm a fanboy...that's why i'm on an animal collective forum

i just want to gush about how much i love this album with other people who also love this album. that's why i'm on here! i guess i'm at a point where if i don't like something, i see no real point in debating that with other people who love that thing, you know? just seems pointless to me.

criticisms are good... but overt negative opinions tearing down that thing you love isn't what i'm looking for in my safe place on the top half of collected animals.

[giraffacus]

joby wrote:

I think that there was this moment where arcade fire/animal collective/of montreal/fleet foxes/bon iver/etc were all putting out music that appealed to a lot of the same people and a lot of other people started making music influenced by these bands at that specific point in their careers lining up with the scene being fresh and big and exciting. But now the salad days are over and maybe this party's crashed and coachella is two weekends now but still not as cool as it used to be... but why does animal collective have to pick up the check? what makes them such an easy scape goat for all the hurt feelings about the shortcomings and unrealized ideas about what that moment was supposed to pave the way for?

because they were at the top of the mountain more or less - and like I said - context is everything...
So even if it's superficial, or hypocritical, or messy, it's still not hard to point out how a band like AC fits into the context of early Brooklyn gentrification in the mid-late 00's, the real estate crash, and the content of the music (dreamy, twee) they made that fit into that, as well as their position at the forefront of that culture. Seeing as how the music of the past five years that's been worth much has struggled very seriously with the intersection of race, class and other cultural norms (VW, Kendrick Lamar, Beyonce, Downtown Boys, Grimes, etc etc etc) it's not hard to imagine why AC has fallen out of favor.
Really, what it comes down to, is that this is the moment where they are just unfashionable, and that's part of a larger structure. It's not necessarily about quality either - AC are great- plenty of amazing bands/musicians have made great albums that no one has heard or play a specific role in the context of their body of work.

[Sputnik Monroe]

Eehhh, as everyone says, reviews don't matter. Sounds like he is trying to intellectualize it too much. For me it is all about just accepting it, taking it in, how the sounds move and effect me, what thoughts, feelings, and associations come up. What spaces it takes me to, images it conjures. I'm honestly not thinking about whether or not they're too old to tap into some relevant zeitgeist. Musics more of a primal thing to me. I celebrate in it. You take a more primitive culture, where music isn't this whole intellectual conception, of what is considered good, and not good, it is just something they are part of, because they're human beings that exist. Someone starts drumming, someone dances, sings, claps, etc, before you know it, the whole village is in on it, undiscriminated. There is too much ego involved with the evaluation of music, it diminishes the whole phenomena. We don't like the music as much as the idea of it. It's all fashion.

[Vovenarg]

kafkaesque wrote:

here's the thing: pitchfork has been wrong countless times before (they have literally gone back and changed scores, erased reviews, etc.), and this is just another one of those times.

this was my point about Danse/Campfire Songs/ODDSAC:
they panned or ignored those, but do you love em any less? i know i don't. anytime AC has gone a little more left field it's been something p4k wasn't interested in or couldn't wrap their noggins around. this album's no less a crucial piece for a legendary band, imo. this p4k silliness is no new news.

[hatredcopter]

Vovenarg wrote:

unsure but think he meant like if a punk rocker or rapper did this sort of thing....

yeah...sorry, I worded that poorly. I was thinking of punk rockers singing about how hard their lives are when their lives are actually quite good. there is a disconnect. that is how I'm relating to this review, cuz he seems to be describing that kind of disconnect.

I know music reviewers don't make much/any money. that's always good to remember when dissing these guys, haha.

gabaraptor wrote:

yeah, isn't that what happens to most bands?

yeah. I thought of punk bands specifically because that's a genre where I feel like the musicians and the music don't always age so well together. some times. not all the time, not for every punk band.

the reviewer liked to picture animal collective as feral cultists. and the band getting older means their mystique doesn't work on him anymore. it's ok to feel that way.

[Takyon]

I don't understand this common diss about Pitchfork being unimportant.

If this review was so useless, it wouldn't require nearly 5 pages of fans talking about how useless it is.

[Vovenarg]

Takyon wrote:

I don't understand this common diss about Pitchfork being unimportant.

If this review was so useless, it wouldn't require nearly 5 pages of fans talking about how useless it is.

a decrepit king is still a king

[samthefireball]

Sputnik Monroe wrote:

Eehhh, as everyone says, reviews don't matter. Sounds like he is trying to intellectualize it too much. For me it is all about just accepting it, taking it in, how the sounds move and effect me, what thoughts, feelings, and associations come up. What spaces it takes me to, images it conjures. I'm honestly not thinking about whether or not they're too old to tap into some relevant zeitgeist. Musics more of a primal thing to me. I celebrate in it. You take a more primitive culture, where music isn't this whole intellectual conception, of what is considered good, and not good, it is just something they are part of, because they're human beings that exist. Someone starts drumming, someone dances, sings, claps, etc, before you know it, the whole village is in on it, undiscriminated. There is too much ego involved with the evaluation of music, it diminishes the whole phenomena. We don't like the music as much as the idea of it. It's all fashion.

Great post, couldn't agree more. Hierarchal thinking has it's limits. The only reason I like this blog is because I feed off other people's excitement, but I'm not interested in some kind of psycho-analysis or critique.

[joby]

giraffacus wrote:

Spoiler: show

joby wrote:

I think that there was this moment where arcade fire/animal collective/of montreal/fleet foxes/bon iver/etc were all putting out music that appealed to a lot of the same people and a lot of other people started making music influenced by these bands at that specific point in their careers lining up with the scene being fresh and big and exciting. But now the salad days are over and maybe this party's crashed and coachella is two weekends now but still not as cool as it used to be... but why does animal collective have to pick up the check? what makes them such an easy scape goat for all the hurt feelings about the shortcomings and unrealized ideas about what that moment was supposed to pave the way for?

because they were at the top of the mountain more or less - and like I said - context is everything...
So even if it's superficial, or hypocritical, or messy, it's still not hard to point out how a band like AC fits into the context of early Brooklyn gentrification in the mid-late 00's, the real estate crash, and the content of the music (dreamy, twee) they made that fit into that, as well as their position at the forefront of that culture. Seeing as how the music of the past five years that's been worth much has struggled very seriously with the intersection of race, class and other cultural norms (VW, Kendrick Lamar, Beyonce, Downtown Boys, Grimes, etc etc etc) it's not hard to imagine why AC has fallen out of favor.
Really, what it comes down to, is that this is the moment where they are just unfashionable, and that's part of a larger structure. It's not necessarily about quality either - AC are great- plenty of amazing bands/musicians have made great albums that no one has heard or play a specific role in the context of their body of work.

i agree a billion times over.

[giraffacus]

Takyon wrote:

I don't understand this common diss about Pitchfork being unimportant.

If this review was so useless, it wouldn't require nearly 5 pages of fans talking about how useless it is.

because it's difficult to reconcile the stuff you like with the fact it doesn't exist in a vacuum and isn't just a randomly generated series of sounds

[iKahn]

giraffacus wrote:

iKahn wrote:

P4K use to write really excellent reviews...and even if they didn't like the album that much it was usually a fun read...Not so much anymore. It's been watered down to what is culturally acceptable.

If I may elaborate...

They use to write excellent, interesting, fun reviews...Where, like many of you have said, it wasn't about how the band use to be and how they have evolved but how this release is in the now, and in context of the present and future...

Now they save their more interesting reviews or their better writers for the Kanye and Beyonce releases. What was once commonplace good reading at P4K has turn into culturally relevant silliness, rolling with the tide and all..

Takyon wrote:

iKahn wrote:

This is experimental music...Good God...Some of you guys are acting like AC made music for you in the first place.

All music is experimental, and some experiments are more successful than others.

Success is not by any means a measure of spectacular work. Animal Collective's work, unlike many others who've tapped into the collective mainstream demographic, is full of challenging, unsuspecting, sometimes vomit-inducing pieces. Their distinct "experimentalist" nature is part of what have gotten them to where they are...because they mean so much in so many ways to so many people. While you might be turned off to PW, someone else unfamiliar with AC might be turned on.

Takyon wrote:

That's the purpose of criticism: assessing how something is received and if anyone can just summon the argument that any piece of media is somehow a pure artistic divinity then both my thoughts and yours are entirely useless.

You're talking exactly like someone who came in off the hype-train from MPP and are expecting their work to revolve around your expectations and hopes and aspirations for the group. It is all obviously subjective. What I've personally always found most profound about them is their ability to sculpt the sound into a world of it's own, and Painting With is a kind of concentrated version of some of the sonic trickery they've displayed over the past several years combined with plenty of freshness to keep the mixed bag in equilibrium.

Takyon wrote:

Yeah, their music can be a personal statement but it should be one that is intriguing for an audience or at least relevant to their interests.

Once again, you're more concerned with what people might think of it, drowning out the kind of palette, texture, and environment the album is working with.

You don't like it, cool. But stop acting like it was suppose to meet some kind of grand expectation. The boys are doing more or less what they've always done: Experimenting. It's 2016, things change, jive or don't.

[giraffacus]

iKahn wrote:

giraffacus wrote:

iKahn wrote:

P4K use to write really excellent reviews...and even if they didn't like the album that much it was usually a fun read...Not so much anymore. It's been watered down to what is culturally acceptable.

If I may elaborate...

They use to write excellent, interesting, fun reviews...Where, like many of you have said, it wasn't about how the band use to be and how they have evolved but how this release is in the now, and in context of the present and future...

Now they save their more interesting reviews or their better writers for the Kanye and Beyonce releases. What was once commonplace good reading at P4K has turn into culturally relevant silliness, rolling with the tide and all..

who is battling with expectations now?

Context is important, it coexists with the music itself, and that's why the review mentioned context and correlated it to why they didn't like the album. Kanye and Beyonce get the good reviews because arguably in 2016 their music IS culturally relevant and sets the bar. Obviously this is noxious because it can create a feedback loop of predicting the zeitgeist but overall the reviews on Pitchfork are widespread enough that they don't seem to do that enough to be damaging as far as I see it.

[William H. Macy]

how did they possibly score this lower than chz

[Tap]

lol wait when did animal collective stop being experimental? because the answer is feels.

and thank god they did cause otherwise they wouldn't still be a band making music I enjoy greatly.

[valar602]

what about Oddsac?

[basementvoice]

Disregarding the numerical score, it's a really well written review. This guy, like a lot of us, has spent a substantial amount of his life as a big AC fan, and this record really seems like a jumping off of their more emotinally charged stuff.

That's not necessarily a bad thing, it seems like they're kind of going for a cartoony, kids music kind of vibe, but it's hard to capture that kind of potent emotional energy you hear at the end of Turn into something or Also Frightened. Painting With is goofy, and that's a side of AC we haven't seen very often, at least not as an electronic band.

I don't think it's because they're too comfortable, as some have been saying, since CHZ didn't have the strongest songwriting I thought and that seemed to come from a place of deep discomfort. I really don't know what it is.

Regardless I do like Painting with, there are definitely some tracks I like more than others.

The end of Burglars, to me, signifies that the boys still got that knack for insanely beautiful layered melodies.

[iKahn]

giraffacus wrote:

who is battling with expectations now?

Context is important, it coexists with the music itself, and that's why the review mentioned context and correlated it to why they didn't like the album. Kanye and Beyonce get the good reviews because arguably in 2016 their music IS culturally relevant and sets the bar. Obviously this is noxious because it can create a feedback loop of predicting the zeitgeist but overall the reviews on Pitchfork are widespread enough that they don't seem to do that enough to be damaging as far as I see it.

You're suggesting that because I am expecting P4K to be properly reviewing music on the frontier of experimental pop, rather than dismissing it's characteristics off the basis of it's unfamiliar demeanor, that I am equally at fault? C'mon...

The variables in place are crudely complex, but a lot of the reason that Kanye and Beyonce seem to have cultural significance is directly associated with the high ratings and widespread distribution of their music by critics and "fans" alike. I'm a firm believer that many people who really "like" that shit only do so because it is the thing to like this week and/or it's just the shit that already plays on the radio/talked about on TV so why not. P4K reviews them, gives good ratings, writes an entertaining review, more traffic flow, business is good.

When it comes to genuine music critique, which I've often found P4K have been quite reliable over the years, AC is simply at the height of modern music. When I say "modern" I mean more in sense of what people from the 1920's might think the music in the year 2016 would sound like.

Now, like I said, it's boiled down to cultural relativity and significance. Less about the music, and more about how the music is impactful in the context of the general public...which is despicable.

[Rhemphill]

Pitchfork use to be a cozy tavern who'd welcome in something like The Glow part 2 and foster it to be its best. A real haven for groundbreaking voices . Now it's a bumping club of social pundits who make sure they are caught bumping their heads to every new Drake track.

Ahgg I unno I've been raised from a total noob to someone extremely engaged in art because of p4k but I feel genuinely stuck, think it's time I stop reading them.

Music isn't a sport anyway, this record is going to mean so much for a lot of great prople and it's a true miracle that records like it are getting made for us here in 2016.

Everyone take deep inspiration and go make something cool yerselves now.

[kafkaesque]

yo guys, let's found a new publication that appreciates good music like animal collective

[GetFucked]

iKahn wrote:

giraffacus wrote:

who is battling with expectations now?

Context is important, it coexists with the music itself, and that's why the review mentioned context and correlated it to why they didn't like the album. Kanye and Beyonce get the good reviews because arguably in 2016 their music IS culturally relevant and sets the bar. Obviously this is noxious because it can create a feedback loop of predicting the zeitgeist but overall the reviews on Pitchfork are widespread enough that they don't seem to do that enough to be damaging as far as I see it.

You're suggesting that because I am expecting P4K to be properly reviewing music on the frontier of experimental pop, rather than dismissing it's characteristics off the basis of it's unfamiliar demeanor, that I am equally at fault? C'mon...

The variables in place are crudely complex, but a lot of the reason that Kanye and Beyonce seem to have cultural significance is directly associated with the high ratings and widespread distribution of their music by critics and "fans" alike. I'm a firm believer that many people who really "like" that shit only do so because it is the thing to like this week and/or it's just the shit that already plays on the radio/talked about on TV so why not. P4K reviews them, gives good ratings, writes an entertaining review, more traffic flow, business is good.

When it comes to genuine music critique, which I've often found P4K have been quite reliable over the years, AC is simply at the height of modern music. When I say "modern" I mean more in sense of what people from the 1920's might think the music in the year 2016 would sound like.

Now, like I said, it's boiled down to cultural relativity and significance. Less about the music, and more about how the music is impactful in the context of the general public...which is despicable.

how old are you?

[iKahn]

kafkaesque wrote:

yo guys, let's found a new publication that appreciates good music like animal collective

This isn't the point.

The point is that AC is creating something elusive, and escaping the broader scope of folks who take it in thinking it'll be something it isn't.

You think Spirit or HCTI was widely appreciated on as broad of a scope as is expected out of them these days? Fuck no. It's niche as shit. That's their place. MPP was some kind of coincidence...The band always existed on their own plane, but intersected so closely with the general public's taste on MPP that they were catapulted to relevancy by proxy.

They're doing what they've always done. Some folks don't jive, others do. Is this not apart of the polarizing charm of the band?

[Vovenarg]

zactly

[iKahn]

GetFucked wrote:

how old are you?

I'm 13 and love sour patch kids, what's it to ya?

[moop]

basementvoice wrote:

That's not necessarily a bad thing, it seems like they're kind of going for a cartoony, kids music kind of vibe, but it's hard to capture that kind of potent emotional energy you hear at the end of Turn into something or Also Frightened. Painting With is goofy, and that's a side of AC we haven't seen very often, at least not as an electronic band.

hmm. pretty much every one of these songs gets me right in the gut! very emotional to me!

[Synusoid]

I haven't actually read any of the posts from the past like 3 or 4 pages, but I see that there's a lot of long ones. It's obviously because of the Pitchfork review.

Friendly reminder that you're insecure and an idiot if some reviewer affects your personal view of a band's work. Not really saying anyone is doing that though

[iKahn]

Synusoid wrote:

Friendly reminder that you're insecure and an idiot if some reviewer affects your personal view of a band's work. Not really saying anyone is doing that though

I don't think so. They may feel a bit more comfortable expressing their opinions on it, though. Which is fine, to each their own and all that...

[moop]

We need lyrics

[Sputnik Monroe]

New review standard. Each promotional/review copy of the album comes with enough psilocybin to debilitate ones ability to coherently (there would be meticulous instructions to consuming), orientate themselves in the realm of linguistics. So nothing is written, they can only listen, and experience the music. And even when they come down, trying to describe what they heard, would be like trying to hold on to a dream which only diminishes the more you try, and they'd only feel feeble, silly, and sad for trying.

[iKahn]

My man...

[Synusoid]

iKahn wrote:

Synusoid wrote:

Friendly reminder that you're insecure and an idiot if some reviewer affects your personal view of a band's work. Not really saying anyone is doing that though

I don't think so. They may feel a bit more comfortable expressing their opinions on it, though. Which is fine, to each their own and all that...

If someone only begins to open up their opinions to others because of a review, then yeah that is objectively (probably not) insecure of them. We're talking about a music album lol it isn't controversial

I don't know. People can think what they want, as long as they're true to what it is that they do think. Though, it still blows my mind that there are people RIGHT NOW who believe that Panda Bear and Avey Tare aren't at their creative peaks. But I am really nobody to say such a thing in the sea of music listeners, so...MYAH

[GetFucked]

iKahn wrote:

GetFucked wrote:

how old are you?

I'm 13 and love sour patch kids, what's it to ya?

your dismissal of artists like kanye and beyonce (who are in their own way on the forefront of 'experimental pop') as mainstream trash people only like cus it's on the radio (does the radio even play kanye's recent stuff?), and your claim that anyone who doesn't like painting with just 'doesn't get it' cus it's too advanced or whatever - makes you seem like a pretentious 15 year old who's just discovered experimental music or something

obviously the pfork review does suck tho

[Pan]

Synusoid wrote:

Friendly reminder that you're insecure and an idiot if some reviewer affects your personal view of a band's work. Not really saying anyone is doing that though

that doesn't sound very friendly

[hatredcopter]

Chris Thile said a couple things about Pitchfork I like:

wrote:

The thing about things like Pitchfork is that those reviews are largely written by people who don’t know that much about music, the writers who like music. . . . It’s up to you, how much credence you want to lend to their thoughts, as opposed to just making friends with the best musicians you know and asking them what they are listening to. Which is what I’ve always done, the best musicians I know, I’m always a lot more interested in what they are listening to….because it’s a hell of a lot easier to just read a Pitchfork review and buy that rather than it is to make friends with very good musicians, actually.

http://austinist.com/2012/05/02/_chris_thile_is_a.php

I am going to bed but the group hug's been fun. night y'all

[Cussing Bum]

Friendly reminder:
get your head out from those mags
and websites who try to
shape your style
take a risk just for yourself
and wade into the deep end of the ocean