Tom Breihan of Pitchfork Googles NIN, Writes Glib Review; News at 11
-
Artist:
-
Album:
So, it's here if you want to read it, but I don't recommend it.http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/article/record_review/49274-ghosts-i-ivNot that I care whether he recommends the actual album or not... And not that the album was even the subject of most of the review. By discussing the album's distribution model and his own base hang-ups Tom manages to distract from whatever valid opinion he might have. I can't wait to read his reviews of CD's in the 90's, where he no doubt complains that there weren't enough one-sheet posters available for free at his local indie record store and that Tower Records didn't receive enough copies. Distribution model affects aesthetic, right?Tom did such a bang-up job of glancing furitively through the Wikipedia entry of Nine Inch Nails before writing another angsty missive on a band someone told him he might like, you'd almost forgive yet another case of a blogger blogging the bloggers.Speaking of blogs, he backs into the review by snarkily swiping at Reznor for having whined about Saul Williams' digital distribution numbers: "Then, when not enough people paid actual money for the thing, he bitchily blogged about it." Good one! Except that the blogging, bitchiness and unhappiness actually didn't happen. It is true that on NIN.com Reznor bared information on how the Saul Williams digital experiment was faring, a few weeks after release. He mused openly about whether it was considered a success (Saul was certainly making money) but did point out that more people downloaded it for free than paid for it. He didn't pass judgement, just commented. Several low-rent music and tech news sites ran with the "news" that Trent was unhappy. Apparently the ever-dutiful Pitchfork stopped their research bunnies at the Much Music forum.Sigh. Many more mistakes are made, regardless of his opinion. He suggests that Aphex Twin was commissioned for NIN remixes (um, look at more than that Wiki track listing Tom-- Aphex didn't remix anything NIN on that EP- that was an Aphex Twin track from a forthcoming album put in the center of the disc to raise their profile). But hey, Tom's too busy creating nu-hipster tags like "IDM OGs" to actually speak eloquently about his subject. The fact that he even refers to NIN post-PHM as being devoted to hooks and song form shows his memory is fuzzy at best, or perhaps his entire memory is only comprised of PHM and With Teeth.He does use the word "reptilian" though, which shows he might have heard that radio hit, "Reptile."Tom almost manages to find the word "motif" but fails to fully grasp it, even though Reznor's had piano signatures for nearly as long as Tom claims to have been paying attention, "Every once in a while, he'll use a riff or a bassline that I could swear he's used before but can't quite place."Oddly enough, when he finally does try and review Ghosts I-IV, I don't completely disagree. In fact, on a very shallow front he's spot on. But he doesn't even try to consider the volumes I, II, III, and IV on their own. He's too in love with his initial assessment to do any more homework. He's got Wiki open in one tab, Google in another and iTunes is playing the copy he paid $5 for (or the free first 9 songs, it's hard to tell if he listened past that since he doesn't reference anything specifc). And yet without specificity, and for the most part without credibility, he ends with: "If I were one of those early deluxe-pacakge customers, I'd want my $300 back." If you were. But since you only (maybe) paid $5 - what then? You certainly were enamored with your own opinion of the distribution model, so why not give us more detail at how that reflects your opinion of the music? I can think of lots of albums I wouldn't pay $300 for.And I can think of reviews that aren't worth the zeroes and ones they're printed on.-DeanP.S. . But hey, don't take my word for it! Tom's been hoppin' about other genres, misappropriating cultural and aesthetic environments for his own status. Such as hip-hop: http://dallaspenn.com/weblog/?p=1331









Comments (0)