Unless you were living under a rock (or don’t read record reviews) and didn’t see it, you probably have an opinion about Pitchfork’s review of Black Kids’ Partie Traumatic. Well, so does Black Kids frontman Reggie Youngblood, who responded to the review in an interview with MTV.
Youngblood claims he prefers Pitchfork’s review (a picture of two pugs saying “Sorry” and a paltry 3.3) 10 times out of ten instead of a review that just says, “Uh, it’s okay.” He acts like he generally doesn’t care (he says he knew a bad review was coming) but at the beginning he says (kind of jokingly, kind of not-- he looks kind of sad) he thought the picture would lead to a 10.
Either way, hopefully the debate over the merits of the review will be behind us.
[MTV via Stereogum]
um, i agreed with the 3.3. but i take that back and deduct 2 more for being on mtv and another .7 for not knowing how to hold or talk into a mic. that leaves them with a 0.6.
Is all press good press? I think he comes off pretty well in this interview.
Can the reviewer and the reviewee both suck? Pitchfork are a bunch of pretentious cynics who are likely paid by the 'difficulty level' of words used in their reviews. Black Kids are fine, okay, half-baked and nothing more. If Pitchfork wants to blow a group up they have every right, but by all means, give us some verbage as to why you're tearing them down.
Marc
Initially, the review was 0.0 and they later changed it to 3.3. I wonder if he would feel the same way if it was left with its original score.
I can understand that he'd rather be trashed or praised than get a "middling" review, but to say "I think it's the most awesome review for a record I've seen in my whole life" makes him sound like a sucker.
agreed b wall.
Who names a band "Black Kids"? That's just f*cking retarded.
Chris
he he he. they don't know to read between the lines: what pitchfork was trying to say with that was: 'we overhyped that band with their ep'. and the album was pretty much worst. so: 3,3. a good review!
crisis