James Jackson Toth/Pitchfork disfest

Why do artists even respond to P'fork's snarkiness? Don't they know that's exactly the response the site wants? Leave the pettiness alone and it will just fade into obscurity.

I dunno. I thought this was a pretty funny response. Clearly not taking it too seriously, but calling out Pitchfork on the fact that they seldom get basic facts right.

I have recently been joking around with pals that Pitchfork is more likely to favorably review an album comprised of a band of midgets banging tin cans that no one has heard of just to be cutting edge, rather than releases anyone cares about ;-)

In all seriousness, how the f*ck can you give an album a 4.1 rating? What makes that .01?

To be fair, Wendy, I reviewed OM-PA LOOM-PAZ's debut release, "Tin Can Cacophony", and it's not half bad! Those little fellas know how to bang some cans together!

I agree with TheAbstract. Pfork's 0.1 rating system has always seemed to be absurd. What's the difference between a 4.1 and a 4.2?

I don't get having a 101 point interval rating system. With that said I still think they have the best music reviews online.

I get the feeling JJT also likes to pick fights over bad reviews. He sent a similar letter to Dusted for a review we ran of his previous album. Dusted, for the record, doesn't use a rating system, and I think the review wasn't as snarky as Pfork's. Personally, I don't really feel this guy's solo jams so much, but I love Wooden Wand & VV.

I agree, ba, about his WW & VV work. It is odd when people pick fights over bad reviews (even odder when they pick fights over favorable reviews that aren't favorable enough), but it seems to happen with some regularity. And I think correcting factual errors is totally fair.

babussolini -- are you joking about Dusted's review not being as snarky? If we're thinking of the same one that review was way, way over the top.

I'm not a huge fan of this last JJT record but a lot of the heat he's getting is because pitchfork, dusted, et al get peoples attention by out-assholing each other.

Reviewers should have an opinion instead of just parroting press releases. Take with a grain of salt any review. If they hate it, you might like it. I thought it was a bad album, but what do I know?

Daba you don't get it: Pitchfork reviewers are SO insightful, that they actually CAN make the fine distinction between an album that merits a 4.1 and a 4.2. In fact, they are such masters of the reviewing arts, that they can make these distinctions without even listening to the albums all the way through or doing basic fact checking. This is the difference between THEM and US. When I write reviews for Prefix, I am fairly obsessive about checking facts... because I figure nobody will take my opinion seriously if I appear not to know what I'm talking about. This is not a concern for pitchfork writers, simply because they ARE pitchfork writers --and their expertise is assumed, even in the face of staggering evidence that would seem to discredit it. Without the confining limitations of fact checking, or the expectation of good-faith efforts at engaging the music they're assigned to review, Pitchfork reviewers can take their game to *the next level*. The albums they review need only serve as points of departure for a diversity rainbow of narcissistic posturing, grad-school lit-crit wankery and up-to-the-minute reports filed live from the cozy depths of their own anal cavities.

I stopped paying attention to Pitchfork when they gave a sh-teous review to one of my favorite albums of '06. The band in turn responded with the best Pitchfork rejoinder I've seen to date.

The review: http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/article/record_review/36965-sound-team-movie-monster

The response: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qaIrxuSN84

I'm just glad these people aren't pilots, physicians or cops. I mean, really.