James Jackson Toth/Pitchfork disfest

In the interest of full disclosure, the fact that he lists the Keef Hartley Band, Souled American, and Fushitsusha among his influences on his MySpace page already inclines us to take James Jackson "Wooden Wand" Toth's side in pretty much any argument. That said, there's an online bitchfight brewing between Toth and a fount of musical punditry whose name rhymes with "witch cork."

 

It seems the latter gave Toth's new album (his first without the Wooden Wand moniker) a 4.1 rating (hint: that's not out of 5) and a rather scathing review (the last four words are "pale, beefy and contemptuous." The pithy Toth has responded with a post on the aforementioned MySpace page in which he he busts reviewer Andrew Gaerig for misquoting lyrics, getting facts wrong, and the fact that "no one really says 'alt country' anymore, dude." That last one may not hold up in court, but perhaps most intriguing of all is Toth's parting shot: "I'm currently working on an eclectic little jumble of a record I know you're going to enjoy. Imagine a more 'yallternative,' animal mask-clad Haircut 100 playing Hanoi Rocks when they were 'good' - but with BEATS!" We have to admit, we'd kill to hear that. In fact, if you'll excuse us, we have an album to make...

 

13 Responses

September 4, 2008 at 5:11 p.m.

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.

September 4, 2008 at 6:29 p.m.

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.

September 4, 2008 at 10:18 p.m.

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 ;-)

September 4, 2008 at 11:43 p.m.

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

September 5, 2008 at 12:25 a.m.

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!

September 5, 2008 at 12:46 a.m.

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.

September 5, 2008 at 1:55 a.m.

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.

September 5, 2008 at 10:44 a.m.

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.

September 5, 2008 at 4:01 p.m.

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.

September 5, 2008 at 8:38 p.m.

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?

September 5, 2008 at 8:46 p.m.

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.

September 6, 2008 at 12:06 a.m.

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

September 6, 2008 at 8:06 p.m.

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

Add a comment


 

Prefix Logo

  Site Index RSS
Email or Username: Password: Register
Recent Comments
Forum Posts