0.4 From Perfection… Total Bummer d00ds!
What did Animal Collective’s Merriweather Post Pavilion do to fall short by 0.4 of a perfect score of 10? What is that “certain something” by Pitchfork’s standards that marks the difference between a 9.6 album and a 10 album? Do they employ some elaborate mathematical formula used for rating albums that leaves you with a fractional remainder? Here’s another question: Did they just automatically start it at 10 and then go “Wish it was longer, -0.4. All done!”?
I’m not going to pass full judgment yet, because I’ve only given it a few listens over the past couple of days. But I can tell you that “0.4 from perfection” it is not. It is impeccably produced, it is enjoyable, but it also isn’t remotely accessible (the album’s buzz word). Either that or people have lost touch on what accessible really means or sounds like. MGMT is really what an accessible version of Animal Collective would sound like. Merriweather Post Pavilion doesn’t veer anywhere close to that. But then again Oracular Spectacular got a measly 6.8 for being accessible (and damn good). This is about as accessible as us putting a penis monster in a hot rod with the words “Spray It, Don’t Say It” in cum. OK maybe a bit more accessible than that!
And in case you didn’t realize it, this is more about Pitchfork’s asinine rating system than Merriweather Post Pavillion. But I’m sure the curiosity has (or will make) made a good deal of you seek it out, Animal Collective fan or not. So… your thoughts?
- My Pal the Crook
January 7th, 2009 at 1:35 pm
Is that graphic moving or have I done too much acid over the years?
January 7th, 2009 at 1:36 pm
It isn’t moving it’s an optical ilusion
January 7th, 2009 at 2:43 pm
Mike, it’s definately moving.
Pitchfork’s rating blows. A favorite cd of 2008 received a 2.3
ratings seem to have more to do with artist or label than the actual album.
January 7th, 2009 at 3:28 pm
No I know it’s moving, but it isn’t an animated GIF or anything like that. It’s moving because it’s an optical illusion making your think it’s moving.
January 7th, 2009 at 3:37 pm
I think if they gave it another 10, which it could quite possibly be, it’d make their judging system look far too similar to figuring skating’s…
January 7th, 2009 at 3:57 pm
ya i dont know about their ratings lately, Oracular Spectacular def deserved more than a 6.8, only complaint i have about the album is that it seems a tad over produced other than that it should be well over a 8.. also crystal castles deserves to be over an 8.
January 7th, 2009 at 4:26 pm
crazy, I just saved that to the desktop and sure enough, it’s just a .jpg image…that’s moving…and yeah, at first I was like “shit, not again, first the graphic, then the walls”. P-H-E-W, haven’t had that happen in a while. As for Animal Collective…heard the name someplace but no idea what it is. or who.
January 7th, 2009 at 4:38 pm
I just want to be clear while I don’t always agree with their ratings, I don’t have a problem with Pitchforks reviews as a whole. I think they do a good job, and a better job than anyone currently reviewing albums or reporting on music.
I just really think the whole adding a point anything to ratings is a bit ridiculous and pointless.
That and their reviews kind of have no base of context. They not only don’t have the same reviewer review follow-ups to highly or poorly rated albums but they don’t follow up each review with a list of previous reviews by the same writer. When Stylus (stylusmagazine.com) was around, they would do that and it made for a world of difference to be able to place into context bad or good reviews based on some previous reviews by the same author.
January 7th, 2009 at 11:54 pm
Actually we really shouldnt be comparing Oracular Spectacular to the new Animal Collective disc. mostly because the majority of MGMT’s CD mediocre and boring and childish. Merriweather Post Pavilion not only deserves the perfect 10 but doesnt deserve to be compared to the much lesser Oracualr Spectacular. It deserves so much better.
January 8th, 2009 at 12:42 am
if you say so…
January 8th, 2009 at 4:36 am
As a fan I couldn’t help but feel this was a bit overproduced. I fell in love with live versions of some of these tracks but have to respect their judgement as artists when it comes to what is officially released to the public. As far as Pitchfork goes, come on. Don’t even pay attention to them. NOTHING they do / have done warrants our respect / attention. Their offices are in CHICAGO and they employ and pay farthings to freelance college wanks and directionless MFA students who either live in dorms or might as well for all the tail they’re bringing home to show off their extensive collection of 45s and whatever else was produced in a time when it was “all about the music.”
note: you can tell it’s an optical illusion and not an animated .gif by focusing on one section of the image. It’ll stop. Also, won’t quite translate on the screen of your ipod.
January 8th, 2009 at 1:39 pm
here’s an Interview with Pitchfork Managing Editor Mark Richardson on Animal Collective…
http://flavorwire.com/7091/critical-review-an-interview-with-pitchfork-managing-editor-mark-richardson-on-animal-collective-review
January 8th, 2009 at 3:50 pm
Crook – I agree I think that a little reviewer history would go a long way and personally, I tend to feel that music transcends a 10 point rating scale. Maybe a graph like system like in video games (ie: http://tinyurl.com/a588e3) and some reviewer info would be mo betta… shrugs.
January 11th, 2009 at 3:51 pm
I found the missing .4!
http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/article/record_review/148232-black-rebel-motorcycle-club-the-effects-of-333
And seriously, how is pitchfork the standard for anything? there are way better places to find opinions on music.