Written by Lucas Nossaman
The New York Times has called Pitchforkmusic.com “the top independent music Web site.” Known for far-reaching criticism ranging from the newest obscurely cool band to the outright self-congratulating Kanye West, their news and reviews have become a meeting place for critical listeners. Their writers, labeled as “contributors”, shuffle together on the Internet.
Along with recent reviews, the site mashes lists of past music like “Best Songs of the Decade” and “Top Albums of the Year.” The site networks a vast amount of music criticism, which can serve as an informing source of thought and a reductive, formless standard of music.
Under their music reviews, Pitchfork chooses “Best New Album” and “Best New Track” after grinding through a number of critics and listeners. For Harding students, it is a place to find new music. I know there are those at Harding who have discovered music like the psychodelic pop of Grizzly Bear and the noise folk of Animal Collective; this is thanks to some hype from Pitchfork. Yet such chosen music seems to be pulled out of the air, or rather, randomly discovered while scrolling through blog rolls.
Though the site contributors listen intently before labeling the music “Best New,” it appears that the Web site has no standard of what is good except what those listeners decide. A track may be lavished with praise for its accessibility or its obscurity, its heaviness or its levity; it’s just whatever Pitchfork contributors think that day.
The best independent music Web site, if not the best music criticism Web site, period, needs a backbone to clarify their position on music. In an article titled “The Social History of the MP3,” a Pitchfork contributor boasted that “print is dead; long live criticism.” I agree that, even in the digital age, we still need paid critics like Pitchfork to listen and discuss music. But without rules or standards, Pitchfork is just another chat room lacking direction.
Here are five measures of good music that I think would help. Of course, music that fits these standards is debatable; that’s why criticism is opinion. The number of rules the music fits as well as the extent to which the music fits could determine its value.
1)The music must demonstrate beauty.
2)The music ought to be purely sound. In other words, it should avoid playing like a poem or movie or any other art form. It exists to play through the ears.
3)The music must be surprising. It ought to exercise a mix of stability and instability.
4)Good music ought to be respectful. It should honor its influences, audience and instruments. Perhaps one or two of these can be bypassed, (punk, for example, dishonored traditional guitar method yet celebrated its underground audience) but good music will be respectful of at least one.
5)Good music should have multiple layers: instrumentation, meaning, intention or the amount of playback it warrants.
No doubt this is an incomplete list, and the measure as to how much the music fits the categories is, of course, highly debatable. But music is opinion; it is someone’s take on the world. I think that opinion will stand out when there is a clear standard that critics adhere to.
My purpose, then, is not to draw up the central, final standard for good music. Rather, I hope to stimulate thinking of what makes music good and how some standards would help us communicate in the age of the MP3.
And Pitchfork, if you are reading: I doubt you will ratify my suggestions. You are too spread out in your musical tastes to think about offending listeners with a set of musical standards. Just know that when I check your Web site and listen to your best new music, I will be sticking to my list. That makes one less musical zombie scrolling through the blog rolls.
