Sunday, February 8, 2009

Psychic Ills Review Pitchfork Reviewer

Posted by Dave Segal on Sun, Feb 8, 2009 at 8:12 PM

e79b/1234154439-tsr066.jpg
It's getting really meta out there.

In this post, I took Pitchfork critic Joe Colly to task for his wrongheaded 1.4 thrashing of Psychic Ills' Mirror Eye. Now Psychic Ills have reviewed Colly's review on their MySpace blog, giving the writer some of his own bitter medicine.

When bands hit back at critics after receiving negative reviews, it usually comes off as petty and vindictive. But in this case, Psychic Ills seem just a bit justified in lashing back.

Question to musicians who read Line Out: Have you ever publicly responded to a bad review? Why or why not?

Share via

  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Newsvine
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Email
 

Comments (9) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
1
No, No, No. Bad form, even if well written and justified. A majority of thinking people know a poorly written review when they see one (and in the age of the blog, when everyone's a writer, there are more than a few). Artists hitting back just look bitter.
Posted by yep on February 9, 2009 at 8:22 AM
2
oh, i think its funny once in a while. seemed like they we just making a joke.

like thurston moore's attack on christgau at the voice way back when. less intense even
Posted by justified on February 9, 2009 at 9:18 AM
3
no, because, as yep said, it comes across as bitter. if you're a pretty large act like clipse (responding to the pitchfork review of their play cloths mixtape), it looks like you want EVERYBODY to hail your work as classic, and can't see why anyone wouldn't like it. if you're a band like the airborne toxic event (in response to THEIR pitchfork review), it just seems like you need the press a little too much, no matter how well-written or cordial it was.
Posted by douglas martin on February 9, 2009 at 10:17 AM
4
I've been on both sides of this. When I wrote for just about anybody -- Pitchfork, the Rocket, even (gasp!) the Seattle Weekly -- I would occasionally get e-mails that would come down to "I didn't like you're opinion, you're wrong, this album is great." Uh... thanks? An opinion is an opinion. We've all got 'em and they're all different.

And then there was the time I had to write Everett True because I disagreed with a piece he wrote. While it was one of the few letters during his Stranger tenure to be published with no sassy comebacks, I look back and wonder why I bothered. At the end of the day, we all have better things to do. I hope.
Posted by Jason Josephes on February 9, 2009 at 10:32 AM
5
i think they find it amusing from their tone and they are just having a laugh about it. the 1.4 is just so extreme and the pitchfork reviewer so just out of touch in his language and references that not taking it on at all would be just as absurd. the nubile reviewer doesn't like it and that's not their problem. it's that he doesn't get it--and that's the shame in his review style. clearly they aren't making music for him but to write out how he wants it to have more pop sensibilities, comparing them to bands they have little to do with and to say that they put no effort into it is just ignorant and very bad music journalism. why not take the piss?
Posted by i think so on February 9, 2009 at 10:45 AM
6
I've definitely been in the situation of being negatively reviewed by a reviewer who obviously either just didn't get it, or hadn't really listened, or both, but I've always just vented to friends and bandmates and left it at that. As already said here, and as I've said before, public responses to bad reviews just make you seem whiny and defensive, and might even give the review or reviewer more exposure than it would have had in the first place. Best to just let it roll off and move on.
Posted by Levislade on February 9, 2009 at 12:02 PM
7
Naw. Why bother?
Posted by flamingbanjo on February 9, 2009 at 5:10 PM
8
the closest I've come is when a reviewer either doesn't listen to the whole album, or starts his review by saying "I don't like this kind of music" and proceeds to use your album as an example of why a whole genre of music sucks. Not quite what Colly is doing, but he does come close, which I think is the main beef from this band.
Posted by Jeff on February 10, 2009 at 11:07 AM
9
Who dares break the indie rock code of conduct?!
Posted by jr on February 10, 2009 at 2:10 PM

Add a comment

 

All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
1535 11th Ave (Third Floor), Seattle, WA 98122
Contact Info | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use