Pitchfork's Worst Record Review of 2005

In honor of Pitchfork's yearly record reviews, I am inaugurating another new feature (why I keeping adding when I can't keep up with the old ones, I don't know -- went skiing last weekend and Thursday Triumph or Travesty went out the window; should be back this week). Anyways, this feature will be occuring once per year; I will select Pitchfork's worst record review of the year and present it for your, well, not exactly illumination, but something. Entertainment, perhaps.

As anyone who reads the "New York Times" of Pop Music (I quote as my source for this claim Josiah Roe) frequently knows, sometimes the writing on that website is bad. Really bad. In fact, it can actually be harmful to your health to read the content of some of the record reviews (especially the hip hop; I think their official editorial policy on hip hop reviews is "We're white and wouldn't know anything about it anyways so we'll just let it slide"). So it was a bit of a challenge to pick just one shining example of pure idiocy, but I think I found a real gem for you. Unfortunately, this 'gem' dates to 2004. Some of you may think that this might invalidate it for consideration in the worst record reviews of 2005, but, since this is the first year I've done this, I think its just fine. And if it bugs you you can pretend the title of this entry is Worst Record Review of March 22, 2004-Late December 2005 (No, Walter, you're not wrong...). Anyways, this is just such a pure example of High School Creative Writing Class moronicity that I would be doing you a disservice if I didn't bring it to your attention:

March 22, 2004: Bonnie Prince Billy, "Greatest Palace Music"

There was a bit of controversy around this album. See, Bonnie Princy Billy plays some crazy indie country with a great lo-fi sound, and he's been bringing it like that for years, and all of the sudden he decides he's going to cover himself (or his previous incarnation, Palace/Palace Music/Palace Brothers), and he puts up a poll on the internet and the public picks their favorites and he goes into the studio to record them... and slobers Nashville-style country sheen all-over his beautiful lo-fi gems. What is the indie public to make of it? Can it be that Oldham actually likes the way these songs sound? Doesn't he know that his genius is only acceptable if it is recorded in such a way to put off a fair percentage of the listening public? Guess not. You know, it almost sounds like he enjoys the songs. And singing them. Hmmm.

But, fortunately for you and me, Pitchfork saw through the music to the performance art. THEY could see that the music was obviously a big middle-finger extended from Oldham to his fans.

Please. Worst. Album. Review. Ever.

Posted by eatingbark at December 20, 2005 2:56 PM