You Report, We Decide

News, Media, Politics, Music, Culture, Gossip, In The 215 And The Great Beyond

LET ME COUNT THE WAYS: Why Pitchfork’s Review Of The New Dr. Dog Album Has Its Head Up Its Ass


[KEY: IAN COHEN’s Pitchfork review in black, JONATHAN VALANIA’s parsing in red]

Dr. Dog have never released an album called Do You Like Rock Music? and I suppose that recent actions taken by British Sea Power ensure they never will.

Among the dumbest opening lines in the history of rock criticism. If I was your editor, I would give you a ‘Do Over.’

But that question always feels implied in the Dr. Dog experience– just ask anyone who’s not picking up what this Philly fivesome is throwing down and is subsequently accused of not digging “real music, mannnnn.” And maybe their version of “realness” triggers an unfortunate sense of self-loathing, because “Beatles-esque” has for so long been the preeminent last-resort adjective for critics– virtually meaningless, undeniably lazy, avoided at all costs. Fate is the fifth straight time Dr. Dog has made it abundantly clear that they’re not gonna make it any easier on us.

Pardon my French, but what the fuck are you trying to say? The point of writing is communication, Ian, it’s called C-L-A-R-I-T-Y, look into it.

At the very least, Fate is something of a survivor album: the saliva’s long been dry from Kelefa Sanneh’sdr_dog_fate_a_1.jpg sloppy tongue kiss of a profile in The New York Times and the band isn’t exactly selling out arenas, so backlash can only be wielded by the extremely petty. Besides, far shittier bands have come along since that time with a similar sound and bigger sense of entitlement (file under: Kids, Cold War).

After stringing together 191 specious words into something resembling complete sentences, the only salient point you have made is that Cold War Kids suck harder than Dr. Dog? Damn sloppy, son. We just said it in seven words. Remember, brevity is the mother of attention.

More importantly, Dr. Dog have been gradually able to amp up their budget to record the album they “were destined to make,” sounding like they’ve done something other than going straight to Maxell tapes. Ironically for a band whose rep was made on its live shows, this spit polish does Dr. Dog huge favors. On last year’s relatively posh, 24-tracked We All Belong, their ear for sonic simulacra was impressive: the full-bodied and well-placed harmonies suggested a band far less amateur than they were willing to put on, organs trilled modestly, and the tightly-mic’d drums of Juston Stens were a dead ringer for Ringo St… goddamnit, see what I meant in the first paragraph?

OK, best we can figure what you are trying to say is: the sonics of the new album are superior to the one before and that is actually a good thing despite the fact they are a good live band? Huh? And then, it seems, the drums on the last album sounded like the Beatles to you, and this kinda bugs you because….and then you lost us again.

pitchfork.thumbnail.pngAll that said, Fate still manages to be a master class in illusory “good” songwriting.

Again, I have to ask, what the fuck are you trying to say? What does “a master class in illusory ‘good’ songwriting” mean? That makes no sense, dude. Reminds me of a bad translation of French Symboliste poetry, and drinking absinthe don’t make you Rimbaud.

The bulk of it is so fenced into classicist templates– chamber-y pop meets maximum R&B with the occasional smidge of “tasteful” gospel/parlour games (“Hang On”) that, even when merely competent, it can still win over those unimpressed with all that punk and hip-hop riff raff of the past three decades.

What exactly does “the occasional smidge of ‘tasteful’ gospel/parlour games” mean? Is there such a thing as tasteless gospel? You prefer gospel that tastes good? Have you ever even heard gospel music? And no, a Spiritualized album doesn’t count. And ‘parlour games’ — do you even know what a parlour game is?

While Fate was rolling, I thought I’d be able to tell you about how delicious the descending melody ofdr_dog_fate_a_1.jpg “The Old Days” is, or how their stabs at Bonzo Dog Band irreverence manages to come across as genuine. The problem is, once it’s over I can hardly remember how any of it went.

PROTIP: Don’t get so high next time.

Fate is actually stronger for having a viscosity suitable for sliding in one ear and out the other, because the more memorable moments are the worst, due in large part to the insufferable anachronisms of dueling vocalists Toby Leaman and Scott McMicken.

Oh, Lordy. Please get this smoking heap of self-canceling dependent clauses off the Grammar Highway before you get pulled over by the Syntax Police and slapped with a DUI.

During the “I Want You (She’s So Heavy)” jazzmatazz of “The Ark”, Leaman bemoans, “God, he called for rain/ So I built an ark but no rain came/ I was ashamed,” before he goes off the rails during a similarly AAA-rhymed rant about war (it’s bad!). “The Beach” is about as much fun as you’d expect an environmental plea from these guys would be (and, oh man, that “fixing a hole…” bit). And amidst the slouching piano rag of “From”, Leaman waits for the “choo choo train” in, of all places, the “choo choo rain.”

OK, so you prefer ABAB rhyme schemes (embittered ex-English Major much?), you think war is bad but it’s stupid to say so, environmental apocalypse is too much of a drag to write about, and that grown men in beards and cheap sunglasses shouldn’t use the word ‘Choo Choo Train’ more than once in a song. But none of that is rock criticism, it’s just a bunch of subjective declarations about your personal preferences. That’s called S-O-L-I-P-S-I-S-M’– look it up, son.

pitchfork.thumbnail.pngI guess it wouldn’t be fair if we didn’t at least consider the possibility that Dr. Dog are the subject of a double standard because their influences aren’t novel– bands like Cut Copy, No Age, Hercules & Love Affair, and Fleet Foxes are also obviously indebted to a specific period of time, and they seem to do fine around these parts. But like their fellow Philly-retro-author-cause célèbre Marah, Dr. Dog often view their predecessors like museum pieces instead of inspiration, only these guys are probably too shook to consider some sort of disastrous about-face like Float Away With the Friday Night Gods.

Yes, bands often sound like other bands. That’s not necessarily a bad thing. Rock music is a continuum, and like folk music it’s all about aping what has come before. The great ones get it wrong in some crucial way and accidentally invent something new. And yes, Marah is also from Philadelphia, but so is the Fresh Prince, who seems about as relevant to Dr. Dog as Marah. Which is to say not at all.

Plus, the overly serious takes on religion and politics, combined with Leaman and McMicken’s tendencydr_dog_fate_a_1.jpg to project their voices past “Hey Jude” huzzahs into soul papa smarm (“Army of Ancients”, amongst others) and “I gave my love a cherry” sobriety, make you wonder exactly how much credence to put into the idea that “they’re just having fun.”

Earnestness and fun are not mutually exclusive. Just sayin’. Once again, not sure what the fuck you mean by “‘I gave my love a cherry’ sobriety” — did you mean ‘sincerity’ instead of ‘sobriety’? That would’ve actually made sense.

Maybe, this is the kind of thing that will ultimately sound better half-heard at an Indian summer BBQ or even live, but until Dr. Dog realizes what would’ve resulted if their idols just reheated the past as unambitiously as they do, forget all those Beatles and Beach Boys namedrops and stick with “average white band.” No caps. - Ian Cohen, July 25, 2008

If you look into your heart of hearts you will admit that you came up with that ‘average white band’ jab first and then wrote a whole review to justify using it. And if you continue to look long and hard in that heart of hearts, you will admit that it is a cheap and lowly act to dismiss the years of blood, sweat and tears a band like Dr. Dog has expended — in the humble pursuit of showing you something beautiful — with such a mediocre rock crit pun. Shame on you, Sir.

RELATED: Dr. Dog’s Fate is currently playing on Phawker Radio


[Slashdot] [Digg] [Reddit] [] [Facebook] [Technorati] [Google] [StumbleUpon]

21 Responses to “LET ME COUNT THE WAYS: Why Pitchfork’s Review Of The New Dr. Dog Album Has Its Head Up Its Ass”

  1. Dr Riffic Says:

    Great Post! Calling shit on piss poor pitchfork reviews is long overdue.
    lets make this a recurring feature!

  2. Goo Lvr (No Homo) Says:

    Pitchfork music reviews are becoming just as palpable as Vice Magazine reviews. So long creditability!

  3. Jon Styles Says:

    Agreed! I wanna start a fucking tribunal to see what kind of kickbacks pfork is getting in order to decide which albums to ‘review’ and which albums to just pass off on to the next ‘I can write well’ douchebag to make up some kind of like: “music I like or hate” blog post to toss in place of a fucking REVIEW. Vampire Weekend? WTF? Seriously? 8.8? So sounding like the fucking STROKES is better than sounding than the BEATLES? Who the fuck do the Strokes sound like? RETAHDS, ALL O’ YE’S.

  4. Drunk in Driveway Says:

    This is amazing. FULLY agree that this needs to be a recurring feature.

  5. Alex Says:

    You missed the most idiotic part of Sir Ian’s review: “Leaman waits for the “choo choo train” in, of all places, the “choo choo rain.”

    Scott McMicken sings that song.

    While I love the album, choo choo train is too much. Regardless, if you’re going to write for such an arrogant site, at least get the songwriter correct.

  6. Kass Says:

    Another embittered review from Pitchfork’s arsenal of pretentious, aspiring rock critics. Pitchfork’s less than discreet agenda pushing is pathetic.

  7. Johnny Says:

    I second that. I could go for a good pitchfork bashing every week.

  8. funlips Says:

    how about adding something to the discussion?

    You come off like a whiny and bitter brat, insulted that someone doesn’t like your local band (in case you didn’t notice 3 different PF reviewers have give 3 different mediocre reviews to 3 different Dr. Dog releases – are they all as stupid as you attempt to make Ian Cohen appear? Could it be they simply don’t share your taste?) and, unable to come up with an intelligent rebuttal, you substitute simple indignation. Grow up.

    Or… maybe you genuinely DON’T get what he was trying to say…? If that’s the case, let me translate: Dr Dog make mostly inconsequential music. They are exceedingly good at copying everything superficial about the Beatles and wrapping it all up in a soulless, shallow and mostly forgettable package.

    Yes, they’re good live.

    And Dr Riffic – long overdue?!?! – calling shit on pitchfork reviews is about as novel as your average Urban Outfitters t-shirt.

    [Let me get this straight: You come to my blog and tell me what to write? Dude, do I tell you how to do your job when you when you are filling up my large Frosty at Wendy’s? No, I don’t. — The Ed.]

  9. sinjin Says:

    zz-zing! well played, sir.

  10. david Says:

    Way to go! I have always hated the crazily unfocused style of pitchfork’s reviews. Do they even have an editor over there? Not to mention I love dr. dog!

  11. david Says:

    in response to funlips comment, i would like to say that while this whole post may seem as a defense to Dr. Dog’s reputation as a great band (which they are) I felt that the critique of the review was based solely on the lack of real substantial REVIEWING within the piece. The article didn’t really take the easy route of saying that Cohen’s opinion was wrong, but instead showing how verbally twisted and unfocused Pitchfork’s reviews have always been. Seriously, the opening paragraphs of P-Fork reviews are always so insanely pretentious that they make me want to gag. And when it comes to three different reviewers with three different opinions… Don’t you think they are trying to toe the party line a bit? I personally don’t think that Pitchfork as a publication wants to go back on its word (its word being that dr. dog is lame) and so the future album reviews will keep in line with the previous ones, ya dig?

  12. Jessica McGinley Says:

    Love it!

  13. Klon Says:

    “All that said, Fate still manages to be a master class in illusory “good” songwriting.”

    I’m sorry, but if you claim not to understand what that sentence means, then you’re a liar. Obviously, it’s saying that Dr. Dog are excellent on the technical aspects of songwriting, but the songs themselves are soulless. The review in general was perfectly clear in articulating that idea. Sure, the reviewer could’ve used simpler words and sentences, but maybe he wanted to say it in his own style utilizing this process called “writing”.

    Enough with the knee jerk fucking responses to every pitchfork review of a Philly band. It was embarrassing enough with Philebrity’s A-sides/BC Camplight
    ‘apology’ fiasco, now we have to be subjected to your bitter sentence-by-sentence ‘breakdown’ that doesn’t even offer any goddamn reasons why the Dr. Dog album is actually good! You think that might be important to mention??

    At least you didn’t use the “Pitchfork writers are pretentious losers who never get laid” stock response. Although I’m sure someone will mention it in the comments. Wait for it…

    [“All that said, Fate still manages to be a master class in illusory “good” songwriting.” = Dr. Dog are excellent on the technical aspects of songwriting, but the songs themselves are soulless? Hmm, yeah, not so much. As for telling me what I can or cannot do on MY own blog, I will refer to my response to Funlips up above. — The Ed.]

  14. Jonny Mikes Says:

    Nice take down! That felt like a high school wrestling match where each time the dude tried a move, you did some sort of spin move and threw him to the matt.

  15. jl Says:

    This guy makes it so easy to knock down the Dog…but I agree that he shouldn’t have gotten so high before listening. Sounds like it may have been his first time

  16. Ryan Says:

    Dude, editing your own words into people’s posts instead of responding to them with your own comment just because its YOUR “own blog” seems kind of fascist and childish to me. Besides, these people seem to be responding to what you actually wrote, not telling you what to write on your blog. Get over it. And it is always good to actually have counter arguments when tearing down someone else’s argument. Such as why should I give a shit about the new Dr Dog album? You never really told me that.

    [Ryan, please look up the meaning of ‘fascist’ — it’s a loaded word that’s killed a lot of people — and in the future maybe think twice before you throw it around so carelessly. Because THAT, my friend, is ‘childish.’ As for ‘making you give a shit about the new Dr. Dog album’, well, that’s ain’t my job. We are streaming it on Phawker Radio. If you are too lame to give it a listen and decide for yourself then that’s your own damn fault. — The Ed.]

  17. Wes Says:

    Thank YOU! I’ve read several of this guy’s reviews over the past few months, and they all contain the same BS.

  18. escapes Says:

    Why don’t all of you stop whining and spitting on each other and listen to the c.d. and go out and see them live for free next week, then, form Your Own opinion as to whether YOU like the music or not?? Dr. Dog didn’t write the songs for anyone but themselves. To call their writing “soulless” is truly in the eyes of a soulless reviewer/writer with a “Pitchfork” ( sign of the devil?) in his hand.

  19. chris Says:

    you shouldn’t overlook thanking the people in agreement with you.
    especially individually.

  20. Berto Says:

    Ian Cohen is my least favorite music critic, bar none.

  21. (disclaimer) « to live and rock in LA Says:

    […] man substitutes snark, memes and meaningless namedropping for actual, thoughtful writing.  Here is a pretty good takedown of one of his reviews. (And that Dr. Dog album is […]

Leave a Reply