Pitchfork Review...Get Ready for some hate

[marino13]

It won't let me open the actual review yet, but here is the teaser on the front page:

"My Morning Jacket have refused to remain creatively static, a decision that's helped them map a clear and wonderful upward trajectory over their first decade, but does them few favors on their baffling new album"

[Penny Lane]

pitchfork hates anything that gets popular or sounds like it was produced in a real studio--now all the little indie pitchfork robots can go regurgitate the review :-(

[Killgies]

I agree Pitchfork isn't credible with reviews. I stopped reading them a long time ago!

[blueskyink]

Most of the time they don't even review the record, they just regurgitate some pretentious backstory on how something irrelevant to the record effects them but  directly relates to their bad score.  They are a pathetic publication when it comes to quality reviews.  Although not too bad of a source for music news.

[primushead]

Ouch, 4.7?

This is actually a great sign for the band though, as it's a 100% conformation that they are now popular.  

If this was an album that only 7 people knew about, I'm sure they'd give it an 11.  

[JerseyDan]

in the end of the day, they only gave Z a 7.something and none of their readers would go see them play...more room for me!

[MyLifeISought]

I knew this review was coming from the second I heard "Highly Suspicious" (which I love). I use Pitchfork to find good new music (Battles, A Place to Bury Strangers, and Fleet Foxes are a few bands I discovered through them); however, I always take their negative reviews with a grain of sand.

[wolof]

After a long string of descending reviews stemming from Tennessee Fire, it seemed like this was the album pitchfork was waiting for.  I mean come on I love Evil Urges, doesn't make it my favorite jacket record but to deny its quality makes me want to fly to Chicago and set Juan's Basement on fire.  

[Goat Boy]

For those who can't be assed looking up Pitchfork....

In interviews, Jim James has said he doesn't want My Morning Jacket to remain creatively static, or become victim to the sort of bland-ification that befalls so many lesser groups that emerge through the jam and festival circuits. He's lived up to his end of the bargain: A clear and wonderful upward trajectory can be easily mapped over the band's first decade, as their fanbase and creative scope expanded with the crowds and lineups at Bonnaroo, a festival with which they'll forever be linked.

As they grew, they pared back indulgences (like the thick song lengths of It Still Moves) and allowed fresh ideas to infiltrate (the first third of Z) while retaining a sonic identity distinctive enough to influence legions of worthy followers. Their 2005 psych/prog wonder Z-- not so much their Yankee Hotel Foxtrot as their The Soft Bulletin-- broke sharply with the Muscle Shoals might of Moves, but 2006's wonderful live double-album Okonokos re-framed and affirmed My Morning Jacket as what fans and critics had been saying since At Dawn: This is one of America's preeminent contemporary rock bands.

My Morning Jacket's latest album, Evil Urges, ends the mean streak the band's been on since 2000, and threatens to squander some of the widespread goodwill they've been steadily building along the way. There are few fiery guitar freakouts, folk-influenced melodies, soaring space-rock bridges, or psychedelic flourishes here; instead, the empty space is mostly filled with serviceable falsetto funk and glassy-eyed yacht-pop. Worse still is the band's decision to ignore the perfect past incarnations of James' Orbisonian tenor-- easily MMJ's most appealing component and one of the more breathtaking instruments in modern rock. At best, his voice is sorely underutilized here; at worst, it's mangled beyond recognition. After listening to Urges, I wonder if My Morning Jacket might just be satisfied following in the footsteps of labelmates Dave Matthews Band: nestling into a comfortable niche and aiming for the Starbucks carousel with rootsy New Age romanticism.

Any discussion of this record has to start with the eye-poppingly annoying "Highly Suspicious", a loud thud ending any chance Urges had to match the group's previous records. An attempt to merge the band's penchant for live quirkiness with James' long-simmering Prince fixation, the track sounds like My Morning Jacket's version of a Phish novelty. The song reduces James' voice to a grating squeak, which cowers in the presence of the obnoxious, caricatured chorus. The song's libertarian undertones ("Wasting all your time on drama/ Could be solving real crime") sound like they could stretch to resonate with the hydroponic crowd or those who fret about warrantless wiretapping, but I cringe thinking of an entire amphitheatre singing along to "peanut-butter pudding surprise" unless they're at a Ween show.

At the moment, even a not-very-political band like My Morning Jacket can't resist using their biggest stage yet for a bit of message-driven oratory. James has said, "Evil Urges is about how all of these things that you've been told are evil really aren't, unless they're actually hurting something or somebody." Cool, but the title track, a lighter version of "Suspicious", neuters a righteous sentiment by burying it underneath a jammy funk pastiche. The simultaneously effortless and calculated "I'm Amazed" is breezy and naïve enough to trigger the unconscious sing-along reflex, but the refrain ("Where's the justice?") is utterly ambiguous. Similarly, "Look at You" wastes a perfectly good pedal-steel on a goofy hybrid of the sensual and civic, praising "a fine citizen" as "such a glowing example of peace and glory," as if James were a state senator awarding citations to volunteers. "Sec Walkin'"s refrain of "demon eyes are watchin' everywhere" may address his existential angst at omnipresent security, but the song's Quaalude-smooth soul vibe-- for real, it's a Grover Washington sax solo away from the PA system at Von Maur-- make it seem more like he's content to just keep on truckin'.

Soft rock isn't an irredeemable genre category, and there are some pretty good singles that have been tagged with it. James and his band have professed their affection for such sensitivity in the past, on tracks like "I Will Sing You Songs," which successfully filtered a timid emotional tone within the band's own style. Not so much here. In a live context, prefaced with an extended ironic monologue, Make It With You is fun. On record, several times over, from a singer more accustomed to disguising his elliptical, oft-nonsensical lyrics with grain-silos full of reverb, it's incongruous and awkward. "Thank You Too!", with syrupy strings courtesy of arranger-to-the-stars David Campbell, is readymade for the bride and groom's slow dance (save the line "you really brought out the naked part"). The strings trill, dramatically rising and falling on the loner's fantasy "Librarian", as James quietly crushes on, and quietly stalks, the female behind the desk, turned on by her listening to "Karen of the Carpenters" on AM radio. It sounds like a very well-produced Dan Fogelberg song, until James drops "interweb" on us like a sack of dirty socks. Thankfully, there's no couplet about him texting her on his "Crackberry" lol.

Still, James' tender side also leads to Urges' best moments, which bookend the album. Nicely sequenced after the title track at the start of the record, "Touch Me I'm Going to Scream, Pt. 1" is the perfect sequel to Z's sly "It Beats 4 U", down to the songs' similarly insistent, live/synthetic drum patter, and the way they isolate James' voice in a chilly emotional purgatory, only to be cracked with passion: "I need a human by my side, untied" is vulnerability done right. James is smart enough to know when he's got something good, and he ends Urges with an eight-and-a-half minute dark disco reprise of "Touch Me", slowly taking shape as the solemn, steady "Smokin' From Shootin'" fades out. With its patient, synthetic gleam slithering around James' lusty hoodoo, "Touch Me, Pt. 2" is My Morning Jacket's Moroder moment, bringing a highly frustrating record to a close with the line "Oh, this feeling is wonderful/ Don't turn it off." If it hadn't been such an exhausting ride to get there, I might not want to.

Pitchfork gave In The Aeroplane Over The Sea 10.  That's all you need to know about the hipper than thou Pitchfork.  The reviews system is a joke anyway.  I mean what's with all the decimal point bullshit?  It's bad enough reducing an album to 5 potential stars or a mark out of ten but decimals?  And Karen Carpenter is used as a reference to body image disorders in Librarian but then the reviewer would know that if they'd really listened to the album instead of massaging ones own ego with this oh-so-typical-of-pitchfork 'review'.  I'm sure the reviewer already has it laminated and filed away in their special folder.  I mean does anybody really take notice of Pitchforks reviews?  I use it for news mainly.

[TFowl]

Pitchfork is pathetic in my eyes.

First of all, they rated At Dawn, Z, AND the Tennessee Fire all lower then they did BOTH Band of Horses Albums.


Not to mention Fleet Foxes, a band that whether they want to admit it or not, has taken a large part of its sound from My Morning Jacket, they give this copy cat band's EP an 8.7 when I thought it was decent, but only had one really stand out song.  Then they ended up giving their newest album a 9.0... an album that is in NO FUCKING WAY as good as the earlier MMJ albums it steals from in many ways.  I mean they gave At Dawn a 7.1... an album that honestly is miles ahead of Fleet Foxes in song writing ability and overall quality.

All this shows is what someone else already said, this place is all about whats "cool" to like in the indie world.   They try to set themselves apart as the "cool" reviewing place, but what they end up doing is making horrible judgments in favor of saving their stupid image.

I kind of expect this from them, especially when I saw that Fleet Foxes album getting a 9 when I remember, oh yeah they've never reviewed MMJ that highly.  THAT album is overrated.

Terrible. [/end rant.]

[getinthevan]

I've been anticipating this for weeks.  It's like he wrote out a great review and then cut out anything good he had to say (except the last paragraph) and cut the score in half.  Even if this wasn't Pitchfork, I can't take any review seriously if the author says, "lol".  

That being said, I think its the only bad review I've seen.

[jacksoncooper]

I was expecting this. After seeing the recent Fleet Foxes review, I picked-up their new album. Once I was able to get over the striking similarity to Jim's singing, I saw what it was that brought the high Pitchfork rating. It's the lyrics.

My love for MMJ is pure. But to quote a great song, "it's just the way that he sings, not the words that he says." I have never spent a lot of time focused on MMJ's lyrics. Some music I enjoy because of the words, stories and poetry. Other music I enjoy purely because of the delivery, emotional content and the feeling it evokes. I don't enjoy MMJ any less because the lyrics don't move me.

As for Pitchfork's Evil Urges review, I think they have some very valid and specific criticisms. I happen to disagree with the review, but my disagreements are on an entirely subjective basis. Many of the songs they don't like (I'm Amazed, Sec Walkin, Evil Urges) are my favorites. But as much as I like them, I understand why the reviewer does not.

I think it is a fair review and an honest take on a very different MMJ album. Considering the high regard in which they held Tennessee Fire and At Dawn, is it really surprising that they don't like this new direction? I don't think so. Like I said, I really like the new album. But I also find myself occasionally nostalgic for the sound of the early records. Luckily, no matter what they are doing now, I can always go back and listen to the old stuff whenever I want.

[dasmondhaschen]

http://2008.sxsw.com/blogs/mu.php/2008/06/09/the_sxsw_aggravator_my_morning_jacket_s_

[peanut butter puddin surprise]

well put mr. jackson.

pitchfork's reviews are always like this.  oh well.  :)

[getinthevan]

But I also find myself occasionally nostalgic for the sound of the early records. Luckily, no matter what they are doing now, I can always go back and listen to the old stuff whenever I want.

Or you can listen to Fleet Foxes.  Ha.

Actually I really like both of Fleet Foxes releases.  

[TFowl]

I disagree with you.  Because if this was some other bands first new album on Sub Pop it would have got a much higher review in my mind.  The only song I can see someone having a truly valid criticism of is Highly Suspicious, but music reviews aren't supposed to be about what was in the bands sound and being nostalgic.

Let me put it this way, they gave The Field's latest album, an album of repetitive dance beats a 9, and they gave el Gunchio an 8.7.   AND worst of all They gave FUCK BUTTONS an 8.6,  these are just a few of the newer reviews that in my mind are ridiculous and only given because of an overall image Pitchfork tries to give themselves.  Listen to any of those albums and you'll see what I mean.  Also, you cannot tell me it's because that music is from this genre or that, music should be reviews on one scale, not on different scales for different styles.  

Once again, terrible review brought on mostly by the popularity MMJ will get from this album.  Read the review, they are already trying to compare it to Dave Matthews Band.  Sad.

[TFowl]

But I also find myself occasionally nostalgic for the sound of the early records. Luckily, no matter what they are doing now, I can always go back and listen to the old stuff whenever I want.

Or you can listen to Fleet Foxes.  Ha.

Actually I really like both of Fleet Foxes releases.  

I like them too, I just think they are overrated... and I think it's unfair and pretty silly that they reviewed them so highly when MMJ was doing that type of sound (overall, not exactly mind you) 7-8 years ago.

Fuck Pitchfork.

[Angry Ewok]

4.7 out of 10

Nice.

[jacksoncooper]

I'm commenting specifically about the criticism in this review, not about how Pitchfork rated other albums which I don't like. I don't ascribe any motivations to the reviewer, and I don't care to speculate about hypothetical scenarios in which they would have received a better rating. I think the reviewer did a good job of evaluating the record as it is. They review it in the context of the band's other releases, but that is to be expected.

Again, I think it is possible to disagree with the reviewer's opinion about the enjoyability of the record and still acknowledge that it contains fair criticism.

[marino13]

I noticed that 4.7 is also the exact score they gave the new Weezer album.