A huge part of the lyrical content is his lack of confidence in being able to find success as an artist without being in a band with Chester. It's reasonable to be interested in and hope for a healthy lack of commercial success knowing that.
* hope for a healthy deal of success. I fucked up and the site won't let me edit that post. A lack of success if the opposite of what people wanted...
Pitchfork reviewed the album. I feel like they're being a bit willingly disingenuous - which isn't something new for them - but somebody here mentioned a similar point of it being distant, which I'm starting to understand. I wasn't really impacted thinking back on my first listens, but I still think it's just great music. In addition, iirc, Mike never said this album would be specifically about Chester; I think the general views on grief and loss work in this regard. It's supposed to be more general, more applicable, and I think that's fine.
Yeah that was a pretty shitty review. That critic tore apart everything from the lyrics and songwriting to the soundscape of the entire album. Definitely felt disingenuous. Yeah, because it's not like Mike even making this album in the first place not even a year after Chester's death was huge risk or anything like that
I meant take risk musically, from a production stand point. I thought that was abundantly clear in my initial post.
Yeah, considering how he thought one of the songs were about record label execs, he totally (and likely deliberately) misunderstood the album, and was willingly disingenuous to get clicks. It's a disgusting review, and an incredibly stupid one at that.
I looked at his other reviews and it looks like he’s given mostly negative or average reviews. I think he’s new to Pitchfork. His reviews are kinda strange tbh, I’ve read like three of them. His review about PT doesn’t seem that thoughtful. He does seem like he appreciates some of LP’s work and recognizes their influence, at the end of his review. I guess that’s something I give him credit for. At least most other reviews of PT have been very positive. Even AllMusic gave PT a 4/5 and they’ve been historically negative or lukewarm about LP.
PitchFork has reduced the average metacritic rating from 84 to 73. Seriously, what's the benefit of viciously criticising a man who decided to make an album about the sorrow of losing a close friend?. Mike lacking the basics of songwriting ? really ?
They just didn't like the end result. I notice you guys seem to take it pretty personally when critics don't pay much credence to the "behind the scenes" that goes into albums you like, but I'm confident most of you have completely trashed music that came from similarly heavy circumstances as this did.
It's not about music anymore, this reviewer is trying so hard to object his hate towards Mike throughout his entire review. He even refers to his songwriting as "embarassing" or "lacking the basic skills of songwriting". Who's in their right mind that dares to call Mike an embarrasing songwriter after basically writing most of LP's lyrics. I have yet to see any LP fan being this disrespectful to an artist who is facing an extremely heavy situation. It just doesn't make any sense to project your criticism towards the artist instead of his actual music especially if the artist lost his best friend not too long ago. It doesn't need a " behind the scenes" analysis to notice that the album is not impersonal and is definitely inspired. I'm not opposed to critics who actually have a brain and real reasons to dislike the album rather than spending the entire review nitpicking "bad" lyrics ,that would otherwise be regarded as a spark of genius if it's done by another artist, as an example of "embarassing" and "vague" writing.
This. The review to me feels like it goes beyond a 'highly critical' analysis, and instead ventures into actual hate for the artist. Almost as if the dude had a pure dislike for the artist (Mike) before reviewing it, and was unable to overcome his bias while reviewing it.
Pitchfork is always consistently more critical than other music sites, they're know for it. You seem to think that some music is just objectively good, no question. That's not how music works. This in particular: is a bit much. I like the guy and I said almost that same thing about the album. The effort isn't always going to translate into an amazing end product, not for everybody. You seem to be stuck on a technicality, like the reviewer said "He's not good on this" instead of I assume a more appropriate "this wasn't very good"? Or was the fact that they didn't think the album in and of itself the issue? It's the typical Pitchfork "hipster sniffing their own asshole" presentation, but I understand the viewpoint.
To play devil's advocate, sometimes it's hard to put down an album you're not fond of without coming off harsh or 'over' critical. There's been at least two albums on AltWire recently that got D's (one of which is being posted today and was sent early to us by a publicist for review - ouch) and it's very difficult to avoid coming off snarky in a negative review. It's even harder to say said opinions in a constructive manner. In the review coming today, the reviewer even states he sees incredible technical ability in the band...but that they just don't utilize it properly. So as pretenious and 'hipster sniffing butthole' as Pitchfork comes off, writing a negative review isn't exactly easy.
That's a valid perspective, but I would say it's still true that Shinoda, the artist, is on the back foot with a publication like Pitchfork - if not the site, at least with that reviewer - no matter how much they've changed over the past decade or so. I've seen songs with lyrics even more vague than those in "Place To Start" receive zero criticism. There are some melodies, lyrics and production touches throughout "Post Traumatic" that I'm not really enamoured with myself, but I have a gripe with that specific point in the Pitchfork review.
There is a difference between criticizing and having a poor taste. That reviewer had an extremely poor taste even in criticism and is basically dissing the artist at this point. It's the equivalent of someone telling you to toughen up and stop being pussy because you are depressed or something.This review is merely a heavy diss on the artist's ability and the only thing I understood from this review is that Mike,assumingly, lacking the basic talent to convey his struggle into a certain work even when the situation is extremely dark. It doesn't even try to discuss anything beyond the lyrics and when it finally decided to shed a light on Mike's music choices, the reviewer once again assume that Mike is betrayed by his ears without stating a clear example or anything. It's just that Mike sucks as an artist and he lacks the basics, right?!. If you have been working on Music your entire life and have had a huge successful career only to be told that you still lack the "basics", wouldn't that be disrespectful and pretentious thing to say to anybody?. Also, you are telling me that I treat some music as objectively good when it's the only thing that Pitchfork ever did. Kanye could shit an album out of his ass and it wouldn't get less than a 6 by Pitchfork because he's considered a genius in everything he says, while artists like Mike are gonna be judged by a line like " pointing fingers at villains, but I'm the villain myself" like yeah this was about some record execs or some shit, there is no way that this could be a reference to maybe something beyond that, right?. This review made it seem that the tragedy never happened in the first place and Mike is going through a phase that would likely end by next month. Context always matters.
I think the critic did understand how serious and life changing the experience was for Mike. He pointed that out in different parts of the review, mostly in the beginning. I don’t think he meant to insult Mike or trivialize his experience in anyway. The review seemed to be negative mostly because (i guess) the critic expected Mike to be very direct and dark, to the point where it may be uncomfortable. I’m sure Mike felt there was a point where too much was too much, so he didn’t go there. I didn’t have a problem personally with how Mike chose to express his grief and journey. I can understand how the critic may have felt there was some distance between Mike’s music and some things that he may have went through. But yeah, grief is a very personal thing to deal with. Idk, sorry if i was confusing there. I was just trying to see things from both side. To be fair, the critic was respectful and acknowledged how influential and important Chester was to the world of popular music. And he was familiar with Fort Minor and Linkin Park’s music, it seems. He didn’t insult anyone imo. Just me though.
Some of the Pitchfork criticisms were definitely fair. The "that's not how opposites work" line especially. He even points out Mike/Linkin Park's over-reliance on vague "they" pronouns, which I myself have written about here on LPA plenty of times. I don't really have an issue with anyone disliking Post Traumatic or giving it a low score. I think it's a decent listen, there's also plenty that can be picked apart. My issue with that review is the whole "these lyrics could be about anything" criticism. This is an album by Mike Shinoda, the creative force behind the 2000s'/millennial generation's biggest rock band, whose bandmate and lead singer of said band died not even one year before the album's release. You know what the fucking album is about. Doing this thing where you feign ignorance and try to come up with all sorts of alternate interpretations to particular songs and lines is truly a pointless exercise. It's weird, because professional critics are often the ones who want listeners to consider and engage with the larger societal/political context of any work of art (fans usually hate this, but I definitely think it's a good way to experience art because artists are people and carry all sorts of biases into their own work, so understanding who that person is and what they believe can be important for understanding the art itself). But for some reason, with this work of art, where the larger context is not only incredibly obvious to anyone even half paying attention, but is also the entire reason the album even exists in the first place, we're supposed to...ignore it? What?
It debut at number 16 on the Billboard 200, with it debuting at #6 on the Top Album Sales chart. Just to stick my nose up at the negative nancies. Oh, and also it debut at #1 on the rock charts.