Reviewing Reviewers: Pitchfork vs TimeOut on the new Grizzly Bear

Reading a review of your favorite band, album, or song, can sometimes be more infuriating than insightful. While listening to a critic bash, mislabel, or poorly describe your cherished music, one is left to wonder, "Were they listening to the same thing as me?"

But alas, music (and art in general) is subjective. And such is the job of the critic; to subject works of art to his/her subjective point of view. In doing so, it is no wonder that diverse opinions, observations, and emotions are evoked. As individuals, each critic is more than entitled to their views/ideas, just as readers are entitled to disagree with them should they feel differently.

However, to accurately assess a piece of art, and in presenting that assessment to the public, a critic has a duty to take him/herself out of the picture. This doesn't mean objectivity, for who among us can boast that? What this means is a genuine attempt to take one’s ego out of the landscape of the review. The success or failure of this "ego-removal" very often differentiates the good review from the complete piece of crap.

An examination of this distinction can be seen through two reviews of Grizzly Bear's new single release of "While You Wait For the Others" featuring Michael McDonald of the Doobie Brothers on vocals. The strange pairing, sure to illicit varying responses, brought out the best and worst of two reviewers, one David Raposa of Pitchfork.com and Brent DiCrescenzo of TimeOut Chicago Magazine (respectively).

Raposa of Pitchfork begins his review with a quote from another reviewer, setting the conversational tone and acknowledging the most important fact about this version of the song for anyone who has not heard it yet, that "Michael McDonald... could not be more different than original singer Daniel Rossen." Grizzly Bear fans beware.

But Riposa goes on to describe in great detail the virtues of the elder McDonald's version of the Grizzly Bear tune. Pointing out that he has a hard time selling some of the more tender lines, he also makes it clear where and when McDonald's "soul holler" works for the song, namely, the climactic ending where he is really able to use his famous pipes.

Riposa's review reads like a short story about the song with McDonald as lead character. It covers the ups and downs of the song's dynamics, references the "frustration" in the lyrics, and the "frenzy" of the songs ending. It also does a great job of explaining just why McDonald is singing lead for Grizzly Bear anyway.

DiCrescenzo's review on the other hand reads like the story of BD's opinion about Grizzly Bear and Michael McDonald. Within the first two sentences you can tell he's not a big fan of the band when he says they're "fun to ridicule." He further mocks the band by implying that here they are "where they belong -- as backup singers." Finally, you can tell he does not understand the band when he ends the review with the sentence "Grizzly Bear is the new Seals & Croft."

In between, BD offers up humorous wordplay in the place of descriptive language. He refers to the addition of McDonald on vocals as "putting white chocolate in the Grizz's peanut butter." Besides being non-descriptive, this sentence would have made more sense the other way around. DiCrescenzo goes on to call the acclaimed album "wallpapery" and tell you that with McDonald on vocals, the band can finally "look you in the eye." What does any of this actually mean? Not a lot. In the end, DiCrescenzo review of the song comes across as self-serving and indifferent, doing more to amuse than educate the reader.

Read the Reviews at:

http://pitchfork.com/reviews/tracks/11483-while-you-wait-for-the-others-ft-michael-mcdonald/

and

http://chicago.timeout.com/articles/music/78403/tracks-9-10-2009-grizzly-bear-feat-michael-mcdonald-and-massive-attack

Listen to the song at:

http://hypem.com/track/899898/Grizzly+Bear-While+You+Wait+for+the+Others+(feat.+Michael+McDonald)