{"id":3436,"date":"2017-03-03T12:44:36","date_gmt":"2017-03-03T19:44:36","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/thesocc.org\/?p=3436"},"modified":"2017-03-03T12:44:36","modified_gmt":"2017-03-03T19:44:36","slug":"pitchfork-pitchfork-vagabon-infinite-worlds-album-review","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/sites.coloradocollege.edu\/socc\/2017\/03\/03\/pitchfork-pitchfork-vagabon-infinite-worlds-album-review\/","title":{"rendered":"Pitchfork Pitchfork: Vagabon Infinite Worlds Album Review"},"content":{"rendered":"

I’ve found that pretentiousness in music seems to be most despised by people who are extremely pretentious about music themselves. In order to fully embrace this phenomenon, I have created Pitchfork Pitchfork, a column in which I review Pitchfork.com articles based on their pompousness.<\/p>\n

To start things off, I’m going to take an in-depth look at Pitchfork’s review of Vagabon’s latest release,\u00a0Infinite Worlds.<\/em>\u00a0The ‘fork gods were generous enough to bestow the highly coveted “best new music” label upon this album, anointing its 8.5 score with the red glow usually reserved for legends. Normally, Pitchfork’s scoring system is their downfall. The seemingly arbitrary assignment of decimals to various music can lead to outcry from spurned fans and artists alike. It’s made Pitchfork’s writers seem like that one friend you have who refuses to listen to anything that has over 10,000 plays on Spotify because it’s been tainted with\u00a0mass\u00a0appeal at that point. For\u00a0Infinite Worlds,<\/em> however, the 8.5 score is well-earned. I can’t argue with it. Points for you, Pitchfork.<\/p>\n

The review goes\u00a0downhill from there, unfortunately. The first sentence raises some eyebrows. The writer, Kevin Lozano, claims to have been so struck by one of Vagabon’s lines that he\u00a0“had to remove my\u00a0headphones and take stock of my surroundings.” Really? Really. I get that Vagabon’s lyrics are powerful, but I highly doubt Lozano\u00a0was so shaken that he had to check to make sure he was still in his studio apartment or ultra-mod Pitchfork cubicle.\u00a0Infinite Worlds<\/em> is certainly potent, but it hardly transported me from the broken futon in my living room.<\/p>\n

Another aspect of my grading rubric is readability, with specific regards to vocabulary.\u00a0I get that music writers don’t want to be just another idiot with a WordPress account and opinions (haaaaaaa), but Jesus Christ, if I have to look up half the adjectives in the dictionary in order to understand what they’re trying to say, then it’s gone too far. Case in point: Lozano described Vagabon’s work as “pyrrhic”. That is some shit I haven’t heard since my 9th grade ancient Greek history class. I get that a pyrrhic victory is one where the winner loses so much they’re practically defeated, and I recognize that it’s totally a phrase. But dropping that in an album review is just showing off.<\/p>\n

The review goes on to a track by track overview, and the writer describes the song “The Embers” as a “paean.” I have literally never heard that word in my life. Maybe I’m uncultured and illiterate, but to me it seems like this guy is\u00a0struggling to put his useless English degree to good use.<\/p>\n

All in all, this review isn’t bad. The score is reasonable, and aside from a few five-dollar words, the author does a good job summarizing the emotional content behind Vagabon’s album. Not bad, Kevin.<\/p>\n

Pitchfork Pitchfork Score: 7.2<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Now, go listen to Vagabon’s new album below.<\/p>\n