Airborne Toxic Event Responds To Terrible Pitchfork Review

LA’s own The Airborne Toxic Event, who played the Wiltern supporting the Fratellis last night and are up in San Francisco this evening, have posted an open letter on their website to Pitchfork Media regarding the 1.6 rating bestowed their album today by Ian Cohen.  They close the letter by inviting Ian (the critic in question) to a live show here in Los Angeles:

Dear Ian,

Thanks for your review of our record.  It’s clear that you are a good writer and it’s clear that you took a lot of time giving us a thorough slagging on the site.  We are fans of Pitchfork.  And it’s fun to slag off bands.  It’s like a sport — kind of part of the deal when you decide to be in a rock band. ( That review of Jet where the monkey pees in his own mouth [Here – Ed.]  was about the funniest piece of band-slagging we’ve ever seen.) 
We decided a long time ago not to take reviews too seriously.  For one, they tend to involve a whole lot of projection, generally saying more about the writer than the band.  Sort of a musical Rorschach test.  And for another, reading them makes you too damned self-conscious, like the world is looking over your shoulder when the truth is you’re not a genius or a moron.  You’re just a person in a band. 

Plus, the variation of opinions on our record has bordered on absurd.  Most of what’s been said has been positive, a few reviews have been on the fence and a few (such as yours) have been aggressively harsh.  We tend not to put a lot of stock in this stuff, but the sheer disagreement of opinion makes for fascinating (if not a bit narcissistic) reading. 

And anyway we have to admit that we found ourselves oddly flattered by your review.  I mean, 1.6?  That is not faint praise.  That is not a humdrum slagging.  That is serious fist-pounding, shoe-stomping anger.  Many publications said this was among the best records of the year.  You seem to think it’s among the worst.  That is so much better than faint praise. 

You compare us to a lot of really great bands (Arcade Fire, the National, Bright Eyes, Bruce Springsteen) and even if your intention was to cut us down, you end up describing us as: “lyrically moody, musically sumptuous and dramatic.”  One is left only to conclude that you m ust think those things are bad. 

We love indie rock and we know full well that Pitchfork doesn’t so much critique bands as critique a band’s ability to match a certain indie rock aesthetic.  We don’t match it.  It’s true that the events described in these songs really happened.  It’s true we wrote about them in ways that make us look bad. ( Sometimes in life you are the hero, and sometimes, you are the limp-dicked cuckold.  Sometimes your screaming about your worst fears, your most trite jealousies.  Such is life.)  It’s also true that the record isn’t ironic or quirky or fey or disinterested or buried beneath mountains of guitar noodling. 

As writers, we admire your tenacity and commitment to your tone (even though you do go too far with your assumptions about us).  You’re wrong about our intentions, you’re wrong about how this band came together, you don’t seem to get the storytelling or the catharsis or the humor in the songs, and you clearly have some misconceptions about who we are as a band and who we are as people. 

But it also seems to have very little to do with us.  Much of your piece reads less like a record review and more like a diatribe against a set of ill-considered and borderline offensive preconceptions about Los Angeles.  Los Angeles has an extremely vibrant blogging community, Silver Lake is a very close-knit scene of bands.  We’re one of them.  We cut our teeth at Spaceland and the Echo and have nothing to do with whatever wayward ideas you have about the Sunset Strip.  That’s just bad journalism. 

But that is the nature of this sort of thing.  It’s always based on incomplete information.  Pitchfork has slagged many, many bands we admire (Dr. Dog, the Flaming Lips, Silversun Pickups, Cold War Kids, Black Kids, Bright Eyes [ironic, no?]  just to name a few), so now we’re among them.  Great. 

This band was borne of some very very dark days and the truth is that there is something exciting about just being part of this kind of thing.  There’s this long history of dialog between bands and writers, NME ripping apart the Cure or Rolling Stone refusing to write about Led Zeppelin — so it’s a bit of a thrill that you have such a strong opinion about us. 

We hear you live in Los Angeles.  We’d love for you to come to a show sometime and see what we’re doing with these lyrically moody and dramatic songs.  We’re serious about this stuff.  You seem like a true believer when it comes to music and writing so we honestly think we can’t be too far apart.  In any case, it would make for a good story. 

all our best–

Mikel, Steven, Anna, Daren, Noah
the Airborne Toxic Event

Impressive bit of damage control and/or ill-advised career move, responding so thoroughly the day the review apparently went live – especially considering the fact that, as mentioned up top, they’re on the road right now.  One thing’s for sure, it’ll generate buzz.  But dig that blogging bit again if you missed it:

Los Angeles has an extremely vibrant blogging community, Silver Lake is a very close-knit scene of bands.  We’re one of them.  We cut our teeth at Spaceland and the Echo and have nothing to do with whatever wayward ideas you have about the Sunset Strip.  That’s just bad journalism. 

I’ve since this band several times in LA and I’m pretty familiar with a lot of bands in the Silverlake/Echo Park scene.  I’ve never liked this band because they are just an act.  Their music is not very original and there are a lot of bands in LA that deserve the huge crowds more than these frauds.  but Mikel and crew have a way with the business side of the industry and that’s what separates the men from the boys.  Did they not really pay their dues like most bands do?  no.  Did they just show up and decide they are “in the scene”?  yes.  but are they traveling the states to sell out crowds?  yes.  so they are doing something right.  and that’s playing a familiar sound and actually marketing it. 

As Mikel so honestly puts it, they are artists yes but they are also people who have worked hard to be where they are.  Are they entitled to a response?  fuck yea! 

They also prompt the writer to see them live which is decent of them.  They’re a new band and they want to make things right.  I say all the power to them. 
I saw them live last night, they kicked my ass!  They’re talented and genuine musicians. 

Congrats on that first album!  Now the pressure is to make another just as good =)

Honestly, is there really anyone who sounds original anymore?  No.  From the dawn of music, people have bored elements of sound from other places.  To write a bad review based on “lack of originality” is just like an art teacher criticizing a child for not painting with a color that hasn’t been invented.  Seriously, it’s to the point that the most originality you can get is in those brave souls who are boldly UNoriginal.  I enjoy TATE very much, even though I listen with a sense of deja vu. 
Secondly, there were SEVERAL not-so-good reviews given on that album.  Notice that the only one that was responded to was Pitchfork’s.  Why?  Because that was not a criticism, that was a personal assault.  What person really has the right to dump all over another’s self expression?  To say that it is not your cup of tea is one thing.  To pretty much say that they should’ve never attempted szn album is another.  Lame.  That’s why the world will see less and less gifted bands, idiot critics can, have, and will scare them all into hiding. 

It bothered them so much because they know it’s true.  It’s a put together band of people who are all talented and fit into a mold.  They do copy styles of bands that came before them and they just thought they were too smart for anyone to notice.  It would have been better to ignore that article.  The essay that was written in response only validates it. 

I stopped reading the band’s retort after the first paragraph.  I’m sure whoever wrote it felt pretty good the moment it was posted.  However I’m sure that after they had a chance to absorb the content of the review beyond “It’s a scathingly bad review”, they may have learned to come to terms with it and hopefully make a better next album.  After all, at the time of writing this comment, the band has removed the response from their website. 

Personally I thought the overall sound of the album is good but the lyrics really detract from some otherwise decent music.  Maybe if people who don’t understand English listen to this album they will enjoy it more. 

There is absolutely nothing wrong with talking shit right back to someone who talks shit to you.  For a lot of people, it really feels good.  Some feel that high-minded indifference confers a certain nobility, but when someone trashes your sweat-drenched craftwork in a very public forum, I imagine it could be pretty gratifying to call the ass out.  And Cohen was an ass. 

Critics should not be immune to countercriticism.  And few are in a better position to generate an interesting rebuttal than the artists themselves.  I only wish this particular rebuttal had been a little more well-executed. 

Who pissed in Ian’s Cheerios?  He sounds like a jealous bitch that is just looking for someone to bag on.  He seems to not even have all his facts straight.  Maybe we should have critics for the “critics” ??? 

I still don’t get how much credibility people give to these so called critics.. I mean, really… What makes one person’s point of view more valid than anothers when it comes to something so subjective as music. 

I really love Airborne’s sound… I also am annoyed at all the comparisons.. Who gives a rat’s ass who sounds like who~ What really matters is if a song or an artist touches you in some way… Music appreciation is very personal and cannot be dictated or defined by another.  Sorry Ian and all your followers… it’s just a strange career commenting on other people’s creative efforts…

Listen to Airborne’s music with an open mind and heart and appreciate it for what it is.. Good! 

i am one of thos people who pretends they’ve never heard of pitchfork magazine, to protect the peace at home.  i am in a relationship with a man who is constantly praised by pitchfork…he can do no wrong!  everything he has ever put out is adored by pitchfork…can you imagine?  he is nothing short of “royalty” to them and guess what?  he hates them!  he thinks they they can’t review, they can’t write, and they pretty much hate everything that he thinks is worth the time to listen to.  it actually makes him angry each time they kiss his ass.  they don’t care about music they merely care about what they think is cool.  so to all you friends and stranger folks, lets just pretend they don’t exist and make some music. 

It is just one critics opinion.  How many others have written a positive review?  Play music that makes the band happy and not for any other reason.  Then you don’t need to “defend” your music to anyone else.  One mans junk is another mans masterpiece. 

@Ocho Cinco, you nailed it and so did Ian.  I wish people would quit hyping them altogether because there are so many other original GOOD bands in LA that aren’t just ripping off the indie sound.  TATE is kind of the Candlebox of indie rock. 

“We decided a long time ago not to take reviews too seriously.  For one, they tend to involve a whole lot of projection, generally saying more about the writer than the band.  Sort of a musical Rorschach test.” 

Aw, the hurt little band tries to toss back a little mud – cute. 

I like ATE’s defense of the music scene in LA.  That is very much worth defending.  But that’s pretty much it.  Should have been the better man and let the bad review go. 

Somewhat unrelated: I really like ATE, but for almost every song, I think, “Is this a cover?  I know I heard this song before.”  So to that extent, I’m with Pitchfork. 

Hmmm, as someone in a band that’s gotten good reviews and at least 1 shit-talking to, I empathize with the urge to rebut, especially when the review gets so personal and — supposedly — misses the point. 

On the other hand, it kind of makes you look like a puss.  And if you’re getting otherwise favorable reviews, just let it go. 

It’s sort of funny and ironic that at the beginning of the letter Mikel says he doesn’t care about reviews.  He then proceeds to write an essay about the review.  This proves that they really DO care about their reviews and that he certainly went over it with a fine toothed comb. 

In my opinion, the Pitchfork review was spot on.  This band is unoriginal and hackneyed.  They deserve an honest assessment of their poor efforts to copy Arcade Fire. 

Hmmm…I have mixed feelings about this.  I kind of don’t blame the band for being upset about the review, and I feel that this letter is one from a man who has had his feelings hurt.  It seems as if he’s defending his personal art by treading on the rarely touched waters of critic retaliation.  Usually artists are too busy and preoccupied to put much thought into responding to a critic’s review–I guess not in this case. 

I don’t blame the band for taking it kind of personally, but it would have been better to let it slide…Pitchfork already has enough hipster haters in LA.  Is it cool to like them?  Is it cool to hate them?  Or maybe it’s cool to pretend you’ve never even heard of them.  Who the fuck cares (is it cool NOT to care?).  God there’s too much to worry about…seriously. 

Pitchfork can really be brutal with some of their reviews, and they should be taken with a grain of salt.  It’s to the point where they’re not just reviewing an album, they’re talking shit to the artists.  They’re reviews are biased as fuck.  They hate bands like Dandy Warhols and Kings of Leon and will give any of their albums a bad review no matter what (the latest Dandy Warhols’ album is their greatest since 13 Tales).  Then they totally jerk off other (great) bands like TV on the Radio and No Age till no end. 

Word to the wise…

When Pitchfork LOVES a band, they’re probably worth checking out. 

When Pitchfork HATES a band, it’s either because they don’t think they’re original or they just hate them because they think it’s cool to not like certain bands.  They’re all about their pretentious elitist image and they put that above what a review publication site should truly be: unbiased and unabashed reviews.  Not assault, battery, and masturbation. 

they sent the letter the same day as the review was posted and obviously were bent they didn’t get a good review… pitchfork gets hated on these days and they do spew shit most of the time but if they love an album its usually worth getting into

I agree with the first post, they should’ve just let the Pitchfork thing go and ignored it.  The very fact they had to respond with a long, rambling letter on their website is kind of telling.  It seems playful and self deprecating but I don’t buy it.  It’s kind of like when a girl says she doesn’t like you and you reply, “Well, I didn’t like you anyways!  Your teeth are kind of big and your ears stick out.”  Then, you go in your room and cry yourself to sleep.  However, Pitchfork did give the new Fleet Foxes album a 9.0 which I can’t argue with. 

Recent Comments

Natalie Cressman on
Post a Band or Event / Find a Band or Event. .  .“BRASILIENSE” TO TOUR SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA IN MARCH, BRINGING MUSIC RICH IN THE MUSICAL TRADITIONS OF BRAZIL, AMERICAN JAZZ, AND BEYOND Featuring: Natalie Cressman of the Trey Anastasio Band (trombone & vocals) Rebecca Kleinmann (flute & vocals) Ian Faquini (guitar & vocals) Julien Cantelm (drums, guitar...Mar 04, 7:35 PMBEVERLY JOAN ( McCART ) COX on
Top Thirty Chuck Henry FactsCHUCK HENRY HAD ONLY 1 OLDER BROTHER..MIKE!  I KNOW BECAUSE HE LIVED RIGHT BEHIND US IN LOS ANGELES.  STAYED AT OUR HOUSE ALL THE TIME.  BROTHER MIKE WAS AT USC, PLAYING FOOTBALL.  CHUCK GOT THE MEASELS,AND IT LEFT SCARS ON HIS FACE.  STAYED WITH US...Mar 02, 10:24 PMNewFilmmakers Los Angeles Women Directors & Narratives Film Festival - March 24th, 2018 on
Post a Band or Event / Find a Band or Event. .  .Join NewFilmmakers Los Angeles (NFMLA) in celebrating independent cinema and in spotlighting female filmmakers and stories on March 24th, offering a diverse set of voices and storytelling styles.  The night’s first program will be InFocus: Female Cinema, a collection of short films from female directors...Mar 02, 4:27 PMLori DeWaal on
Post a Band or Event / Find a Band or Event. .  ."Lost in a Dream," the theme song for Vietnamese actress, singer and philanthropist Ha Phuong's new feature film, Finding Julia, takes center stage in a karaoke-style competition.  Professional and amateur singers alike are invited to record themselves singing "Lost in a Dream," which can be...Feb 21, 2:01 PMDave Thompson on
Post a Band or Event / Find a Band or Event. .  .FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE February 21st, 2018 “Lost in a Dream” Karaoke Competition Promises $20,000 Prize! " Lost in a Dream," the theme song for Vietnamese actress, singer and philanthropist Ha Phuong's new feature film, Finding Julia, takes center stage in a karaoke-style competition.  Professional and amateur...Feb 21, 10:55 AMNewFilmmakers Los Angeles (NFMLA) Film Festival - February 24th, 2018 on
Post a Band or Event / Find a Band or Event. .  .Event Title: NewFilmmakers Los Angeles (NFMLA) Film Festival - February 24th, 2018 Description: Join NewFilmmakers Los Angeles (NFMLA) in celebrating independent cinema and Black History Month on February 24th.  The night’s first program will be an assortment of short films that include tales of dealing...Feb 15, 3:32 PM