Dr. Dog – “Stranger”

The following rant/reaction to Pitchfork’s review of Dr. Dog’s Shame, Shame has little to do with my own feelings about the Philadelphia rocker’s brand new record. It could have really been any record. I’m only listening to the record for the first time while writing this. What this has to do with is one of the many contradictions found within Pitchfork’s album reviews.

5 albums into their history as a band, Dr. Dog is one of many bands that Pitchfork has never reviewed favorably despite being pretty universally acclaimed by critics. This is not to say that Pitchfork or anyone should be part of mob mentality, but it does mean that in stating their case against such a record they’ll need to state a stronger case than if it was poorly received by the rest of the music critics.

Zac Kelly’s review of Shame, Shame is full of positive words for the band:

Shame, Shame is arguably the band’s finest moment. As if working in reverse, the band is finally making terse, jaunty chamber-pop and folk-inflected rock collages that would suggest the work of a younger, wide-eyed outfit.

But after two rather positive paragraphs with the occasional back-handed compliment ["So it's a pleasant surprise that after a gruelingly long run of dry, indistinguishable material, Dr. Dog have produced a record that shakes off (most of) their pallid Beatles-borrowing and embraces a bigger, more charismatic sound."] he takes a step back and gives us a better idea of exactly why he gives the record a 6.7.

Dr. Dog still aren’t the most inventive band in the world, lyrically characterless and often prone to plow into their influences so forcefully it’s almost uncivilized.

So, this is a legitimate argument here,. Dr. Dog wears their influences on their sleeves and such lack of originality should hinder the score given a record. But then again, weren’t Real Estate, Surfer Blood, and Girls all awarded “Best New Music?” Didn’t Harlem just get an 8.1. Sure the lyrics on the Dr. Dog record are nowhere near Dylan or even Bejar territory, but they’re still not as juvenile as anything on that Girls record. [Just to clarify, I enjoy Girls' album. It's a fun listen, just not groundbreaking].

As the big powerhouse of music journalism, Pitchfork has become a self-proclaimed gatekeeper of substantial indie success. In general they have good taste and enough passion towards music to remain on top, but we must demand Pitchfork to be more consistent and broadminded if they’re going to remain on top. Pitchfork’s reviews are as predictable as a Michael Bay movie. We know what they like, and what they will like. Their revenue depends on hits, and so they must continue to review what’s popular in order to exist and remain on top. To remain hip, they’ll need to positively review weird records that have enough indie commercial appeal without getting so adventurous that their readers become disoriented.

Remaining cool to such an expansive readership is a challenge that Pitchfork has been lucky to overcome thanks to indie’s rise to mainstream, and the generally dissolving nature of music journalism.

So then, after listening to Shame, Shame once, what is my opinion of the record? Well, it’s a Dr. Dog record, and despite my own criticisms of Zach’s review, much of it is on point. It’s not lifesaving or essential, but it’s mostly a good listen, and possibly their best work so far. 7.3

But what does either of our opinions matter when you can listen to the whole record online in the time that it takes to read a couple reviews.