Pitchfork Rebuttal No. 1: Jason Loewenstein's 'At Sixes and Sevens'

I can't speak for everyone at Something Vexes, but I know at least three thirds of the writers here think Pitchfork Media to be quite the overrated force in "underground" music matters. Inject me/us with sodium pentathol while on the subject and you'll hear graphic cries for its demise for advancing words like "angular," "quirky" and "meandering." It really is a pale shit of a thing.

But getting to it, here's the first in a series of Pitchfork album review rebuttals I/we plan to write. This one's for the great Jason Loewenstein, whose flawless solo album, At Sixes and Sevens (Sub Pop, 2002) was pelted with an argument of empty eggs by a member of the PM gang. Fine work guys, you wrote off the first great indie release of the 21st century. And it's one of the few.

To criminally bestow a 4.2/10 score upon it, Pitchfork writer Rob Mitchum makes his flimsy case here:

Loewenstein's problems seem to spring from a penchant for textbook hard rock and an almost astonishing lack of range, failings that are amplified by his choice to record all of At Sixes and Sevens' instrumentation himself. Track one, "Codes", is reasonable enough with its thick guitar chug, canter speed, and what might be the obligatory kiss-off lyrics, but after ten more variations on the same theme, even a brisk forty-minute album starts to drag. For a time-killer, you might internally debate which is more unremarkable: Loewenstein's double-tracked flannel shirt vocals or his close-to-uniformly forgettable melodies ("Circles" being the sole exception).

So he requires range over consistency, eh? Well, let me retrieve for you a line from his review of the Rapture's Pieces of the People We Love: "...what ultimately makes Pieces a step or three down from [earlier album] Echoes is a drop off in consistency."

I guess Mitchum is a little tizzed at the fact that Loewenstein's music is apparently more consistent than Mitchum's rationale. He shows range, though.

But to be fair, I realize that maaaaybe his range complaint has to do with lack of some sort of [obnoxious] flair, as demonstrated--if you like this sorta thing, which I don't--by the Rapture. He does accuse Loewenstein's writing of being "textbook." (Oh and just quickly, I'd like to point out the massive copout/cliche of the "textbook" citation, used by far too many music writers who embody their own accusations) But didn't Loewenstein, alongside Lou Barlow and Eric Gaffney, add important chapters to the beloved/hated "textbook" in their Sebadoh days? More credible critics the world over seem to think so. Personally, all my favorite Sebadoh cuts were authored by Loewenstein. They had more burst, more grit. Is that what Mitchum dislikes? That sort of sound? Why didn't he just say that? And just a guess: Mitchum loves acoustic music. Range.

Plus, there's plenty of range on this album. At Sixes involves several different moods and volumes, but so what if most of them are dark? That's the mood. An album needs to incorporate every mood, genre, audience, deodorant brand, sexual preference, holiday and religion to achieve its goal? What the fuck does range have to do with anything if you've presented something so obviously intent on delivering a particular sound?--Not to mention from a guy who aided in its pioneering!!

And then Mitchum goes on to subtract more points for Loewenstein's complete, impressive control over the songwriting, performance and production. Heh. That "amplifies" his supposed shortcomings? Um. Why? I dunno. Mitchum doesn't say.

Here's some more:

Sorry to say, At Sixes and Sevens shows little-to-no evolution from his makeout-session-ruining songs on [Sebadoh's] Harmacy. While the record might have had some throwback potential (seeing as Loewenstein has yet to move on from Seattle circa 1993), the contents are nowhere near quality enough to kick off that grunge revival...

Yes, it's an absolute disgrace that Loewenstein can't pull himself away from a great sound he helped to advance. May the Lord condemn anyone influenced by a particular era, especially those who were part of that era. I guess if Loewenstein had gone for something a little more "neo-baroque," or nu new-wave, or of oxidized blues, everything would be okay (wait, don't those genres stem from another time?). But I can toss that argument to the heap, because: this isn't grunge, and nothing about this album suggests any such intention.

But alright, let's get fair again and assume Mitchum may have been saying that, while other bands have moved on with new ideas, Loewenstein is just stuck in the early '90s, citing At Sixes' stylistic relation if you need to stretch it to that point for the sake of connecting it to your argument (talking to Mitchum). Well to me, that's such a good thing. What's today offering that the "critics" love so much more? The Rapture? The Shins? TV On the Radio? Clap Your Hands Say Yeah? Have you heard that lumber? Range? I don't know what it is with these bands that pop so much praise in the midst of Loewenstein's 4.2 rating, but I see it all as some of the most lifeless, hackish "indie" (whatever) music to date. Loewenstein stuck in the old days? He's so much more the wiser.