May 22nd, 2009 12:33pm

A Too-Long Rumination on Grizzly Bear’s “Veckatimest” and Pitchfork’s Scoring Methodology

In all likelihood, there’s a vigorous debate going on the Pitchfork Staff Board right now: Grizzly Bear’s Veckatimest comes out next Tuesday, and they’ll be needing to figure out just how many tenths of a point over “9” they should assign it.

It will be over 9, that’s almost assuredly a given. And of course, it most certainly won’t be a 10– they long ago ceased giving that to anything other than reissues of proven classics. So, on the surface, it seems they have a full .0 – .9 to work with, right?

Not necessarily…

Here’s the rub: by busting out of the gate this year with that 9.6 for Animal Collective’s Merriweather Post Pavilion, they’ve created a situation where it’s going to be virtually impossible to rate an album above 9 without drawing a direct comparison to Merriweather.

So could they give Veckatimest a 9.7? Very unlikely: I don’t think they can calculatingly give a higher score to Veckatimest (regardless of how great it may be) simply because Grizzly Bear has been together only half as long as AC, and released only a third as many LPs.

9.6? I think that’s doubtful too, for the same reasons that a higher-than-Merriweather score is.

I’m going to call 9.5. I figure that’s probably the highest they can possibly go. Anyone else have a guess (with justification)?

(These are in addition to glowing reviews from The BBC, The Guardian, GQ, Interview, and Rolling Stone)

- Ryan Catbird

5/22/09 12:43 pm

D says:

9.2

5/22/09 12:44 pm

adam says:

9.0

5/22/09 12:46 pm

Cara says:

I give it a 10.0 and that’s the only rating that matters to me

5/22/09 12:53 pm

9.3 says:

Considering “cheerleader” got a 7 track review score, it’d be disingenuous or at least inconsistent if it scored higher than a 9.5. Then again, that’s to be expected from Pitchfork.

Anyway, add that to the fact that “hold still” is an unnecessary track, i say 9.3

5/22/09 1:52 pm

brak says:

8.666666: the average of the tracks from the album they’ve reviewd (7, 9, 10).

5/22/09 2:23 pm

Joseph says:

Who cares? You really need an arbitrary rating system to tell you if a record is good or not? And why is it so important that its comparable to AC’s MPP? Would that then validate Grizzly Bear’s place among the cream-of-the-crop indie acts of today? What difference is there between a score of 9.2 or 9.6? Honestly. What difference could it possibly make? Who needs a scoring system that no one really understands to tell them what records they should like? Some of my favorite records of the last few years have received pretty low scores on PF. If I like something, I flat out like it. I don’t need some random number to give me ‘permission.’

5/22/09 2:34 pm

Ryan Catbird says:

(All 100% spot-on there Joe– but please note we’re just playing some ‘Inside Baseball’ on a lazy Friday afternoon here)

5/22/09 3:00 pm

Joseph Roth says:

Ryan – understandable. PF really grinds my gears sometimes, though. But, it makes for a nice spirited, pre-holiday weekend discussion.

5/22/09 3:27 pm

jason schupper says:

I don’t think the issue necessarily pans out the way you’ve plotted. Since there is a clear distinction between the styles that Grizzly Bear and Animal Collective pursue, Pitchfork will very likely give this album a 9.6 as well.

If they want to make a statement they will do the aforementioned to forgo any p-fork hate that may come about from giving Veckatimest a score higher or lower than Merriweather. Yes they will be playing into the hands of the public, but seriously, when it comes to a tenth of a point, who really cares.

More important at this juncture is the hope that the guys will stay as level headed and humble after the imminent success of this album. Animal Collective sure have to some degree.

5/22/09 8:31 pm

denise says:

Interesting. I was giving this some thought myself. Can’t say how much I’d personally give it because I have not heard it yet, just the pre-released songs. But I thought about all you mentioned above, in relation with MPP. Definitely won’t be awarding it more than said album, even if it deserves it.

Agreed with Jason, although both bands could not be more different, this all plays out in their minds (p4k). It’s all meticulously calculated, they are well aware of how influential it could be. I’d call it 9.4 or 9.5.

5/22/09 9:53 pm

Pat says:

Ryan, Pitchfork doesn’t seem to take longevity or age of the band into account very often. Before MPP Animal Collective did rather poorly on their scores no matter how long they were out while bands like No Age or Tapes n Tapes did really well on their debut or second releases. So let’s toss out the window that Animal Collective have been around for ages and Grizzly Bear are still praying for that kind of longevity. Instead let’s just ask is Vecketamist a better record then MPP. It’s close. And so I would guess that P-fork are gonna play this safe and give it a 9.4 but later name it the album of the year.

Also, it’s gonna be interesting to see how the new Sonic Youth fares since I think it’s a killer record.

5/22/09 10:49 pm

Hitter says:

Frankly, MPP is not a 9.6 album. It wears incredibly thin after a few months whereas I’ve had this album since early march when it leaked and it just gets better and better with repeat spins. Had MPP come out in 2008 and gotten a 9.6 I could see Pitchfork pulling a 9.7 arcade fire style rating with this as it truly deserves it and frankly will be seen as a modern classic down the road, but because of that initial MPP rating, they will almost definitely play it safe and award it a score just under MPP, even though it’s by far the superior album. That said, you never know! After all Grizzly Bear ARE playing their festival and they gotta hype their bands up!

5/26/09 7:57 am

adam FTW

5/26/09 4:35 pm

Blissink Studios says:

turns out it ranked 9.1.