Drake - Started From The Bottom [Official] Pitchfork Review

[King Lance]

http://pitchfork.com/reviews/tracks/148 ... he-bottom/

Drake titling his new single "Started From The Bottom" can be taken as the most self-aware or least self-aware thing imaginable, so it's basically Drake being Drake in the most Drake way. Truth be told, he seems more than willing to let the predictable (and, frankly, depressing) chatter about the realness of his upbringing lead the discussion, since he isn't talking much here. Bearing the undeniable influence of collaborator Kendrick Lamar, Drake holds back on the dense punchlines that destroyed tracks throughout 2012, making pinprick points about endless nights, love in the crew, and arguments with his uncle, the sort of thing you need to hear in order to remember that everyone bears the weight of their own struggles and he wasn't born on the set of "Degrassi: The Next Generation".

It's also a canny move to shift the focus to the production of Mike Zombie, stoned and heavy in all the right ways; he doesn't have to stray too far from Take Care to stay within the center of hip-hop's currency. This is the exact same thing "Over" and "Headlines" did as lead singles, and so what initially seems like an underwhelming single becomes more understandable as a show of purposeful restraint. Hell, by the time you remember that he always drops the monster singles later on, the hook's already sunk in and "Started From The Bottom" is probably on its way to confirming the realest shit Drake ever wrote: "What am I doing? That's right I'm doing me."


#team-protect-this-song

Rules:
Pitchfork is always right.


I swear I didn't post this review because pitchfork talked about Kendrick (well, first time I don't post something because of him)

[Trimss]

amazing review, song is on point thank god pitchfork exists

[King Lance]

you didn't read the rules

[Trimss]

I edited my post. is it better?

[King Lance]

yep It is


For real, I still don't know why pitchfork is so respected.
I seriously think that they often write interesting reviews but a review is just a review right ?

[Trimss]

It's because their audience are nerdy hipsters who jack off to indie rock, no lie

[King Lance]

It's because their audience are nerdy hipsters who jack off to indie rock, no lie

forgot they also review pop and rock albums
I really enjoy reading their reviews for albums (except when it comes to review an Eminem's album) but their reviews for songs are rly fucked up imo

[Kill You]

They hate hip hop lol. They also hate Em, even give his "good albums" shitty scores. I quote because his first three are automatically the good ones. They like Drake and Lil Wayne though which is weird considering neither are near as talented on the mic. They cream their pants over indie rock, wouldn't take these dumbasses seriously.

[AbramIsaac]

Pitchfork has some great stuff, but they're music snobs. This excerpt from an article at P&P explains it pretty well, and was almost certainly a reaction to Pitchfork giving "Camp" a 1.6 out of 10, but giving Lil' B some outrageously high score in comparison. It's titled: How To Be A Music Snob: The Art of Being Pretentious.

Only like something if you know at least 50% of other people won’t get it

It’s simple, really–if people think you “get” something that they don’t, you will immediately seem more knowledgeable than them. Anybody can like The Beatles, but enjoying the newest progressive art-rock/noise-pop quartet from Eastern Europe isn’t so easy. Of course, nobody really likes the shit, but if you say you do, and come up with some intelligent sounding but nonsensical reasoning, you’ll put yourself at the forefront of a new movement, and the lemmings will follow.

Except for some things clearly out of your lane, which you like ironically

It goes something like this:

“Oh yeah, I love that new progressive art-rock/noise-pop quartet. They’re really redefining the whole noise-pop movement. So brilliant. That new Gucci Mane/V-Nasty album is wonderful too. So honest.”

Huh? Well damn, this person must be incredibly well-rounded if they have the capacity to appreciate both of these things. What a trustworthy source, and how refreshing that they keep an open mind.

But never admit you like them ironically

Obviously.

Always choose a band’s “older work”

This is some Music Snob 101 shit. According to music snobs, a band’s earliest, most obscure work is their best, 95% of the time. If somebody says, “Did you hear (insert sell-out band name here)’s new album,” you answer, “Yeah, it sucked. I only like their early stuff.”

Exceptions:

1. Washed up act links with new, credible producer.
2. Straightforward act goes left field, confusing all their old fans.
3. Death. (There’s no real “rule” for this, but the death of an artist is always a game-changer.)

Pretty much sums up everything Pitchfork does, especially when reviewing hip hop.

[King Lance]

They hate hip hop lol. They also hate Em, even give his "good albums" shitty scores. I quote because his first three are automatically the good ones. They like Drake and Lil Wayne though which is weird considering neither are near as talented on the mic. They cream their pants over indie rock, wouldn't take these dumbasses seriously.

don't know man, they gave a 10/10 to MBDTF, one of the first sites to review GKMC (9.5/10), a 10 to illmatic, a 8.3 to LIG... they obviously respect some rappeurs but it seems that they hate Eminem lol.

Pitchfork has some great stuff, but they're music snobs. This excerpt from an article at P&P explains it pretty well, and was almost certainly a reaction to Pitchfork giving "Camp" a 1.6 out of 10, but giving Lil' B some outrageously high score in comparison. It's titled: How To Be A Music Snob: The Art of Being Pretentious.

Only like something if you know at least 50% of other people won’t get it

It’s simple, really–if people think you “get” something that they don’t, you will immediately seem more knowledgeable than them. Anybody can like The Beatles, but enjoying the newest progressive art-rock/noise-pop quartet from Eastern Europe isn’t so easy. Of course, nobody really likes the shit, but if you say you do, and come up with some intelligent sounding but nonsensical reasoning, you’ll put yourself at the forefront of a new movement, and the lemmings will follow.

Except for some things clearly out of your lane, which you like ironically

It goes something like this:

“Oh yeah, I love that new progressive art-rock/noise-pop quartet. They’re really redefining the whole noise-pop movement. So brilliant. That new Gucci Mane/V-Nasty album is wonderful too. So honest.”

Huh? Well damn, this person must be incredibly well-rounded if they have the capacity to appreciate both of these things. What a trustworthy source, and how refreshing that they keep an open mind.

But never admit you like them ironically

Obviously.

Always choose a band’s “older work”

This is some Music Snob 101 shit. According to music snobs, a band’s earliest, most obscure work is their best, 95% of the time. If somebody says, “Did you hear (insert sell-out band name here)’s new album,” you answer, “Yeah, it sucked. I only like their early stuff.”

Exceptions:

1. Washed up act links with new, credible producer.
2. Straightforward act goes left field, confusing all their old fans.
3. Death. (There’s no real “rule” for this, but the death of an artist is always a game-changer.)

Pretty much sums up everything Pitchfork does, especially when reviewing hip hop.

wow, interesting read
I definitely agree with you, they're great but they're also music snobs.

If only they could have more objectivity with artists they don't like ...

[momentsgolden]

Pitchfork has some great stuff, but they're music snobs. This excerpt from an article at P&P explains it pretty well, and was almost certainly a reaction to Pitchfork giving "Camp" a 1.6 out of 10, but giving Lil' B some outrageously high score in comparison. It's titled: How To Be A Music Snob: The Art of Being Pretentious.

Only like something if you know at least 50% of other people won’t get it

It’s simple, really–if people think you “get” something that they don’t, you will immediately seem more knowledgeable than them. Anybody can like The Beatles, but enjoying the newest progressive art-rock/noise-pop quartet from Eastern Europe isn’t so easy. Of course, nobody really likes the shit, but if you say you do, and come up with some intelligent sounding but nonsensical reasoning, you’ll put yourself at the forefront of a new movement, and the lemmings will follow.

Except for some things clearly out of your lane, which you like ironically

It goes something like this:

“Oh yeah, I love that new progressive art-rock/noise-pop quartet. They’re really redefining the whole noise-pop movement. So brilliant. That new Gucci Mane/V-Nasty album is wonderful too. So honest.”

Huh? Well damn, this person must be incredibly well-rounded if they have the capacity to appreciate both of these things. What a trustworthy source, and how refreshing that they keep an open mind.

But never admit you like them ironically

Obviously.

Always choose a band’s “older work”

This is some Music Snob 101 shit. According to music snobs, a band’s earliest, most obscure work is their best, 95% of the time. If somebody says, “Did you hear (insert sell-out band name here)’s new album,” you answer, “Yeah, it sucked. I only like their early stuff.”

Exceptions:

1. Washed up act links with new, credible producer.
2. Straightforward act goes left field, confusing all their old fans.
3. Death. (There’s no real “rule” for this, but the death of an artist is always a game-changer.)

Pretty much sums up everything Pitchfork does, especially when reviewing hip hop.

[BigBoss]

Never heard of pitchfork.

Song sucks donkey cock

[AbramIsaac]

wow, interesting read
I definitely agree with you, they're great but they're also music snobs.

If only they could have more objectivity with artists they don't like ...

Oh definitely.

Even their positive reviews are a little over the top sometimes. Their review of Skelethon, for instance, even had some Aesop Rock fans feeling like they were laying it on a little thick. Not fans that didn't like the album either. Even people that really love that album were taken aback by the serious zealousness of the review, even though they agreed with it for the most part.

[tadpole25]

Honestly, this song would have been better if the chorus was 4 lines and not 8.

And he should have combined first 2 8-bar verses into a 16. And then made another 16 for the second verse.

Then it would've been a real song.

[cheeseburger]

Honestly, this song would have been better if the chorus was 4 lines and not 8.

And he should have combined first 2 8-bar verses into a 16. And then made another 16 for the second verse.

Then it would've been a real song.

That problably was the thought from the beginning, but then they remembered that Drake cant bring his blueberry on stage so they gotta keep it simple with less lyrics and more hook. Nah mean, keep it street.