Pitchfork has cemented itself over the years as the number one pot stirrer of the world of music criticism: since the magazine’s conception in 1996, reviewers have scandalised audiences and artists alike with scathing and cynical reviews, some of which have been credited with tanking the careers of some of their likely targets. Springing to mind is Matt LeMay’s infamous review of Liz Phair’s 2003 self-titled album, in which he gave it a 0.0 and referring to Phair as having been ‘reduced to cheap publicity stunts and hyper-commercialized teen-pop, ultimately concluding that the album ‘may as well not even exist’. LeMay offered Phair an apology in 2019, citing his nineteen-year-oldness at the time of its publication, which the singer accepted, saying she cited the 0.0 as a source of pride in her memoir, ‘Horror Stories’. Or who can forget Ray Suzuki’s infamous 0.0 review of Jet’s 2006 album ‘Shine On’, which was simply a link to a YouTube video of a monkey peeing in its own mouth? Unconventional, yet succinct.

Needless to say, the musicians being reviewed aren’t always pleased. This was the case with American indie pop duo Tennis, whose final album ‘Face Down In The Garden’ received a 6.8 from Shaad D’Souza alongside a mixed review, with D’Souza feeling as though the album is ‘relaying the kind of story that’s too unremarkable to tell a friend.’. It isn’t an overwhelmingly negative review, however, and certainly isn’t at the level of monkey-peeing-in-mouth music ‘criticism’. D’Souza describes single ‘12 Blown Tires’ as the album’s strongest point, making a ‘head-over-heels crush sound positively soporific, as if attraction were so strong that it became more like a trance.’. Ultimately, Tennis felt strongly enough about the negative aspects of D’Souza’s review that they issued a four-slide statement on their Instagram account, entitled ‘My Review of our Pitchfork Review’:

'For the last seven albums I’ve watched seven male pitchfork writers bend over backwards to offer the worst, most uncharitable interpretations of our music. They cherry-pick lyrics without context, interpolate meaning that isn’t there, or are overly reductive, making me out to be as banal as a greeting card writer. [...] In his review of Face Down In The Garden, Shaad D’Souza barely engages with the material at all. Instead he uses the assignment as an excuse to write a boring meditation on “vibe” music, listing off other bands that are vibey without offering a single ounce of insight into the album he’s reviewing. [...] D’Souza offers a cliff-notes level reading of the song [‘At the Wedding’], I don’t understand how the everydayness of a song’s subject matter disqualifies it from being good. Just say you’re bored D’Souza! This is about you, not me. [...] ‘12 Blown Tires’, the only song D’Souza likes, is not about a ‘’head-over-heels crush’’ as he claims. But since these dudes are all determined to make me out to be stupid or shallow or imperious, a crush must be the loftiest topic I can aspire to write about. [...] I give music criticism a 6.8.' 

It’s scathing, meta, bubbling over with anger that has clearly been repressed over the press cycles of seven albums. Ironically, it would be quite at home in Pitchfork’s catalogue. I understand the frustration of a bad review, or even a mediocre review - it feels as though music lifted from the highest highs and lowest lows of your life have been hung, drawn and quartered very publicly. Certainly, music written by women is often mischaracterised as surface-level pop and its content overlooked, or simply written off altogether by the wider world of music criticism (see my earlier point about the reaction to Liz Phair’s 2003 album). I can completely understand why such a lukewarm review, after a history of similar lukewarm reviews all from the same place, could elicit such a strong reaction from the band. However, there is something to be said for the right of music critics, regardless of the publication or their stance, to write and publish their opinion on a project, whether it be good or bad. Comments on the Instagram post itself were less welcoming of Moore’s statement, with one user saying ‘I’m not some Pitchfork apologist, but this screed badly misreads the role of critic [...] so, the only correct meaning is the intended one - not the received one? I don’t think you actually believe this.’. Another user was dismissive of the role of critic altogether, asking ‘why are critics a thing when music is entirely subjective?’. The latter comment, to me, seems well-intended but misguided - music criticism plays a huge role in the promotion of independent artists, even if the current landscape of music PR has changed dramatically in the wake of platforms like TikTok. 

In contrast, Reddit users on r/indieheads responded far more positively, with one user commenting, ‘I thought this “review of a review” was kind of badass [...] I agree with Tennis that the reviewers [sic] interpretation is overly reductive’. Another pointed out the aspect of misogyny within the world of music criticism: ‘As a writer, media-centric journalism is as much of a boys’ club as it always has been, which is perplexing to me as its cultural relevance has waned so much in the past ten years’. I believe that the aspect of misogyny, or even a lack of female voices in music criticism, is central to Tennis’ response. As a female musician, my experience in the industry differs vastly from that of my male peers, and a key part of Tennis frontwoman Alaina Moore’s dissection of the review is that D’Souza’s interpretation has ‘dumbed down’ her lyricism, the implication being that this would not have happened to a male lyricist. We can’t say for sure whether the review would have been more positive had it been written by a female journalist, but Moore makes a prudent point regarding a disparity between men and women in music criticism - on both sides of the screen. For illustrative purposes, I checked how many women had written the top twelve reviews on Pitchfork’s homepage this week (12/05/25), with nine out of the twelve having been written by men. That is not to say their talents should go unrecognised, rather that pursuing a similar career has proven to be more difficult as a woman. Perhaps Tennis are the victims of an industry simply not designed to uplift women’s voices. 

Engaging with music criticism, especially when it has been designed to create ripples through controversy in the way Pitchfork does, is a double-edged sword; the sense of accomplishment one gets from having their work recognised is incredibly rewarding, particularly when you don’t necessarily have the same financial backing as bigger artists. However, it can be easy to attach your self-worth as an artist to critical reception, which is where I think we need to begin reworking our relationship with music criticism, both as artist and audience. We can learn to appreciate the work of critics without making their review the be all and end all of sharing art with the world - music is subjective, after all, and Tennis’ statement might encourage critics, musicians and listeners to engage with the art (and, in a perfect world, one another) in a more constructive manner.