Dear Airborne Toxic Event,

2 Kudos. Your indie band recently released your debut self titled album on Majordomo to mixed reviews (to say the least). The most negative review comes from none other than Pitchfork Media, everyone’s favorite alliance of uber-critic indie snobs. The 1.6 rating given to your record, according to Pitchfork, is slightly better than a monkey pissing in his own mouth, but not quite as good as Radiohead’s 4.0/2.0 for Best Of/Best Of Special Edition. The latter is undeniable proof that Pitchfork’s rating system is clearly not based on the content of the record, but a bias created by other factors that actually have nothing to do with the music.

This is especially the case for your debut’s review, in which reviewer Ian Cohen makes it very apparent that he dislikes your hometown of L.A. and therefor cannot take any band that emerges from there seriously. The bias is laid on thick before there is even any mention of Airborne Toxic Event. As you so eloquently stated in your open letter to Pitchfork in response to this review, “it also seems to have very little to do with us. Much of your piece reads less like a record review and more like a diatribe against a set of ill-considered and borderline offensive preconceptions about Los Angeles.” It’s worth pointing out that Cohen reportedly lives in L.A.

He then digs in on your existence as a whole in typical P4K fashion, stating that “while it’s understandable that a debut should owe such enormous debts, what really rankles is the unrelenting entitlement that assumes cred via sonic proximity.” What’s often more important then actually reviewing the content is how this sounds when Cohen reads it back to himself in his bedroom. There’s no way that music can assume anything. What Cohen is doing here is ragging on your band, personally. A band he doesn’t know. A band, that according to your extremely well-written response, doesn’t seem to have any sort of entitlement that ‘assumes cred’ via anything.

A quick google will bring up a library of Cohen album reviews, most of them C+’s or worse from Stylus Mag. Most interesting was the fact that after jabbing you guys for lacking the same “busting intimacy” as Bright Eyes and belittling the second half of your record by comparing it to Jimmy Eat World, I found out that he gave Jimmy Eat World’s last album a better rating than Bright Eyes’ Cassadaga. There’s an irony here that I thought you would appreciate.

OK, Airborne, I’ll admit I can be a bit of an uber- critic indie snob (less uber and way less indie). Maybe your album is hardly a 10.0…you still make your point loud and clear. I’ve only heard the 4 songs you have posted on your myspace, and judging solely on the music would have to say that these are some catchy rock tunes. They don’t change my world, and I think there may even be some validity at the core of Cohen’s 5 paragraph ramble about the artists that have clearly influenced you. However, I must admit that a bad review from Pitchfork usually makes me open up even more so to a record (i guess we can all be a bit biased).

While your letter may have been a bit hypocritical (if you truly didn’t care about reviews, you wouldn’t have written the letter), It is obvious after one listen to “Sometimes Around Midnight” that a 1.6 rating is most definitely absurd, and makes Cohen’s 200 word paragraph on the tune seem more than ridiculous. I think writing this letter will definitely help you gain a few fans that may have otherwise never bothered with you after even just a glimpse of that rating. Whether you meant it with sincerity or thought it would get you some extra iTunes downloads, good job. I think you come out victorious on both counts.

You may be the first band to have successfully out-smarted Pitchfork.

Enjoy it,
Liz from My Poproks