Posted in music | tour dates on June 17, 2009

TMOT on Ludlow St - CMJ 2007 (by Bao Nguyen)
Tiny Masters

"They are impressive only in comparison to a) other kids their age who have not somehow been encouraged to become a full-time touring band by hipster stage parents, and b) their least-inspired adult contemporaries. At their best, the Tiny Masters provide self-conscious kiddy variations on vaguely arty strains of punk and alt-rock, but there is very little practical use for this music besides causing adults to go, "awww, cute!" The lyrics are predictably banal and laughable, the vocals are uniformly flat and insecure. The melodies are not bad, but they are simplistic and mostly have the irritating cadences of playground chants and jingles."
[Pitchfork gives Skeletons a 3.0]
Mean! Tiny Masters of Today have been added to the lineup of this year's Village Voice Siren Festival in Coney Island.

"Skeletons" video below...

---

      

Comments (58)

Not mean. Honest. These kids are great for there age. But at their age they should be playing their schools talent show.

Posted by Anonymous | June 17, 2009 1:35 PM

I like 'em...but fear they may become the overweight underachievers of tomorrow.

Posted by Anonymous | June 17, 2009 1:38 PM

Tiny Mehsters of Today.

Posted by Anonymous | June 17, 2009 1:39 PM

i'd hit them

Posted by Anonymous | June 17, 2009 1:40 PM

They're no Old Skull.

Posted by bill p | June 17, 2009 1:40 PM

I have to agree with Pitchfork (did I actually just say that?). The lyrics represent their age while the instrumentations are unimaginative and boring. I believe that they could have a possible future in music but they have a lot of maturing to do first.

Posted by Patrick | June 17, 2009 1:41 PM

Tiny Masters > Dirty Projectors

Posted by Anonymous | June 17, 2009 1:41 PM

Honest, but still mean.

Posted by Anonymous | June 17, 2009 1:41 PM

Tiny Masters > Trouble Andrew

Posted by Anonymous | June 17, 2009 1:48 PM

Skeletons reminds me of He's A Whore by Cheap Trick, which really isn't bad at all.

Posted by Anonymous | June 17, 2009 1:54 PM

Gimmick.

Posted by Anonymous | June 17, 2009 1:56 PM

I like Tiny Masters. That review is incredibly harsh. "An alarming lack of imagination"? It's hardly alarming, they're 13 and 15 years old. The playground chants and dissing of other teens are what makes them great. I'd rather hear that than some desperate attempt to be more mature than their years.

Also: "if we're being very honest, the music made by children and young teenagers is almost always awful"? Terrible writing. Trying to be overly authoritative ("if WE'RE being very honest") but too limp-wristed ("ALMOST always awful") to really go for the jugular.

Posted by Anonymous | June 17, 2009 1:56 PM

i have a boner.

Posted by Anonymous | June 17, 2009 1:59 PM

wow, attacking kids. how classy

Posted by Anonymous | June 17, 2009 1:59 PM

I also have a raging boner.

Posted by Boner Jam 2009 | June 17, 2009 2:05 PM

If these kids want to put out records and ask people to fork over their hard earned money to purchase said music, then they open themselves up to criticism. Pitchfork is well known for this sort of lambasting. If you want to play with the big kids, you have to play by big kid rules. To make excuses for it because of their age and inexperience would be just as insulting, just not as obviously so.

Posted by Anonymous | June 17, 2009 2:09 PM

it's a marketing scheme people...cmon.

Posted by Anonymous | June 17, 2009 2:10 PM

look at these fucking hipsters

Posted by Anonymous | June 17, 2009 2:12 PM

Could be worse...could be Care Bears on Fire.

Posted by Anonymous | June 17, 2009 2:17 PM

They sound a hundred times better than the rest of the music kids their age are making in the vain of Fall Out Boy and anything else that pop post-post-post-post emo stuff . If I were a parent and my tween was listening to this stuff, I'd be kind of proud. BYOP before they called it quits, Smoosh, First Aid Kid and now these kids -- not all kids listen to crappy music.

Posted by Anonymous | June 17, 2009 2:26 PM

I don't know if that's still true, 2:09pm. Pitchfork used to be known for "this sort of lambasting." But it's been a long time since they actually took down one of their sacred cows. Dirty Projectors, Animal Collective, Grizzly Bear, etc. all get a pretty easy ride. I like some of those bands, but I'd like to read an alternate opinion sometimes, you know?

I think Pitchfork is too deep in the pockets of those bands to really take a risk. They're basically becoming the new Rolling Stone. The Northside Festival had its faults, but I feel like it had a ton of bands Pitchfork should be covering. Instead, they were excitedly "tweeting" from Bonnaroo about Bruce Springsteen jamming with Phish.

Posted by Anonymous | June 17, 2009 2:32 PM

"great for their age"

tommy stinson was 12 when he joined the replacements. doyle was 16 when he became a member of the misfits . stevie wonder had a #1 record at 13

Posted by Anonymous | June 17, 2009 2:33 PM

Anon@2:33

OK, i retract my statement. They are no longer good for their age.

Posted by Anonymous | June 17, 2009 2:46 PM

Shwing!

Posted by Anonymous | June 17, 2009 2:54 PM

way too mean. they shouldn't have reviewed it at all!

Posted by Anonymous | June 17, 2009 2:58 PM

y'know i almost never actually read pitchforks reviews, so...

Posted by Aaron | June 17, 2009 3:02 PM

i just read the score and base my life choices on that.

Posted by Anonymous | June 17, 2009 3:03 PM

The review was really heavy-handed and pretentious. It didnt even seem to offer the possibility that there is anything redeeming about this band which there clearly is. it really just seemed like a nasty smear without much purpose.

Posted by Britpop | June 17, 2009 3:03 PM

fluxblog dude wrote the review.

Posted by Anonymous | June 17, 2009 3:14 PM

well said 2:32

Posted by Anonymous | June 17, 2009 3:14 PM

Pitchfork is a "blocked website" where i work..i work for NAMBLA

Posted by Anonymous | June 17, 2009 3:16 PM

"To some small extent I feel a little bad..."

Gah! Grow a pair of balls, man. That's the problem with music criticism right now. There's too much "almost," "maybe," and "perhaps" in use. Just get straight to the point and have courage in your convictions. And certainly don't post about feeling bad about it afterwards.

Posted by Anonymous | June 17, 2009 3:24 PM

hey 3:24, people are human

Posted by Anonymous | June 17, 2009 3:41 PM

"Gah! Grow a pair of balls, man. That's the problem with music criticism right now. There's too much "almost," "maybe," and "perhaps" in use. Just get straight to the point and have courage in your convictions. And certainly don't post about feeling bad about it afterwards."

I'm indecisive about this.

Posted by Anonymous | June 17, 2009 3:54 PM

if you think you know everything, you're a bigger idiot than you think. directed at whoever wrote the grow a pair of balls comment.

Posted by Anonymous | June 17, 2009 3:55 PM

My favorite band

Posted by James Auchincloss | June 17, 2009 3:56 PM

"this is very shallow, unengaging music, and it is hard to imagine anyone truly caring about any of these songs."

LOL at the reviewer, at the band, and at anyone who cares one way or another about it all

Posted by Anonymous | June 17, 2009 3:58 PM

Yep 2:32,
hit it right on the nose.

I'll have to repost it. You can add these to the free pass-list as well TV on the Radio, Deerhunter, St Vincent and Radiohead (OMG-no he didn't)

"I don't know if that's still true, 2:09pm. Pitchfork used to be known for "this sort of lambasting." But it's been a long time since they actually took down one of their sacred cows. Dirty Projectors, Animal Collective, Grizzly Bear, etc. all get a pretty easy ride. I like some of those bands, but I'd like to read an alternate opinion sometimes, you know?

I think Pitchfork is too deep in the pockets of those bands to really take a risk. They're basically becoming the new Rolling Stone. The Northside Festival had its faults, but I feel like it had a ton of bands Pitchfork should be covering. Instead, they were excitedly "tweeting" from Bonnaroo about Bruce Springsteen jamming with Phish."

Posted by JL | June 17, 2009 4:04 PM

I've got their cassette only release from '95 if anyone has the Black Betty flexi and would want to trade, that'd be cool.

Posted by Anonymous | June 17, 2009 4:09 PM

the point is that not everyone enjoys all music. lots of people enjoy this band. lots of people hate radiohead.

Posted by Anonymous | June 17, 2009 4:11 PM

i retract my statement. i no longer have a raging boner.

Posted by Anonymous | June 17, 2009 4:23 PM

Not to give this guy too much credit, but with great power comes great responsibility. it is a total dick move to do such malicious hatchet job on these kids in the most visible music publication going. Of course, they dont deserve special treatment, but everybody deserves fair treatment. This review went to great lengths in an attempt to destroy their credibility. Why? What purpose did it serve? What was he doing at 15? Maybe the answer lies there?

I cant imagine feeling the need to use the front page of Pitchfork to take on this particular band. They arent particularly successful or commercially minded. He shouldnt be too proud of this.

Posted by anon | June 17, 2009 4:25 PM

I'm there are many 12 year old bands of this quality. What makes them so special to get a Pitchfork review and open for Art Brut. They are a perfectly acceptable 12 year old band, but that's about it. They should be playing nothing more than talent shows and birthday parties.

Posted by Anonymous | June 17, 2009 4:30 PM

Jemina Pearl all the way.

Posted by Anonymous | June 17, 2009 4:45 PM

hey 2:33

Tommy Stinson was twelve but, come on. Paul Westerberg was at least 20. The Misfits would have been great with or without Doyle. I will give you Stevie Wonder though.

Posted by replacement | June 17, 2009 4:49 PM

"way too mean. they shouldn't have reviewed it at all!"

if you [or your rich parents] put your shitty music out there to be judged, you will be judged. way to go, pitchfork!

Posted by Anonymous | June 17, 2009 4:53 PM

dont forget Michael Jackson and Ray Charles

Posted by Anonymous | June 17, 2009 5:01 PM

when i was 12, it was summer of 93 and I couldnt play an instrument for shit ..but as consolation i did bang 2 trust fund barnard 20 somthing biatches after the jesus lizard/blues explosion/Girls against boys show at CBGBs.

Posted by Anonymous | June 17, 2009 5:06 PM

fuck you

Posted by Anonymous | June 17, 2009 5:43 PM

when i was 12 i jerked off a little less than i do now.

Posted by Anonymous | June 17, 2009 5:51 PM

4:53, maybe at this point when TMT aren't even popular/hyped, pitchfork could have left the reviewing to less influential music columns.

Posted by Anonymous | June 17, 2009 7:11 PM

REDD KROSS..

Posted by Anonymous | June 17, 2009 11:15 PM

Agree with 4:30. These kids' parents are rich and involved in the music world, i think they live in park slope? When i was 13 i was in a band and i still think we were pretty good but hell no, i would not want the whole world judging us at that time on the music we were making

Posted by Anonymous | June 17, 2009 11:25 PM

Cranky middle-aged music bloggers from NY should refrain from calling anybody a hipster.

This whole thing has a "get off my lawn you damn kids!" feel to it.

I would rather be a cute kid playing punk rock than a blogger getting all pissed off about it. It seems like more fun!

Posted by Grampa Munster | June 18, 2009 2:46 PM

i think i threw up a little in my mouth

Posted by Anonymous | June 18, 2009 5:13 PM

well i think they're awesome. karen o and david bowie think they're awesome. they seem to be having fun and isn't that all the matters? maybe you're just a has-been and no-one ever thought you were any good, and now you're just jealous of them cos they're 13 and 15. watch them on nylon tv, they're cool as.

Posted by Anonymous | July 7, 2009 3:05 AM

Islam is a religion of peace

Posted by منتديات | February 24, 2011 6:17 AM

Leave a Comment