Pitchfork

Mojo · 09-20-2010, 08:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mr dave

i think the whole point with the Audioslave reviews is that for the most part it's not the kind of album or band that the average target reader for Pitchfork would give a crap about, so why should they? especially not in 2005. i mean really, why would you go to a place known for reviewing independent and less than mainstream releases for a blatantly mainstream supergroup's 2nd release.

i must say the lyrical replies were quite funny. Cornell's double baked lyrics worked phenomenally well in Soundgarden but then again Thayil studied Philosophy in university as opposed to Political Science like Morello. a forced fit will never be as smooth as a natural one.

Exactly. Why bother?

Alfred · 09-20-2010, 08:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dayvan Cowboy

though the review was mostly negative and the album deserves 10/10, that is funny as hell.

EDIT: To tell you the truth, I think the anti-afro thing going on is a little unfair, as i've always wanted hair like Cedric's, rather than overly large short ginger hair.
but still, funny article!

I completely agree, the album is a perfect 10 in my mind too, but that doesn't take away from it being one of Pitchfork's funniest reviews.

clutnuckle · 09-20-2010, 08:41 PM

Pitchfork have such a large catalog of writers that finding well-wrought ones is next to impossible, as the ridiculously pretentious outweigh those with genuine writing ability... I've found a few, but then again I don't consider myself interested enough in Pitchfork to 'scope those writers out' for more reviews. Their website can't be defined by two terrible reviews, but it's also undefined by the few good ones.

mr dave · 09-21-2010, 02:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mojopinuk

Exactly. Why bother?

for a joke. unfortunately it seems to have sailed over FAR too many heads.

Goblin Tears · 09-21-2010, 11:10 AM

Some people here have a peculiar notion as to what a review is. A well written review may well make your blood boil, and you may completely disagree with it, but agreement is never the point. Witnessing the effect of music on an articulate individual, and exploring the similarities and differences between their reaction and yours is. Sloppy reviews are easy to pick out; they're usually generalised, or overly focused on image or character, while being dismissive or vague about other notable musical qualities. A good journalist will be analytical, to the point, and immediately focused on the merits or detractors, differenciating between personal preference and genuine craftsmanship without losing their own personality.

dac · 09-21-2010, 12:26 PM

Pitchfork admittedly isn't a bad place to look for new music. Stuff that they usually rate around a 7 or so is often worth checking out. Whatever band they happen to be hyping at the moment should probably be avoided at all costs though.

Freebase Dali · 09-21-2010, 12:54 PM

Merged.
Any more Pitchfork threads will be burned at the stake.

loveissucide · 09-21-2010, 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dac

Pitchfork admittedly isn't a bad place to look for new music. Stuff that they usually rate around a 7 or so is often worth checking out. Whatever band they happen to be hyping at the moment should probably be avoided at all costs though.

Not the band's fault pretentious people deem them a bandwagon to be jumped onto though.

adidasss · 09-21-2010, 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mojopinuk

I don't read Pitchfork or for that matter, the music press in general. To be honest, i don't see the point. I'm capable of forming my own opinions and so the opinions of others, especially faceless strangers I know nothing about don't matter to me one little bit.

However, even from my limited exposure to Pitchfork I do wonder why they publish reviews such as these. That Audioslave one for a start is an absolute joke. It may be a fairly novel idea, but giving me some info on the album and maybe an opinion might at least make the whole concept of a review a worthwhile one.

Wow, that's interesting. How about going back to what music press is supposed to be about, you know, letting you know about good music, not trying to tell you if you like what you've already heard. Crazy right?

I know I've probably said this a hundred times by now, but I like Pitchfork because I think they write well and their taste in music is very compatible with mine and since I sadly don't have the time anymore to download the whole friggin internet and listen to every goddamn underground band whose grandma paid for their recording session I need a filter, a site to give me recommendations which I will then listen to and either like or dislike.

Also, those kinds of reviews account for about one millionth of their output. Sure, sometimes they like to take the piss out of some band/albums, but most of the time they write thought out reviews...

dac · 09-21-2010, 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by loveissucide

Not the band's fault pretentious people deem them a bandwagon to be jumped onto though.

But what I'm saying is, in my opinion, most of those bandwagons aren't worth jumping on (think Panda Bear).

I agree with a lot of their high ratings, but I disagree with far more of them.

09-21-2010, 12:26 PM	#146 (permalink)
dac MB's Biggest Fanboy Join Date: May 2008 Location: Cloud Cuckoo Land Posts: 2,852	Pitchfork admittedly isn't a bad place to look for new music. Stuff that they usually rate around a 7 or so is often worth checking out. Whatever band they happen to be hyping at the moment should probably be avoided at all costs though. __________________

09-20-2010, 08:41 PM	#143 (permalink)
clutnuckle Music Addict Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: -_-_-_-_~__~-~_-`_`-~_-`-~-~ Posts: 1,276	Pitchfork have such a large catalog of writers that finding well-wrought ones is next to impossible, as the ridiculously pretentious outweigh those with genuine writing ability... I've found a few, but then again I don't consider myself interested enough in Pitchfork to 'scope those writers out' for more reviews. Their website can't be defined by two terrible reviews, but it's also undefined by the few good ones.

09-21-2010, 11:10 AM	#145 (permalink)
Goblin Tears Music Addict Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Ireland Posts: 337	Some people here have a peculiar notion as to what a review is. A well written review may well make your blood boil, and you may completely disagree with it, but agreement is never the point. Witnessing the effect of music on an articulate individual, and exploring the similarities and differences between their reaction and yours is. Sloppy reviews are easy to pick out; they're usually generalised, or overly focused on image or character, while being dismissive or vague about other notable musical qualities. A good journalist will be analytical, to the point, and immediately focused on the merits or detractors, differenciating between personal preference and genuine craftsmanship without losing their own personality.

09-21-2010, 12:54 PM	#147 (permalink)
Freebase Dali Partying on the inside Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 5,584	Merged. Any more Pitchfork threads will be burned at the stake.