Fun Stuff > BAND
Negative opinions on bands
kidd o:
well I've heard that argument before. I just don't see it. I read the reviews and they talk about what they hear in a band. I see more pretentiousness from people that say "oh I'm so above pitchfork" rather than from pitchfork themselves, so maybe they just seem humble in comparison.
And how in the world can you say that they have no similar interests of yours? If that is the dirty truth then why don't you offer to review for them? I'm a big fan of addressing a problem rather than bitching about it.
Gryff:
Basically this entire thread is a few people trying to justify being pretentious assholes. I don't see how Pitchfork's pretension is any greater than yours, Kai.
Also, saying that people who don't like a particular band should keep their mouths shut is a bit precious, but I can't see any worth in the Interpol "discussion" that was going on earlier in the tread.
I notice that there's actually not a lot of metal-bashing in this forum, but there are a few metal-heads who take every opportunity to repeat that they think "indie" music in general is boring and unadventurous. I think that this is what everyone is taking offense to - it is really dull to have the same people jump into every conversation with their "criticism" (eg. "Interpol are really boring").
Nobody is saying that you have to like anything, but have some respect, not neccessarily for the bands, but for the people on this board who are generally intelligent and interesting folk with their own valid opinions.
sp2:
Pitchfork consistently downgrades certain genres of music, notably prog, progcore, and avant, and consistently overgrades other genres of music, specifically stuff like Interpol. Because their rating system is based on indie sensibility rather than on the belief that one should assess each album by the standards set for that genre, this makes them a bunch of pretentious assholes.
Additionally, many of their reviews focus on individual songs (one tight song does not make a classic album) and ignore things like album coherence. There is no way, for example, that TV on the Radio's Desperate Youth and Bloodthirsty Babes deserves the rating it received...the album lacked any semblance of coherence, and while some of the songs were really catchy, much of the album was totally unlistenable even for a fan of the genre it attempted to belong to. Finally, the majority of any Pitchfork review is discussing things besides the particular album, and is either comparing a release to other work by that artist, or is an avenue for the author to dangle his big indie dick and talk about things that have really no relevance to the album being reviewed.
And really, why should anyone offer to review for them? I mean, Pitchfork should not be the deciding factor for whether or not an album is well-received by the scene. I don't want to be told that Floss by the Descending Testicles is a classic album by someone who spends the whole review talking about the Canadian indie scene and maybe a paragraph talking about the one single on the album. I don't want to be told that Arcade Fire's Funeral is amazing, I want to listen to it and decide for myself.
The idea that a single review website that doesn't review seriously but rather reviews in such a way to promote specific types of music determines whether or not a large subculture will or will not listen to a particular CD or band is absolutely disgusting to me, especially because this subculture prides itself on being individual.
Gryff:
--- Quote from: sp2 ---TV on the Radio's Desperate Youth and Bloodthirsty Babes... lacked any semblance of coherence, and while some of the songs were really catchy, much of the album was totally unlistenable even for a fan of the genre it attempted to belong to
--- End quote ---
Pretensious opinion presented as fact.
--- Quote from: sp2 ---the majority of any Pitchfork review is... comparing a release to other work by that artist
--- End quote ---
Art exists in context. It is reasonable to compare albums to other albums.
--- Quote from: sp2 ---I don't want to be told that Arcade Fire's Funeral is amazing, I want to listen to it and decide for myself.
--- End quote ---
What are you doing reading any reviews then?
Kai:
--- Quote from: kidd o ---
And how in the world can you say that they have no similar interests of yours? If that is the dirty truth then why don't you offer to review for them? I'm a big fan of addressing a problem rather than bitching about it.
--- End quote ---
How in te world can I say they have no (or very, very, VERY little) similar musical interests of mine? Easy. Firstoff, unlike you (as far as I can tell) I do not like indie, with the exception of a few bands (maybe, like, 3). Pitchfork's entire world is based around the genre for the most part. That's what it prides itself on. I, myself tend to prefer Prog/Art Rock/Metal, and whatnot. That's the music that interests me. Sure, I'm still listening for other bands, many of which are considered indie, and for a good portion of it, I come out disappointed, as I would with most genres. Where they have a hardon for My Bloody Valentine or whatever band you kids are still mourning the loss of, where I tend to lean more towards Zappa, THe Residents, Beefheart, Nash the Slash, and now the totally awesome DeVotchKa! Also, I, not relaly caring about Pitchfork at all, do not bitch about it unless it happens to come up. I could care less.
Also, if that above is a "pretentious opinion", then every single opinion on the face of the Earth is really pretentious. I mean, how hard is it to assume that it is his opinion talking? what kind of fucking idiot would actually take that as fact? I mean, it's obviously his opinion! He's writing it! 5th grade didn't have two weeks devoted to differentiating between fact and opinion for nothing!
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version