Topic: Negative opinions on bands (Read 26468 times)

kidd o · « **Reply #50 on:** 24 Jul 2005, 18:05 »

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 · « **Reply #51 on:** 24 Jul 2005, 18:24 »

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 · « **Reply #52 on:** 24 Jul 2005, 18:36 »

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 · « **Reply #53 on:** 24 Jul 2005, 18:46 »

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

Pretensious opinion presented as fact.

Quote from: sp2

the majority of any Pitchfork review is... comparing a release to other work by that artist

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.

What are you doing reading any reviews then?

Kai · « **Reply #54 on:** 24 Jul 2005, 19:07 »

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.

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!

kidd o · « **Reply #55 on:** 24 Jul 2005, 19:22 »

As far as the original intention of this thread goes I think that we've actually managed to come round full circle. Even if the guys that review over there don't like something they at least explain why other than just saying it's boring and uninspiring. They often list bands that are doing that the reviewed band is doing but better, and that is key as I see it.

If you want to tell me interpol is boring, list a band that has achieved more in the same vein of music and we can have a discussion. If you claim that ALL music that achieves a certain sound is automatically dismissible then you will have a difficult time explaining how you can define yourself as a music fan.

Baseball fans sometimes hate other teams, but they rarely hate divisions.

I've never met a humanitarian who hates people of a certain color regardless of achievements or successes.

Zombiesean · « **Reply #56 on:** 24 Jul 2005, 19:27 »

BASICALLY YOU WILL NEVER EVER AGREE WITH EACHOTHER EVER! WE WILL ALWAYS THINK WE ARE RIGHT!! THE ONLY SOLOUTION IS

::EATS KIDD O'S BRAINS!!::

kidd o · « **Reply #57 on:** 24 Jul 2005, 19:35 »

*is now dead*

Zombiesean · « **Reply #58 on:** 24 Jul 2005, 19:39 »

Quote from: kidd o

*is now a zombie and must start a zombie character*

FruitKat · « **Reply #59 on:** 24 Jul 2005, 19:40 »

Personally I just think it's the way you go about expressing your opinions.
Just as I was reading this thread I noted that you called someone a "retard" just because they interpreted something differently to you, or wrongly, whatever.
I have no problem in expressing opinions, and I think if you actually said "these bands are better" it would be helpful, but maybe in a less hostile manner. Saying "THIS SUCKS" just doesn't make people regard your opinions with credibility.
If someone abused me because of my taste in real-life or the internet, I'd be less likely to listen to the constructive things that they said.
If you went about expressing your opinions more tactfully, then maybe people wouldn't get so pissed off.
Do you really go about in real life telling strangers they are retards, just because they do something wrong?
If you do thats pretty arrogant and sad. Why do you have the right to do it on the internet?

Also, I quite like boring music

So saying something is boring doesn't validate that noone will like it.

kidd o · « **Reply #60 on:** 24 Jul 2005, 19:42 »

*sings*
should i try to hide
the way i feel inside
my heart for you?
would you say that you
would try to love me too?
in your mind could you ever be
really close to me?
i can tell the way you smile
if i feel that i could be certain then
i would say the things
i want to say tonight

but till i can see
that you'd really care for me
i will dream that someday you'll be
really close to me
i can tell the way you smile
if i feel that i could be certain then
i would say the things
i want to say tonight

but till i can see
that you'd really care for me
i'll keep trying to hide
the way i feel inside

Kai · « **Reply #61 on:** 24 Jul 2005, 19:43 »

Quote from: kidd o

If you claim that ALL music that achieves a certain sound is automatically dismissible then you will have a difficult time explaining how you can define yourself as a music fan.

Quote from: Kai

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.

...

and I want to make a Zombie Character! eat my brains!

ZombieMoira · « **Reply #62 on:** 24 Jul 2005, 19:43 »

I DON'T DO REQUESTS.

colin blunstone · « **Reply #63 on:** 24 Jul 2005, 20:22 »

yeah requests are a drag

Not An Addict · « **Reply #64 on:** 24 Jul 2005, 20:43 »

I request that we stop talking about Pitchfork. No use giving them unnecessary attention.

sp2 · « **Reply #65 on:** 24 Jul 2005, 20:48 »

Quote from: kidd o

Even if the guys that review over there don't like something they at least explain why other than just saying it's boring and uninspiring.

Normally the reason they give is because the band doesn't play indie pop rock.

Quote

If you want to tell me interpol is boring, list a band that has achieved more in the same vein of music and we can have a discussion.

Joy Division is the obvious example.

colin blunstone · « **Reply #66 on:** 24 Jul 2005, 20:58 »

dude that was really really ridiculous...

how old are you?

Zombiesean · « **Reply #67 on:** 24 Jul 2005, 21:05 »

DUDE SP2 IS BASICALLY A WANKER. I THINK WE HAVE ALL STARTED TO IGNORE HIM. HE IS LIKE 1 STEP ABOVE A TROLL.

Hatebunny · « **Reply #68 on:** 24 Jul 2005, 21:08 »

I suppose it's no use feeding the troll, if we play our cards right, he might just die of starvation.

SeanBateman · « **Reply #69 on:** 24 Jul 2005, 21:15 »

I appreciate the fact that you are insulting me, but try to respect the fact that I have been here quite a bit longer than you have, and if I want to fuck around and make zombie jokes, well, I will. I do not think you are a bad guy, but ease up.

Unless you were talking to sp2, in which case, I agree.

Hatebunny · « **Reply #70 on:** 24 Jul 2005, 21:25 »

no no, I'm quite convinced that sp2 is basically just a troll...complete with purple hair, standing on end...mmm wasn't that a stupid fad?...

anyway.

Mr. Bateman, I tend to agree with you in most situations.

colin blunstone · « **Reply #71 on:** 24 Jul 2005, 21:31 »

*trying to add to the conversation*

I'm a zombie...

MoiraFae · « **Reply #72 on:** 24 Jul 2005, 21:32 »

Poser.

ASturge · « **Reply #73 on:** 25 Jul 2005, 03:53 »

Don't feed the troll, let him voice his opinion then just nod, smile and pretend you care.

I don't think sp2 is a troll, he is too intelligent.

He is more like a Dark Elf (Or Morhedel)

est · « **Reply #74 on:** 25 Jul 2005, 05:02 »

i'm just thinkin' like, if every time you've read Pitchfork you've come away thinking that their opinion is different to yours, then why would you care about anything they have to say about any band? their tastes are obviously different to yours, therefore it's pretty much useless to you as a review site.

FruitKat · « **Reply #75 on:** 25 Jul 2005, 05:34 »

Agreed... I don't read pitchfork and it probably IS my type of music that they review.
Noone's forcing you to look at that site.

sp2 · « **Reply #76 on:** 26 Jul 2005, 22:54 »

Quote from: est

therefore it's pretty much useless to you as a review site.

Mainly I read it to get an idea of how likely a concert is to sell out, so I know if I should get tickets ahead of time. However, the writing often annoys the shit out of me, and I find that I hear a lot of people parroting Pitchfork reviews, and that pisses me off. It's pretty much just like how all punks or goths pretty much ascribe to the same philosophy regardless of the whole "think for yourself" mantra. It's the same with indie kids...."think for yourself so long as your opinion agrees with Pitchfork."

Moral: Subcultures suck.

KharBevNor · « **Reply #77 on:** 27 Jul 2005, 05:04 »

Wierd, the moral I got out of that was:

The Sisters of Mercy > Radiohead

...

Hey now, hey now now, sing this corrosion to me...

Hatebunny · « **Reply #78 on:** 27 Jul 2005, 06:47 »

Aww, c'mon...I like Sisters of Mercy AND Radiohead...y'just can't compare the two :/

My Aim Is True · « **Reply #79 on:** 27 Jul 2005, 10:02 »

Quote from: StarlightRecycler

Agreed... I don't read pitchfork and it probably IS my type of music that they review.
Noone's forcing you to look at that site.

same here... and it is precisely because you probably have to read each review 3 times to understand it (unless it just says "this is is tiresome and boring" which a lot of their reviews do). Most of the writers at Pitchfork just try really really hard to sound like they are far more sophisticated than they really are. They do spend 2/3 of a review constructing an elaborate and unweildy analogy. They also review things that ARE NOT indie, yet judge them on criteria completely inappropriate for the genre.

I don't really care about Interpol one way or another, but I am simply astounded that they rated the Bloc Party album 8.9.

that said, the news and interviews can be interesting, and occasionally I will find out about someting good, like Black Mountain.

nickb285 · « **Reply #80 on:** 27 Jul 2005, 19:21 »

Pitchfork aside, I think there are certain circumstances in which you can call music "crap" instead of saying why you don't like it. For example:

I don't like Sigur Ros. I find it boring and uninspired. It's interesting to listen to at first, but that quickly wears off and all you have is "ethereal Icelandic moaning".

Ashlee Simpson's music is crap. It is written and produced by someone who will never get credit (unless it's a cross-promotion), lip-synced on stage, and sold to idiot preteen girls.

Kai · « **Reply #81 on:** 27 Jul 2005, 21:54 »

Quote from: KharBevNor

The Sisters of Mercy > Radiohead

Smartest thing said in this entire thread. Now we can all go home and eat cookies!

KharBevNor · « **Reply #82 on:** 28 Jul 2005, 07:39 »

Cookies...OF DARKNESS.

happybirthdaygelatin · « **Reply #83 on:** 28 Jul 2005, 09:22 »

Frank Zappa is borring and over rated.

Wait, that wasn't the point of this thread was it?

Hatebunny · « **Reply #84 on:** 28 Jul 2005, 11:18 »

Quote from: happybirthdaygelatin

Frank Zappa is borring and over rated.

agh! It lies! It lies!

THESE FORUMS NOW CLOSED (read only)

Author Topic: Negative opinions on bands (Read 26468 times)

kidd o

sp2

kidd o

Zombiesean

kidd o

Zombiesean

kidd o

ZombieMoira

colin blunstone

Not An Addict

sp2

colin blunstone

Zombiesean

Hatebunny

SeanBateman

Hatebunny

colin blunstone

MoiraFae

ASturge

sp2

Hatebunny

nickb285

Hatebunny