THESE FORUMS NOW CLOSED (read only)
Fun Stuff => BAND => Topic started by: Jackie Blue on 07 Jan 2007, 02:45
-
Whether you hate Pitchfork or REALLY FUCKING HATE Pitchfork, you have to admit, they try to be taste-makers. They scored a major win by calling Broken Social Scene way ahead of the curve; insufferable douchebags they may be, but apparently even insufferable douchebags can recognize good albums every now and then. They've managed to ride the wave of Hipsters Lovin' Hip-Hop pretty well, and have successfully pushed godawful crap like T.I. on middle-aged whiteboys with sweaters who haven't used the word "bitch" since the last dog show they attended.
But, alas, every now and then Pitchfork tries like Hell to sell something and it just doesn't fly. Plenty of people dig Tapes 'n Tapes, but they've hardly become the massive sensation the Pitched Ones so stridently tried to get them to be.
In another thread I mentioned Annie, and it got me thinking - "Damn, I wish that ploy had worked." Seems like no matter how much positive press they gave her, she just never became Kylie Minogue For Hipsters. Which is a damn shame, because she actually is as good as they said.
Who else have they failed on?
-
Everything.
-
^ ^ ^
plus ten predictable response.
I don't really read Pitchfork, so that's about all I've got here.
-
I was going to say everything, but this works instead (http://pitchforkmedia.com/article/record_review/40256/Mos_Def_True_Magic)
-
I am not even remotely surprised two people said 'Everything' immediately in response to this topic.
But we haven't had a good old-fashioned 'bash Pitchfork' thread in a while, I guess.
-
What the fuck is pitchfork, and why would anyone listen to its opinions?
-
I don't like Pitchfork - most people don't, it seems - but the fact is that it is very influential. I think it's more fun to discuss it than to just dismiss it by saying "It sucks". It's more complex than that. It doesn't JUST suck, in the way that Rolling Stone's music coverage sucks. I didn't want this to be a Pitchfork bashing thread, but rather, a discussion about the artists they get behind and try to advocate, whether it works or not.
-
They have some good stuff and some bad stuff. Most of their articles come off as being written by the amateur kid who thought that even though they got poor mark in high school/college writing, they're still good at writing and the system can't realize their genius.
They've given bad reviews to a bunch of stuff I like and good reviews to a bunch of stuff I don't, so I just don't really feel the need to read their reviews, but I don't bear them much begrudgement for it, I just don't read their stuff.
They are good at filling the niche they've found, and (to draw my grand generalisations) people like having a nice easy source of information. This is the only site you actually need to read if you want to find out about music.
-
This is the only site you actually need to read if you want to find out about music.
Not true. Pitchfork misses a LOT of good stuff that's of the more experimental/obscure variety, which is why www.fakejazz.com is necessary. Plus, they actually write useful reviews.
-
maybe it's true in the fact that it's reviews are inversly porportional to the quality of a given group
-
I was just trying to be silly. This isn't even a music review site, it's just a forum. Not that the music forum doesn't know stuff, but it's not a review site.
-
It's also pretty widely known that Pitchfork takes payola to bump their scores (*cough*Arcade Fire*cough*).
-
I mean, really, my basic problem with Pitchfork is they do not have any articles about how The Sisters of Mercy are the best rock and roll band of all time.
If they would just fix that then maybe we could do a deal.
-
Anyone who has enough of a sense of humour about themselves to publish a brazen David Cross-penned mockery of their reviews (http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/article/feature/10279/Artist_List_Artist_List_David_Cross_Albums_to_Listen_to_Whil) can't be all bad, can they? Pitchfork really aren't the black-hearted monsters they're frequently made out to be. They make bad calls but honestly I've never read any publication, online or printed, that doesn't have at least one completely off-the-mark review in every new edition, All Music Guide included. If you're desperate for alternatives, read Stylus Magazine (http://www.stylusmagazine.com) (which yours truly used to write for) and Tiny Mix Tapes (http://www.tinymixtapes.com), which just underwent a cosmetic overhaul. Music blogs like Said The Gramophone and Stereogum are also really useful. Pitchfork will still be in my bookmarks though.
-
i hate to point this out but i don't think they have anything on kerrang
-
Who don't have anything on Magnet, if you ask me.
-
The main problem is their lack of perspective for what the rest of the music press thinks. For instance, they've had a falling out with the White Stripes, given bad reviews to both Elephant and Get Behind Me Satan, and on their review of the Raconteurs album said that "Jack and Meg had backed their sound up against a wall." Never mind that those albums had been at the top of just about every other critics list, that Elephant had made Rolling Stone's 500 greatest albums of all time, and that Seven Nation Army is one of the greatest songs of the decade. Isn't funny that they all of a sudden started hating on the White Stripes as soon as they switched to a major label?
-
Seven Nation Army is a terrible song.
And what would be the point in them constantly agreeing with the rest of the music press? I've never read Pitchfork, but why bother visiting the site if you just want to hear what every other music site is going to say?
Also, Kerrang is a gigantic heap of shit. I'll use this cover as an example:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/61/Kerranghim.jpg)
For review, the bands this publication deemed necessary to cover for one issue were HIM, Green Day, Fall Out Boy, Bullet for My Valentine, Metallica, Slipknot, Nirvana, and Blink 182. If you like Nirvana (which I don't), there's one decent band on that list and the others are all utter shit.
-
I mean, really, my basic problem with Pitchfork is they do not have any articles about how The Sisters of Mercy are the best rock and roll band of all time.
If they would just fix that then maybe we could do a deal.
You know, now that you mention it, this is a pretty big problem.
-
I actually think allmusic.com (http://www.allmusic.com/) gets it right.
I give allmusic (a.k.a. the Oracle) a massive amount of credit for not buying into the "Lester Young never recorded anything worthwhile after World War II" bullshit that gets spun by most so-called critics. But I'll resist the temptation to go off on a jazz rant . . .
To be honest, I don't have a problem with Pitchfork. Generally they review the albums I want to read about. Perhaps it's an Australian perspective, because generally down here we don't hear about the highly obscure American or British acts, and we don't expect anybody over there to have heard about, let alone write about, ours own tiny independent acts either: that's what makes them obscure local acts. So I don't get a sense of missing out on anything. Still, I don't read Pitchfork all that often. Mainly I stick to Cokemachineglow (http://www.cokemachineglow.com/).
Complaining about Pitchfork irritates me, though. I don't often hear a complaint about it that I haven't heard a hundred times before. What's the point, guys?
-
I just read cokemachineglow's top albums of 2006 out of midnight boredom.
I cant fucking believe there is already a band called "The Horror The Horror"
Man, fuck that noise!
-
I read Pitchfork everyday. Even if I don't agree with them--which is something you're going to run into on ANY music site or magazine--I hardly find them worth hating. The only real problem I have with them is that their scoring system is the height of idiocy.
-
Here is a simple fix for those who don't agree with pitchfork completely.
DONT TAKE ONLY PITCHFORK'S OPINIONS.
READ OTHERS, FORM YOUR OWN, IT ISNT THE ONLY ONE YOU KNOW?
-
I never got music journalism, If I hear a band name that I haven't heard before, I will listen to them and form my own subjective opinion. I don't dislike Dashboard Confessional because it's not cool to listen to them, I dislike them (him?) because I don't like his sound and his songs.
Complaining about music journalism for being biased and subjective is like complaining about the sun for being bright.
-
You dont go to Pitchfork and take their views literally. They are written highly opinionated in a stylised format. Read the reviews they will give the pertinent data on the band and album, if you like what they say(agreement is unimportant), get the album, if you dont, dont get the album. Its not an issue of agreeing or disagreeing with the review, its there fucking opinion, but pitchfork is usually kind enough to give enough information for you to form your own opinion without relying on the reviewers position.
Also, Tapes 'n Tapes deserve all the renown they can have heaped on them, they are truely great. No I havent really seen pitchform tout them as the next big thing, but I dont consistently goto pitchfork and likely missed out on that 'spell'.
Pitchfork does give press to the major acts in hipsters acts, sure there might be stuff left out but get over it, they are still a major litmus test for everything indie and hip. If it gets pitchfork press its either important to the scene or good enough to break into it. And they bother with knowing who the fuck the last gen of hipsters listened to so when something like Sparklehorse releases another album, me, who doesnt give 2 shits about a band with a dumb name Ive never heard of, gets a little history lesson on why they deserve a review.
-
For the record, the only things I actively dislike about Pitchfork are that their reviews are nearly always horribly-written and not even informative (see: their review of Bardo Pond's "On the Ellipse" http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/article/record_review/15304/Bardo_Pond_On_the_Ellipse ) and that they seem to think the only mainstream music worth covering is mediocre rap (while they almost universally ignore all underground rap).
Oh, and they almost never review anything that is remotely industrial, and when they do (see: any Foetus review) they get so many facts wrong it's quite embarrassing.
-
Complaining about Pitchfork irritates me, though. I don't often hear a complaint about it that I haven't heard a hundred times before. What's the point, guys?
Really? You heard someone mention that they are neglecting the scene in their hometown? Or that they are giving too much attention to bands on major record labels?
I have not heard anyone voice these views outside of a specific group of friends I have.
Tommy, you're confusing "don't often" with "never". I do try to carefully consider the wording of my posts.
However after a while a person becomes numb to complaints about Pitchfork: when everyone and their dog are indulging in the favourite indie-scene sport of Pitchfork baiting, worthwhile individual criticisms tend to get subsumed by the larger white noise.
-
I only really use Allmusicguide when I want to figure out about a band, and I don't follow any music publications. I'll be honest with myself; I'd prefer to listen to something made before 1990 then after, so current music mags aren't useful for me.
-
Man the points against Pitchfork being made here I don't agree with at all.
I think the "they don't seem to realize they live in Chicago" bit is a red herring. As an international reader I can honestly say that I would get sick and tired of reading about Chicago band after Chicago band, just as I would stop reading Exclaim! if it talked about nothing but Montreal bands, or like I would spit on copies of Spin if they started covering L.A. to the detriment of other scenes. I think if they do any more than tacitly acknowledge Chicago's place in the current alternative landscape then they place upon themselves either one of these two things:
a) the unfortunate burden of having to do a survey of every other pissant scene in the nation, OR
b) yet more cries of "they just don't get us anymore" from the average reader due to their exclusion of other musical hotspots
Christ knows there's enough going on in Regina that if they didn't cover my scene I'd be pissed. But they're not covering Chicago to the exclusion of other locales, so I'm not really concerned.
And I also disagree with your assertion that the last few years have had Pitchfork set ablaze by majors. If we take a sample of the last six years of their top ten albums, an entirely different picture is painted:
2001 (http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/article/feature/38217/Staff_List_Top_20_Albums_of_2001)
2002 (http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/article/feature/38222/Staff_List_Top_50_Albums_of_2002/page_5)
2003 (http://old-site.pitchforkmedia.com/top/2003/index5.shtml)
2004 (http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/article/feature/38230/Staff_List_Top_50_Albums_of_2004/page_5)
2005 (http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/article/feature/38517/Staff_List_Top_50_Albums_of_2005/page_5)
2006 (http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/article/feature/40007/Staff_List_Top_50_Albums_of_2006/page_5)
And just for shits and giggles, the individual staff member lists (http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/article/feature/40124/Staff_List_2006_Individual_Albums_Lists).
If you're simply insisting they should cover lower profile artists, then what does Pitchfork have to offer that Stylus, Cokemachineglow and Tiny Mix Tapes, along with all the other independent review sites, don't? They already do cover artists who aren't as well known by a lot of people - feel free to waggle your culture-awareness dick at me if you know who this (http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/article/record_review/40223/Maja_Ratkje_Adventura_Anatomica) is, but I sure didn't. Frankly I wouldn't have bothered checking out Scott Walker's new album if it hadn't popped up in their top ten this year, simply because I didn't know about it.
I appreciate the balance Pitchfork attempts to have between smaller or lesser-known artists and the big ones like TVOTR (who, by the way, were already getting Pitchfork excited back when their Young Liars EP was released on Touch & Go). Just like I don't approve of people dropping their support for a band as soon as they hit a major, I don't approve of publications setting an arbitrary exposure limit at which they stop covering certain bands.
Pitchfork is the sort of publication that people seem to be constantly demanding more from. Give them a break and just know what it is you're reading rather than complaining endlessly about it.
-
Pitchfork is the sort of publication that people seem to be constantly demanding more from.
I hardly think it is unreasonable to demand that an influential music publication be factually accurate, informative and well-written. Those are pretty much the three traits ANY publication should be EXPECTED to have, if it wants to be well-regarded.
I'm not buying the argument that Pitchfork knows its reviews are poorly-written. The David Cross thing was just something they did so they could pretend to have a sense of humor.
Even if you like Pitchfork, it is undeniable that the number of factual errors they print is massive - they get things wrong that you could learn in a 60 second trip to freaking WIKIPEDIA. (Jim Thirlwell is a "London musician", huh? Let's see, he was born in Australia, lived in London between '78 and '83, and has been in Brooklyn ever since. Yes, clearly he is an English musician.)
-
The funny thing is, I think allmusic.com is fucking terrible, and I only go there when I cannot find any information on a band anywhere else.
Also, as per the Tapes 'N Tapes thing...I don't get why people think that Pitchfork forces bands down our throats. All they do is review and occaisionally interview bands they like. I didn't see them posting day after day about how great Tapes 'N Tapes for weeks on end. In fact I had forgotten all about Tapes 'N Tapes until some comedian guy released a video making fun of Pitchfork and Tapes 'N Tapes were in it, and I heard a clip of their music in it.
Tommy: I'm curious, what made old school indie zines, particularly their 'criticism', so great?? I very rarely read music journalism that I think is neither a boring personal opinion with no personality ("I like this album") nor a tiresome attempt at being critical and/or artsy (see basically any review Brent DiCrescenzo wrote for Pitchfork, and all of their music columns). In fact I think the only music journalist I've ever really loved is Lester Bangs, but it'd be hard to impossible to get away with the stuff he did in this day and age.
-
Man maybe I should start a Regina zine. I've read old-school rock criticism and honestly I love it a lot. It was overall great writing, not just reviewing. It would be cool to start something like that and have it fly.
There are valid complaints about Pitchfork to be made but I maintain that none of them are enough to have the severe hate-on that so many people have for them. Zerodrone, if you ask any honest editor whether or not their paper makes mistakes they will probably laugh in your face. Of course publications make factual errors. Open a paper and read the retractions. More important things get fucked up in the media daily than reporting that a guy lives in London when he doesn't live in London - watch out, here comes the key word - anymore.
-
The only problem with allmusic.com is the response time: because of the sheer scope of the site, it can take a long time for reviews to pop up: for instance, to the best of my knowledge they still haven't posted a review on their section about Little Chills by Darren Hanlon, even though it came out in the U.S. about a year ago and was pretty much instantly reviewed by both Pitchfork and Cokemachineglow. If you're looking for a critique of older music, this isn't a problem; but if you want to know about an album that came out last week then you're better off with a smaller website with a narrower focus. I wouldn't go to Cokemachineglow to find out about an album that came out in the nineties, because it wouldn't be there: the site wasn't around back then and covering older stuff isn't part of its scope. But nor would allmusic be my first stop for reading up on a new release from a relatively obscure act.
-
My only perspective on allmusic.com is that whoever does their metal reviews is an idiot. I can't be bothered to go through their site and pick out all of the semi-ludicrous reviews that have been given by that site to metal albums that I found once, but it was staggering. I'm pretty sure they gave like, one of Nile's best albums a star and a half or something.
It might be perfectly good for other genres of music, I wouldn't know.
OK, I looked. It was 2 and a half stars for Black Seeds of Vengeance. Maybe not quite as insane as I initially believed, but still ridiculous.
-
More important things get fucked up in the media daily than reporting that a guy lives in London when he doesn't live in London - watch out, here comes the key word - anymore.
The point is that Jim Thirlwell didn't even begin making music until several years after he moved to America. That's why it's particularly stupid to say, in a review of a 2005 album of his, that he's a "London musician".
And yes, I know publications make mistakes. But the kinds of mistakes made by Pitchfork are of sheer laziness and often make it clear that the writer is not actually familiar with the band/artist and, furthermore, couldn't even be bothered to do five minutes' research. Those kind of mistakes are so bad, in a sense, BECAUSE of how "minor" they are - they're the kind of mistakes that any credible publication would almost never make, and PFork makes those kind of mistakes dozens of times a month.
As far as musical criticism, Tom Ewing is one of the only music critics I find actually entertaining to read. www.freakytrigger.co.uk
-
Oh fuck, when Stylus dropped me I thought I'd never have to read the word "poptimism" again.
-
Complaining about music journalism for being biased and subjective is like complaining about the sun for being bright.
Well then good for me, because it's the writing that pisses me off. I was finding old Weezer reviews recently for some reason and I came to one for one of the recent albums. First of all, Make Believe was shit, but it was NOT a 0.4/10. Anyway, that's just doing what you hate there. My real point was the fact that, if the review was 500 words long (I can't remember how long it was) then 400 words of it was self-indulgent wankery about the author's own life and when they heard Weezer and all this bullshit. The reviews are almost entirely worthless outside of their scores, scores which I usually don't agree with anyway.
-
From the ranking albums thread:
How many albums has the band had out?
Do they have a good track record?
How does it compare to previous albums?
Is this new album something of an accomplishment for the band, or have you seen it all before?
Which band has the better music? Most talent? Nice production?
Choose little bits of each album that you don't like. Compare these to the little bits of the other albums you don't like.
With the exception of the last two, which are better for ranking than for reviewing, these apply directly to that Make Believe review (and honestly a lot of other Pitchfork reviews). Yet only one person deemed it prudent to pounce on Darryl while there are entire blogs to jump on Pitchfork for doing, essentially, the same thing. If you don't like the site, do what Tommy does and don't go there. If you could care less about advertising because you mentally filter it out and see fields of flowers and leaping bunnies and stuff like me where there are reportedly SuicideGirls ads at the top of the page or you let the occasional one in when it tells you that there is for example a new album by the Tyde that you didn't know about and you're now interested in because you liked their previous record, then feel free to go there. Or don't.
-
If you don't like the site, do what Tommy does and don't go there.
This just in: I don't. I was stating why this was the case.
-
So we're come to an agreement Indie snobs hate Pitchfork. Everyone else is either indifferent or supportive.
-
I don't see what the problem with Pitchfork is. Sometimes I will launch into a monologue about the eating habits of Henry VIII while ordering dinner at a food joint and sometimes it is nice to realize that I am not the least concise person in the world.
-
I've been coming to these forums for two years seeing lots of negativity towards Pitchfork and I still don't understand why. I mean I could understand disagreeing with a review but actually really hating the whole damn website and it's faculty? C'mon!
Don't get me wrong, a lot of their reviews are really harsh but that's their opinions. I don't know any other website that talks about the music I like and updates regularly.
They also have really good features like interviews and other junk like that. I guess Pitchfork doesn't bother me because I like knowing other people's opinions (whether they agree with me or not).
Anyway, what I'm asking, why is there so much negativity? Please in-dept :]
-
So we're come to an agreement Indie snobs hate Pitchfork. Everyone else is either indifferent or supportive.
Indie snobs?
Khar? Someone who predominantly listens to crazy metal-related musc I've never even heard of?
Me? Someone who has a rampant obsession with Ashlee Simpson and also listens to hip-hop, folk, and God knows what else?
Indie snobs? Fuck you, man.
Your name is Cheshire Cat. If that makes you a blink-182 fan, that sticks me more in your group than in any 'indie snob' group.
-
So we're come to an agreement Indie snobs hate Pitchfork. Everyone else is either indifferent or supportive.
Calling a person an "indie snob" is like calling a band "pretentious"; it says a lot more about the person applying the label than what the label is being applied to.
(I'm not an "indie snob", I'm a "music dork"; you know, the kind of guy who actually MEANS IT when he makes a list of "perfect songs" which includes entries from Bruce Springsteen, Front 242, Neutral Milk Hotel, and Run-DMC.)
-
Being a snob is discriminating towards something for a bunch of shitty reasons.
And Im not a Blink 182 fan. Just to get that out there.
But if you dont like Pitchfork, pull a Tommy and just dont go there. Makes sense to me.
*edit*
Musta hit quote not modify
-
I only take fault with your statements Tommy insofar as nobody ever seems to actually accept any of the counterpoints to the arguments against Pitchfork. It would be very hunky-dory if people would listen, but instead when I say "they have a sense of humour about themselves" it somehow gets warped into "they like to pretend they have a sense of humour about themselves."
Also Tommy I refuse to accept your argument. This is your exact post from earlier in the thread:
They like a lot of good music but the execution is dire. The reason I have a problem with this is there is only really room for one, as you say, 'influential' online music zine. It's a pity that the one we are all stuck with is run by a group of folk who, however well meaning they are, really cannot write about music. Also, their coverage now runs practically parallel with that of the mainstream press. One has to wonder what the point is.
As a news/interviews site I guess it is okay. The advertising annoys me a lot too if I'm completely honest.
It's not so much that you don't rate them as much as you actively dislike them and the way they operate their publication. As well you say that its non-review features are "okay" thus negating your conclusion.
Chesire Cat has a point, though I don't think he's articulating it properly. Arguing with people who don't like Pitchfork is completely and utterly ineffective because there's no point in trying to convince somebody who views their position as infallible that there might, in fact, be validity in the other side's position.
Me, I'm indifferent to Pitchfork. I read it, agree with some of it, disagree with some of it and wind up getting on with my life. My positions in this thread have merely come from a standpoint which does not view Pitchfork as the be-all and end-all of journalism but at the same time doesn't view it as The Great Indie Satan.
-
My argument is actually "no stance is infallible," and its associate is "it pays to take others' arguments into account." A big chunk of criticism against Pitchfork is that reading their reviews is akin to sitting in on one of the author's "private moments." Insofar as I can tell, this is an accurate and valid criticism. However those criticizing the publication are adamantly refusing to acknowledge or accept alternative viewpoints, which irritates me for two reasons. First, it's a poor way to hold any kind of debate; as well, the alternative viewpoints are equally valid.
Criticism of anything is vital. Without criticism there is really no drive to do better. However the difference between constructive criticism and verbally shitting on someone for no reason other than that's what you decided to do at the very beginning is something that was hammered at least into my brain rather vigorously throughout my school years. Perhaps it is different in other locales but I suspect not so much.
-
I would be more comfortable with that if I had seen, from you or anyone else, any concessions such as "Well, they are good at that," or "Ah, good point," or even, "I'd thought of that, but." Instead reading this thread there is a severe drought of active debate from point to point. When I addressed your complaint that they don't recognize the Chicago scene as much, I never saw an acknowledgement or a rebuttal. Similarly I made a counterpoint to DynamiteKid's complaint about their opinions on Make Believe and his response was to the part where I said "If you don't like Pitchfork, don't go there." I am upset that I am actually making an effort to further debate and it's essentially being ignored or shut down in favour of a pre-determined consensus against the website.
EDIT: Admittedly I am guilty of some of the same. Zerodrone made a point on the previous page that Pitchfork's mistakes are irritating because of how minor they are and how easily they could be rectified to be otherwise. It's a good point. It doesn't affect my overall judgement on their reviews (the reviewer that Kieffer pointed to on the previous page is allowed to view an artist's output as sounding "lazy," because God knows that I've heard half-assed records before) partially because it's the sort of error I'm inclined to make, yet I think I'm definitely better at evaluating music than I am at fact-checking.
Here is an example for you: When I first heard the debut record from The Dears, I had no idea that the lead singer was black. This had no effect on my value judgement of the music, either before or when I discovered this. (Admittedly this has an effect on a song on their new album, "Whites Only Party.") Similarly the revelation that he was married to the band's keyboardist did not tell me that "22: The Death Of All The Romance" was suddenly romantic. I had already reached that conclusion. A good evaluation of music should be able to tell you whether or not the music is any good beyond the facts of the artist's life.
-
Being a snob is discriminating towards something for a bunch of shitty reasons.
And what the hell does that have to do with 'indie,' or Pitchfork?
I don't see how 'I don't like the writing' is descriminating against Pitchfork. Or if I were, I don't see it as a shitty reason.
Johnny, I don't know what else you want from me. I can't think of anything that I like about Pitchfork. Maybe I'm biased because I write reviews myself, but there is not a single thing I like about Pitchfork. I don't think I've found a single review or point that I've agreed with. I don't think even the website layout is particularly interesting.
-
K I'll try and shift the attention back on the topic
I dislike Pitchfork for specifically 2 reasons (thus far):
http://pitchforkmedia.com/article/record_review/21809/Smashing_Pumpkins_Mellon_Collie_and_the_Infinite_Sadness
Because I like that album, and I hate them for not liking it
Also, they gave a 6.8 to "In the Aeroplane Over the Sea" when it first came out. Last year when the reissue was released, and Pitchfork had some time to see how big a fanbase Neutral Milk Hotel had gained, they changed the album's score to a 10. Mind you, nothing about the album had been changed (maybe they remastered it or something but that doesn't matter enough)
This page pretty much sums up why I can't understand most of the reviews they give also:
http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Pitchfork_Media
-
I'm not sure that I buy "they gave an album I really like a bad review" as a valid reason for outright hating a music review site, to be honest, nor do I think the fact that they gave Converge glowing reviews on their last three albums a reason for me to clamor that "Pitchfork is the greatest site evar!"
I don't really pay a great deal of attention to Pitchfork other than that sometimes when I'm bored at work, I'll read the reviews out of a passing curiousity. Sometimes I find it fascinating to see how a site that is admittedly fairly skewed to the "indie-rock" perspective interprets albums by artists outside that scope. I'm rather surprised that they gave such high marks to the new Converge. I like to read what they have to say about some of the rap artists. I've definately read worse writing on other review sites - if we're counting printed publications, AP is by far a worse offender. So I guess after all that, my conclusion on the whole Pitchfork debate is....meh.
I think I understand what you're trying to do Johnny, but really, I don't see much point in arguing beyond "if you don't like it, don't go." As far as I'm concerned, it's just a SFW link to go to whenever I'm at work and the forum is dead.
-
I think I understand what you're trying to do Johnny, but really, I don't see much point in arguing beyond "if you don't like it, don't go."
If whether or not one should go is the desired topic of conversation then yeah, you're right. The topic in this instance is "WHY should you go or shouldn't you go," and if you look at the thread title then the latter is what people are already set towards, which mostly pisses me off because it excludes reasonable debate.
DynamiteKid, that's fair because you are essentially discussing the former topic in the last paragraph and nobody, myself included, has been capable of providing a rebuttal beyond "subjectively, some may like the writing."
-
they gave a 6.8 to "In the Aeroplane Over the Sea" when it first came out. Last year when the reissue was released, and Pitchfork had some time to see how big a fanbase Neutral Milk Hotel had gained, they changed the album's score to a 10. Mind you, nothing about the album had been changed (maybe they remastered it or something but that doesn't matter enough)
This isn't a valid criticism of any publication, as far as I'm concerned. Unless you can prove that their opinion was changed simply because of the band's increased popularity, or that they have a record of habitually giving reissues higher marks than the original release, then it's absurd to criticise Pitchfork simply because of this. Have you never revisited an album several years after you first heard it, and found out that it's actually much better than you remember it being? Human beings are not set in stone: their likes and dislikes fluctuate with time. This is especially the case when you have a group of them, as at Pitchfork. God knows I've changed my opinions about some music in the last eight years.
Whether you hate Pitchfork or REALLY FUCKING HATE Pitchfork
From the original post. Here's a prime example, I think, of what Johnny is talking about: hatred is assumed right from the start. This is not the first Pitchfork thread we've had, and they're invariably set up with a mob mentality: not "let's talk about Pitchfork", but "let's heap shit on Pitchfork". As I said in my earlier post, WHAT'S THE POINT, GUYS?
-
Pitchforks merits dont really fall under their journalistic integrity, even if they believe it about themselves.
The reviews are extremely subjective, and the reviewers like to put a spin on the reviews sometimes so they arent so dry. Its not the Mecca of indie music, but it is a good indication of whats going on in the indie world(and I dont me the *actual* indie bands on independant labels). Accept it for that and its ok, when its taken it too literally and the reviews viewed as canon thats when people start to dislike it.
And my bit about indie snobs gets parody time and time again in Questionable Content, hell I think even Nothing Nice to Say and Diesel Sweeties make occasional jabs at it. Its the idea that once something gets a certain level of success its somehow inferior to what it once was. Every bands first album was the best, I used to like such and such until they sold out etc. The ultra new and not yet heard of is the indie holy grail, until any for of success is achieved. And those arent realistic regulations to place on a website that is essentially spearheading(pitchforking) the battle to get indie into the mainstream.
Im not fighting for Pitchfork as some sort of fanboy, I just would like the haters to try looking at it in a differently light. Its more of a tool than anything.
-
they gave a 6.8 to "In the Aeroplane Over the Sea" when it first came out. Last year when the reissue was released, and Pitchfork had some time to see how big a fanbase Neutral Milk Hotel had gained, they changed the album's score to a 10. Mind you, nothing about the album had been changed (maybe they remastered it or something but that doesn't matter enough)
This isn't a valid criticism of any publication, as far as I'm concerned. Unless you can prove that their opinion was changed simply because of the band's increased popularity, or that they have a record of habitually giving reissues higher marks than the original release, then it's absurd to criticise Pitchfork simply because of this. Have you never revisited an album several years after you first heard it, and found out that it's actually much better than you remember it being? Human beings are not set in stone: their likes and dislikes fluctuate with time. This is especially the case when you have a group of them, as at Pitchfork. God knows I've changed my opinions about some music in the last eight years.
I can't prove such a thing. But the fact that they don't address their old review of the album in the new review, then delete the original, tells me they're trying to hide their old opinions for the sake of indie cred. Mmmhmmm
And I know it doesn't make sense that I would dislike something just because we share different views, but Mellon Collie poons too hard IMO. Cop: :police:
Key phrase "IMO"
-
They probably deleted the old album because they wanted the review of the re-issue to stand as their evaluation of the album.
There's been plenty of reissues that they've also given okay or poor scores to. Arbitrary "cred" has nothing to do with it.
-
I honestly don't know how their rating system works, so this may be a stupid question, but were the two reviews even done by the same person? Couldn't that explain the difference in scores?
-
To be quite honest, I prefer Magnet's (http://www.magnetmagazine.com/) reviewing style. They eschew grading and scoring altogether in favour of simply writing about the music. It works surprisingly well.
-
Writing?!?
ABOUT the music?
.
..
...
SORCERY, I SAY.
I really could handle pitchfork if their reviews could describe 3 minute tracks with nice simple terms. I do not mind that epic fifteen minute pieces need words like "sweeping" and "grandoise" in their reviews, but there are so few reviews that have adequate descriptions of the album that I just don't see the point. All the non-review stuff is pretty ok and I check it out from time to time, and its nice to see whats coming out, but I will shoot my dick off before I read another one of their CD reviews.
And I don't even know where I'd get a gun from.
-
I'm going to have to agree that the Neutral Milk Hotel review is total revisionist history. We're talking about a re-issue of an album that wasn't even a decade old.
Notice that, even before that album was re-issued, they "re-did" their "Top 100 of the 90s" list - deleting the old list entirely - and moved Aeroplane Over the Sea up from 85 to 4. I don't see how ANYONE could defend "re-doing" that list just a couple years after the original as anything other than them trying to look more relevant (the original list was much more mainstream/grunge centric).
-
In some cases Pitchfork has shown signs of sanity (in the ratings of New Pornographers' Twin Cinema, Arcade Fire's Funeral, and Animal Collective's Feels), but in most of all the other ratings the reviewers proved themselves to be cold-hearted, and probably insecure bullies.
(Specif outraged with the ratings of Arcade Fire's EP and Cat Power's The Greatest.)
The moral is don't let a stupid number, which cannot sum up the ambience of an album, affect your music purchases.
-
I'm going to have to agree that the Neutral Milk Hotel review is total revisionist history. We're talking about a re-issue of an album that wasn't even a decade old.
And if the record company has a right to re-release it, Pitchfork doesn't have the right to re-evaluate it?
-
And if the record company has a right to re-release it, Pitchfork doesn't have the right to re-evaluate it?
Technically, yes, but the re-issue of that album had no bonus material and was not in any way different from the original. It was not even technically a "re-issue", it was simply a "re-printing" because it had been out of print for a couple years. Labels re-print albums all the time, and Pitchfork doesn't review them.
-
This review (http://pitchforkmedia.com/article/record_review/20351/Neutral_Milk_Hotel_In_the_Aeroplane_Over_the_Sea), which denotes the seven-year passage of time between the original release and the re-release on a different label? Keep in mind we're arguing over this one revision, the invalidity of which I'm still not convinced about, undermining an entire website's credibility.
-
I'm not arguing that said review "invalidates their credibility".
I'm simply exercising my right to be cynical about their motives. As I mentioned before, I think the "Whoops! Let's Try That Again" revision of their "Top 100 of the 90s" is far more telling than that NMH review. I wasn't even the one who originally brought that review up.
I reserve my right to be a cynical old man.
-
re-reviewing a re-printing so drastically is a sign of shoddy reviewing if you ask me. even though i find their second review far more accurate, since i do feel that album deserves a 10, it's still fairly unacceptable to do what pitchfork did. i tend to find their reviews inconsistent. recently, giving the best album of the year to the knife for example. i think there are certainly things they've done right (albiet not too many) but overall i try to avoid taking any stock in what they say.
-
I like Pitchfork, and I check it everyday. The music reviews for the most part are pretty stupid, but they're news coverage, interviews, and features are all good reads for the most part. The music reviews aren't even that bad, although it does seem like they choose some rather odd things to start to LOVE
Llike Justin Timberlake for example, J.T. could make the greatest record of all time ever of ever and I still wouldn't be able to bring myself to listen to it seriously simply because the dude was in friggin N'SYNC. Sure that's rather stubborn and stupid of me, but I can't help it.
-
It's not just Pitchfork, a lot of indie types have decreed that Justin Timberlake is somehow OK to like, despite not being particularly different from any other pop music they normally would bash. Every few years there has to be a Token Pop Guilty Pleasure for hipsters. Before Justin I believe it was Kylie Minogue.
-
And before Kylie Minogue, I believe Jeff Mangum pooned this thread. He pooned it hXc with the siamese twins being all freezing to death and stuff, then he pooned it the straight edge way all xXx and whatnot being all playing a piano filled with flames as a little Spanish boy and junk and stuff.
-
umm.......those aren't the most literature neutral milk hotel lyric refrences i've ever seen, so i'm not really sure what you're getting at. but any praise for jeff mangum is good in my book.
-
In case anyone forgot...
(http://img247.imageshack.us/img247/9026/incaseanyoneforgotxz9.png) (http://imageshack.us)
-
Thing about JT is he is the absolute best at what he does. And anyone who cant respect that is a hater, and what the hell, arent we a little over hating things? Isnt the whole indie revolution about intelligent people being open minded towards things convention implies they should hate? I dont know about you, but I like JT, more for what he represents than his music.
Also name dropping Jeff Magnum is just indie assholes' way of of being indie assholes. You think 95% of the 1st world has any idea who Neutral Milk Hotel is, let alone Jeff Magnum. He was never mainstream, deal with it.
-
of course, it's entierly possible that, in a discussion about excellent music, one might mention jeff mangum's work as an example of said music. every refrence to him and neutral milk hotel is certainly not some indie asshole trying to show off his or her knowledge of obscura (which i wouldn't even consdier nmh to fall into, being a very popular indie band in the indie music world). whenever i mention mangum, it's because of my immense appreciation, often bordering on awe, for his music and his lyrics.
-
Wait. I didn't say Justin Timberlake is bad. I'm just saying that he's just another in a string of phenomenon whereby hipsters like something they would normally bash. It's kind of like all those emo kids who listen to Slayer.
And I still don't think JT or Kylie Minogue is anywhere near as good as Annie.
-
I believe I was the one to name drop Jeffy. If you use your I's to REED you will C that I only mentioned his little band because it was completely relevant to the thread. Plus I'm liek totally awesome for knowing about Neutral Milk Hotel cause liek nobody knows about them except for me so that makes me cool and stuff lol.
-
I dont know about you, but I like JT, more for what he represents than his music.
How ironic, that's what I dislike him for. Don't really have much of an opinion about his music, one way or the other, it's just not my kind of thing.
-
Just to keep this on topic..
Silversun Pickups were a band Pitchfork was wrong about. They cave the Pickups' 2006 album Carnavas a rather scathing review. Style simalarites to the Smashing Pumpkins aside, the album is a really good listen and a certain highlight of last year. It was weird how varying Websites differed in opinion on it. Pitchfork hated it yet woxy.com had it quite high on their year end list.
-
wait, different people had different opinions?
-
This isn't true either. Almost every band they have gone nuts about in the last two years has been on a major label. Their number two album on the 'Best of 2006' was the TV On The Radio album on Interscope. That's actually my main problem with Pitchfork. They give bands that already have so much exposure even more. It's just become an online version of every other music mag in America.
Is this accurate? Here are the labels that their best of 2006 albums are on.
[!K7]
[1st and 15th/Atlantic]
[4AD]
[4AD/Interscope]
[Absolutely Kosher]
[Ace Fu]
[Astralwerks]
[Bpitch Control]
[Capitol]
[Carpark]
[Def Jam]
[DFA/EMI]
[Diwphalanx/Southern Lord]
[Domino]
[Drag City]
[Ecstatic Peace/Universal]
[Gangsta Grillz]
[Geffen]
[Get Physical]
[Grand Hustle/Atlantic]
[Ibid]
[Illegal Art]
[iTunes]
[Jive] x2
[Kranky]
[Matador] x6
[Memphis Industries]
[Merge] x4
[Mute]
[Parlophone/EMI]
[Rabid/Mute]
[Reprise]
[Rough Trade]
[Secretly Canadian]
[Stones Throw]
[Sub Pop] x2
[Thrill Jockey]
[Tirk/Word and Sound]
[Vagrant]
[Warp]
[Wichita/V2]
Some of them are major labels, yes, but it's not exactly a staggering majority. Now I know this doesn't cover "almost every band they have gone nuts about in the last two years" but presumably it's indicative of roughly the range of things Pitchfork's varied bunch of writers (many of whom aren't even in America, let alone Chicago) give a shit about.
Do you know of an American music magazine that put Scott Walker's The Drift in their top 10 albums of the year? Which other American music mags highly rate releases on German tech house labels like BPitch Control or Get Physical? (That Booka Shade album really is the knackers, btw)
Out of curiosity, I know Matador had a stint as part of a major, but they're an indie again, aren't they?
-
About the rating numbers, this may sound odd but one time I was on soulseek and an employee of Pitchfork came on. S/he was playing requests on a streaming radio thing hosted at pitchforkmedia.com, so it seemed pretty legit. Someone mentioned the review numbers and s/he said it was a complete joke, that writers were encouraged to just chuck down whatever they feel like. In particular, the whole decimal point business was supposed to help indicate the complete ridiculousness of the rating system...
In short, the numbers were never supposed to be useful. It's something in the spirit of that guy from Silkworm who invented the objective rating system for music quality.
-
Speaking of AMG, by the way, that site is by no means perfect. Its coverage of the post-industrial/martial/neo-folk axis is bizarre and entirely inadequate. For example, not only do they spell Jhonn Balance's name incorrectly (as 'John Balance'), but their write-ups of Current 93 and Coil don't even mention the fact that he's dead. They don't even HAVE a post-industrial or neo-folk sub genre (or a psych-folk one for that matter, interesting as they have other more contentious and obscure modern folk subgenres like anti-folk), which leads to ridiculousness like Sol Invictus being dumped in the same sub-genre (Industrial) as Meat Beat Manifesto (Others are all over the place: Of The Wand And The Moon are apparently 'Dark Ambient/Goth Rock'). Its sort of acceptable until you see quite how many techno and house genres they cover seperately. The depth of coverage is appaling as well: Blood Axis and Gae Bolg have only one album listed and no reviews, Ordo Rosarius Equilibrio scrape two (no reviews). Hide and Seek don't exist and Sieben are an AMG ID and the phrase 'rock'. Interested if the malaise spread further, I searched for a few more of my favourite bands. Apparently, Sopor Aeternus is Industrial, is similiar to Throbbing Gristle and Type O Negative (!!!). Ewigkeit have no write-up, are represented by only three albums, have apparently performed songs by a classical composer (?) and are a power metal band. Other metal bands seem better represented, though the biographies are often short and out of date.
All music my arse.
-
So we can take refuge in the fact that all musical press are woefully inadequate then?
-
Well, all the musical press YOU'VE heard of.
-
AllMusic covers so many other artists so well and so comprehensively that their inattention to Blood Axis really doesn't make much of a difference to me. Sorry! They're still good.
-
Everything!
Amidoinitriteguyz?
-
About the rating numbers, this may sound odd but one time I was on soulseek and an employee of Pitchfork came on. S/he was playing requests on a streaming radio thing hosted at pitchforkmedia.com, so it seemed pretty legit. Someone mentioned the review numbers and s/he said it was a complete joke, that writers were encouraged to just chuck down whatever they feel like. In particular, the whole decimal point business was supposed to help indicate the complete ridiculousness of the rating system...
In short, the numbers were never supposed to be useful. It's something in the spirit of that guy from Silkworm who invented the objective rating system for music quality.
Yeah, I don't believe that for a second.
-
Heh, yeah, Silkworm were pretty good. Haven't heard their stuff in forever, admittedly.
Which bit don't you believe, DynamiteKid? Hopefully you don't believe what the pitchfork bod on soulseek said, rather than my whole account. Why the hell would I make up such a random thing?
I guess I do hang my self-worth on winning internet arguments and spreading misinformation, but that aside. :wink:
-
I don't believe the numbers they give are arbitrary, either. Not saying your story isn't true - who cares - but I've never seen them say an album is great and give it a 7, or say it's mediocre and give it a 9. The reviews may be bad, but they are nearly always consistent with the number given.
Perhaps the staff arbitrarily picks a number ahead of time, and then writes about the album as though that number is how good it is, without listening to it at all. Now THAT would explain a lot.
-
AllMusic covers so many other artists so well and so comprehensively that their inattention to Blood Axis really doesn't make much of a difference to me.
It's more like their complete innatention to the whole European post-industrial scene after 1995. Even the Current 93 article is out of date.
-
Heh, yeah, Silkworm were pretty good. Haven't heard their stuff in forever, admittedly.
Which bit don't you believe, DynamiteKid? Hopefully you don't believe what the pitchfork bod on soulseek said, rather than my whole account. Why the hell would I make up such a random thing?
I guess I do hang my self-worth on winning internet arguments and spreading misinformation, but that aside. :wink:
Yes it's the story this person told you I don't believe.
-
AllMusic covers so many other artists so well and so comprehensively that their inattention to Blood Axis really doesn't make much of a difference to me. Sorry! They're still good.
One would think that their name is a bit misleading, however.
-
What bothers me about AllMusic is that they always give a 4+ star review to basically every single album that exists that isn't obviously total shit (ie Limp Bizkit).
-
I submit that you are not correct, sir. Even a glance at Okkervil River's discography reveals two-and-a-half-star reviews. They do recognize excellence in a genre, but that's about it.
-
if they recognize excellence in a genre, why does okkervil river have two-and-a-half star reviews?? that seems like a lack of recognition to me.
-
I was wrong. Their lowest review for Okkervil River is three stars.
I was looking for some more stuff to prove you wrong, zerodrone, but I am unfortunately limited by bands I know, all of which are very good.
-
Johnny, your taste is mah-velous...impeccable even!
-
I was looking for some more stuff to prove you wrong, zerodrone, but I am unfortunately limited by bands I know, all of which are very good.
That may be the reason I had to resort to Limp Bizkit as an example. Every album by every band I like has a 4-5 star rating. Even the duff albums.
-
Johnny, your taste is mah-velous...impeccable even!
The fact that you concur only tells me good things about your own tastes. Remember, Johnny Knows Best.
Yeah, I went there.
-
I was looking for some more stuff to prove you wrong, zerodrone, but I am unfortunately limited by bands I know, all of which are very good.
That may be the reason I had to resort to Limp Bizkit as an example. Every album by every band I like has a 4-5 star rating. Even the duff albums.
Yeah, I was reading through their Weezer reviews recently, and their first two albums both got about five stars, and I thought, awesome someone appreciates this band's genius. Then they also gave the third and fourth albums like four and a half stars. Oh dear.
-
And Make Believe four.
Anyway, I found this little gem on Pitchfork's website, from 2000.
Asian Man Records is one of the worst companies in the world. Sure, there are some huge chemical corporations that outdo them from an ethical standpoint, but Asian Man's got more than their fair share of despicable attributes. Here's our beef: these people have been clogging our nation's already-diseased musical arteries with high-cholesterol punk for many moons, and someone needs to stop them.
Jesus, what surly sons of bitches.
-
Man I hope no one quotes the stuff I said in 2000 and throws it back in my face. I would feel like a complete fucking tool!
-
Yeah, I was reading through their Weezer reviews recently, and their first two albums both got about five stars, and I thought, awesome someone appreciates this band's genius. Then they also gave the third and fourth albums like four and a half stars. Oh dear.
What? I like both of those records. I think the Green Album is a collection of concise, lean pop songs, and Maladroit is hella rock. That's what made Make Believe so bad for me, that Rivers had almost recovered from whatever was preventing him from revisiting his songwriting glory days and then went and made an absolute shit record, after which he put his band on hiatus.
I can't really defend a four-star review of that album, except to say that the review itself is fairly well-written, acknowledging the album's place in Weezer's canon, in the current musical landscape and the overall sonic qualities of the record. So actually I can defend it, I just disagree with it. Oh dear, indeed.
-
Johnny, you're doing it wrong.
I can't really defend a four-star review of that album, except to say that the review itself is fairly well-written, acknowledging the album's place in Weezer's canon, in the current musical landscape and the overall sonic qualities of the record. So actually I can defend it, I just disagree with it. Oh dear, indeed. so obviously the reviewers were utter fucktards THAT KNOW NOTHING WHATSOEVER ABOUT GOOD MUSIC AT ALL!!!!1!11!111!ELEVENTY
I mean, that's how it works, right?
-
Yeah, I was reading through their Weezer reviews recently, and their first two albums both got about five stars, and I thought, awesome someone appreciates this band's genius. Then they also gave the third and fourth albums like four and a half stars. Oh dear.
What? I like both of those records. I think the Green Album is a collection of concise, lean pop songs, and Maladroit is hella rock. That's what made Make Believe so bad for me, that Rivers had almost recovered from whatever was preventing him from revisiting his songwriting glory days and then went and made an absolute shit record, after which he put his band on hiatus.
I can't really defend a four-star review of that album, except to say that the review itself is fairly well-written, acknowledging the album's place in Weezer's canon, in the current musical landscape and the overall sonic qualities of the record. So actually I can defend it, I just disagree with it. Oh dear, indeed.
A lot of the reviews are well written, yes. But some of them are a bit...well, odd. Like a four-star review will be chock-full of reasons why the release sucks and that it's not good enough. Last I checked, a four-star release was pretty great.
-
Man I hope no one quotes the stuff I said in 2000 and throws it back in my face. I would feel like a complete fucking tool!
Never become a politician or write for Pitchfork, then, I guess.
-
A lot of the reviews are well written, yes. But some of them are a bit...well, odd. Like a four-star review will be chock-full of reasons why the release sucks and that it's not good enough. Last I checked, a four-star release was pretty great.
At some point, I became fairly well convinced that whoever is in charge of star ratings cannot possibly be the same people who were writing the reviews. Actually, for all I can tell, allmusic content is produced by a disorganized pack of bandits working withing a system handed down to them by an alien race... I mean, bandits with good writing skills, but still.
-
I mean, that's how it works, right?
No, it should look like this:
By having a different opinion, I'm clearly a pretentious dumbass.
But you did catch my error. Thanks for the heads-up!
-
No, it should look like this:
I should get on Gabbly.
But you did catch my error. Thanks for the heads-up!
Double-fixed.
-
Never become a politician or write for Pitchfork, then, I guess.
Im thinking we've all said and had stupid beliefs 6ish years ago. Unless your like 60 and hit your stride in life.
-
I find Pitchfork pretty useful, but not as useful as, say, OiNK when it comes to finding out about new bands I might like. I've met a couple of their writers and they were really good guys- Matt LeMay in particular is a rad dude who does some good music in his own right (also at least one if not both of the guys in Matmos are PF writers). I really like Phillip Sherburne's monthly techno column and Brandon Stosuy's monthly metal column.
At the same time, there's plenty of stuff I disagree with and I dislike some of their writers' work, but that's how criticism goes. I find it very difficult to get worked up enough about a website to "hate" it, especially if they've done me no personal wrong.
-
They're gonna give the Deathmole album a 2.1 and then every QC comic for the two weeks afterwards will insinuate that the staff of Pitchfork has carnal relations with barnyard animals.
-
I mean, that's how it works, right?
No, it should look like this:
By having a different opinion, I'm clearly a pretentious dumbass.
But you did catch my error. Thanks for the heads-up!
Hey, I'm there for you man. I may not have all my facts straight, but the important thing is that I'm trying!
-
Pitchfork is wrong about a lot of things, but I have to give them credit for one thing. If it weren't for them there are a lot of bands I love that I would never have heard of.
I would have never picked up Silent Shout by the Knife if they hadn't raved about it months before it came out in the US.
So even though I think they're overly hard on even remotely mainstream bands like the White Stripes, and they prop up a bunch of overrated indie bands like The Rapture, I still have to have a generally positive view of them.