THESE FORUMS NOW CLOSED (read only)
Fun Stuff => BAND => Topic started by: Johnny C on 31 Mar 2005, 15:20
-
I submit, for your amusement, a game to find the most hurtful record review ever. My personal winner is the recent Stylus review for the Bravery's album (http://www.stylusmagazine.com/review.php?ID=2879), which seems like it's going to be a really good review up until the last line stabs you in the sternum.
-
My favourite is from the Drum Media - a free street magazine - years ago. Writing about Rage Against the Machine's then-current single "Bulls on Parade", the reviewer concluded by writing:
"It will probably be a hit of some kind, but the word 'hit' should be placed after the first word of the song's title."
-
My personal favorite record reviews have all come from the late Lester Bangs. To pick out one, however, would be impossible.
-
http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/record-reviews/l/louis-xiv/best-little-secrets-are-kept.shtml
I loved this review. First off... theme reviews rock. Secondly, you hate the band BEFORE the kick in the teeth line. Thirdly, it is one BIG fucking kick in the teeth to this band.
-
No, normally theme reviews are pretentious, overwrought tripe that doesn't tell you why an album is bad. Yours, however, was so funny that I'm willing to overlook those points.
-
I submit, for your amusement, a game to find the most hurtful record review ever. My personal winner is the recent Stylus review for the Bravery's album, which seems like it's going to be a really good review up until the last line stabs you in the sternum.
I bet when Sam Endicott read this he was thinking "Alright! A good review!" then he read the last line and went to his room and cried.
But hey, I like the Bravery, their single is very addicting. "Honest Mistake"
-
http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/record-reviews/l/louis-xiv/best-little-secrets-are-kept.shtml
I loved this review. First off... theme reviews rock. Secondly, you hate the band BEFORE the kick in the teeth line. Thirdly, it is one BIG fucking kick in the teeth to this band.
I HATE Pitchfork's theme reviews. So much. I generally do not have the negative reaction to Pitchfork that many have, but the theme reviews are beyond the limit for me.
-
I don't mind theme reviews. It's when you do them constantly, whether you have a good reason to or not, that it starts to wear thin. (*cough*BrentDiCrescenzo*cough*)
-
http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/record-reviews/l/louis-xiv/best-little-secrets-are-kept.shtml
I loved this review. First off... theme reviews rock. Secondly, you hate the band BEFORE the kick in the teeth line. Thirdly, it is one BIG fucking kick in the teeth to this band.
I freely admit that review elicited laughs from me.
Favorite line: "I'm a fuck machine with only one speed: fuck."
-
http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=188
Scroll down to the fourth one down (In Flames vs Tiffany)
Insanely brilliant.
-
jesus. that bravery review was ridiculous. i think the author must be PMSing or something, because that was nothing more than bitchy.
*in a coddling voice* Does Sarah Kahrl need some chocolate?
-
Favorite line: "I'm a fuck machine with only one speed: fuck."
-Yeah man, it's awesome! It's like I'm fucking British, right?
-You definitely sound British, yes.
-Ha ha totally! I didn't drink all that heroin for nothing.
-
I like theme reviews! I havn't been reading Pitchfork forever, but in about the year I've been frequenting the site, I've found the theme reviews a breath of fresh air. I don't want to hear why a band is mediocre in droll, serious prose over and over with no respite. I also don't have a negative reaction to Pitchfork. I mean, its a review site. I don't agree with all their reviews, and wish they did more reviews on the hardcore/thrash-punk/grind end of things (Cephalic Carnage get a review, but neither Axegrinder nor Phobia?), but on the whole they do good reviews of a lot of the music I like, and bad reviews of a lot of the music I don't.
But yeah, back to theme reviews... I find they usually do tell me what is wrong with a band, just often in a roundabout way, which I'm fine with.
I was looking for a really offensive review so that this post did more than argue, but I failed.
-
When a professional review does not give a recommendation to the reader (for that album if they liked it, for another album or band/artist exploring a similar field if they didn't), the writer is at fault. Reviews are supposed to be helpful, and when people who are paid to write them come up with either intentionally comic self-indulgence, pure negativity or both it is to me at least infuriating. Some of the negative reviews from NME in particular come across to me as just someone giving a "nobody should like this band anyway" kind of gesture - has anyone ever seen the quick and snappy 4/10 for Einstürzende Neubauten's Silence Is Sexy?
That said, the Pitchfork review of St. Anger was quite funny.
-
http://www.aversionline.com/reviews/2240/
This one is priceless. Again, the last line is absolutely killer.
(Edit) Oh lord, and here we have the band's rebuttal: http://www.butcheredmillenium.com/id8.html
-
Wow, that reviewer sounds like a complete dickhead . . . And the band were surprisingly reasonable about it all.
-
I'm almost disappointed at how reasonable and mature that rebuttal was. I mean, come on guys, your name is Cockdeath- you wrote yourself a blank fucking check to be wankers. And properly executed wankery is much more entertaining than reasonability. Even as it stood, they could at least have challenged the guy to a blindfolded knife fight on the field of honor and insulted his dog's manhood.
-
ok, on the "this is spinal tap" film, a review for the album "shark sandwich" was a simple a two word review, "SHIT SANDWICH"
That to me is a very insulting review.
-
Best review I ever read -
George Michael's 'Listen Without Prejudice':
"Listen without speakers."
Genius.
I'm all for reviews which condemn an album/artist in one fell swoop - provided that band is established enough for people to know what they sound like...and I also think that theme reviews are better reading than bog standard 'well, it sounds like a cross between this and this and has some cool guitar riffs' stuff - chances are, if you're reading a review, it's because you feel strongly about music, so it's only right that the reviewer has an opinion too, and they won't always agree with you, but it's better to have some life in the words you read than something bland and methodical.
That said, it's so much easier to criticise a band than it is to praise them.
-
ok, on the "this is spinal tap" film, a review for the album "shark sandwich" was a simple a two word review, "SHIT SANDWICH"
That to me is a very insulting review.
end thread.
-
haha
ace.
http://www.tinymixtapes.com/musicreviews/n/nine_inch_nails.htm
owned
-
Though danish reviewers are not generally abrasive, this review is at least a bit sour Broken Social Scene - You Forgot it in People (http://www.undertoner.dk/article/review/anmeldelser/pladeanmeldelser/pladeanmeldelsesarkiv/broken+social+scene%3A+you+forgot+it+in+people)
Since it's in danish, I will translate the last bit, before that he has been complaining about the terrible production and sound quality.
Just because a flock of postrock-people decide to drop the 20 minutes long and epic songs to make pop music, it doesn't have to be revolutionary.
There is not a lot of fresh thinking to be found. In spite of that, one american reviewer after the other wails about how this cd is
"like no other pop album you've ever heard."
How long have they pray tell had their heads(and the including ears) up their arses?
Ouch.
-
http://www.tinymixtapes.com/musicreviews/n/nine_inch_nails.htm
That is in fact the best record review ever.
-
Summed up my take on the album pretty much perfectly.
-
When a professional review does not give a recommendation to the reader (for that album if they liked it, for another album or band/artist exploring a similar field if they didn't), the writer is at fault. Reviews are supposed to be helpful, and when people who are paid to write them come up with either intentionally comic self-indulgence, pure negativity or both it is to me at least infuriating. Some of the negative reviews from NME in particular come across to me as just someone giving a "nobody should like this band anyway" kind of gesture - has anyone ever seen the quick and snappy 4/10 for Einstürzende Neubauten's Silence Is Sexy?
That said, the Pitchfork review of St. Anger was quite funny.
Your not a writer are you? Reviewing ANYTHING is an art. A short and scathing review can be every bit as informative as 500 words of eloquence. Simplicity is often important to making the point, so adding on a load of crap at the end about other bands you might like instead is counterproductive.
Ultimately, all art is self-indulgence. If you dont like it, read something else.
-
When I saw the NIN review on TMT, I couldn't figure out what was going on for a second.
-
Ultimately, all art is self-indulgence. If you dont like it, read something else.
and remember kids, there is no such thing as shitty art... Well except for that italian guy who put his feces in cans and put them on display. That was kind of shitty.
it became even more shitty when people started arguing about who's fault it was that they were beginning to leak, talk about anal.
I think I have used my kvota of toilet humour for today, I'll be back!
-
Pitchfork's review of Death Cab for Cutie's Transatlanticism was hurtful....to my eyes. How the fuck am I supposed to read that bullshit concept review. I usually love their concept reviews for entertainment value, but this was just crap. The handful of points I found scattered through that mess were some that I agreed with, but I like to be able to read a review. kthxbi.
-
So your complaint is that it wasnt boring enough?
-
Just because it's art, doesn't mean it's good.
-
There's nothing wrong with concept reviews if they're done well. I am a music reviewer myself and sometimes, instead of writing another review that says "this band is not too bad but they sound like everything else that's around at the moment", it is fun to do something a bit more creative. A good concept review will slip relevant information in there anyway.
Get over it Pitchfork-haytas!
-
Just because it's art, doesn't mean it's good.
I don't think that any art is factually good or bad. You either like it or you don't, or think that it's more or less relevant to your life. Music is art.
This is my reality.
-
I would be down with pitchfork if they ever reviewed any remotely interesting music.
Metal Hammer allow guest writers, normally band members, to do reviews. I can't remember who it was, what release or what band, but I remember one reviewer giving a particular album -99 out of 100, and saying that listening to it was marginally more traumatic than when he walked in on his parents to find his mother sodomising his father with a strap-on.
-
Just because it's art, doesn't mean it's good.
I don't think that any art is factually good or bad. You either like it or you don't, or think that it's more or less relevant to your life. Music is art.
This is my reality.
So...you've proved my point. Argument is useless.
-
Khar.
Holy shit, Imagine being in that band and reading it.
Also, you should totally give me a link.
-
I once read a reveiw in which all three of these things were written: "Disco Volante was a terrible album", "DFD* took Bungle's ideas and just made them so much more intresting", and "I guess Mike Patton should've just stopped with 'Angel Dust'".
I was chewing my fist by the end. I wanted to find this person and kill them nine times, and then kill every peice of them nine times, then kill their family.
*Dog Fashion Disco
-
The problem I've got with pitchfork, is that they seem to strive to be completely unreadable. They're not quite at the level of 'Landscapes and Land Uses', my geography textbook, but they're close.
-
I like Pitchfork's writers. I find I rarely agree completely with any critic's opinion of an album, but it's more how they handle the review itself that interests me.
-
I wasn't very fond of Atreyu's latest. (http://www.vendettazine.co.uk/mt-static/reviews/archive/000729.php)
-
Just because it's art, doesn't mean it's good.
I don't think that any art is factually good or bad. You either like it or you don't, or think that it's more or less relevant to your life. Music is art.
This is my reality.
So...you've proved my point. Argument is useless.
No, i dont think you HAVE a point. Art is entirely subjective right? Music is art. So is writing. And you critisise a peice of creative writing on the subject of music, on objective grounds?
-
On the fact that I don't like it because I can bearly read it. What's your problem with it? You brought up the argument for no reason. This imploded on itself the minute you mentioned it.
Christ man, let me think without technicalities.
-
This argument may seem pointless to the outside observer. What you don't know, however, is that whoever wins it gets to drive a car completely made out of candy!
-
That's gotta be a safety hazard, I mean can you both eat and drive a car at the same time, while maintaining sound driving.
I know I couldn't.
-
I konw I couldn't your MOM LAWLS
-
The Louis XIV review I have read before, very funny, but very wrong, that is a very good album. Love the With Teeth one though.
-
http://www.punknews.org/reviews.php?op=albumreview&id=2881
Wonderful.
-
Now THOSE are good concept reviews. :P
-
Some of the comments are even better.
-
Dog Fashion Disco
Dog Fashion Disco is like, really fucking boring and shitty. To the 16th power.
-
No, i dont think you HAVE a point. Art is entirely subjective right? Music is art. So is writing. And you critisise a peice of creative writing on the subject of music, on objective grounds?
Art is entirely subjective? But by applying the objective categories of subjectivity/objectivity to art, havnt you denied its subjectivity even as you speak it? And furthermore, is all art subjective? When art is trying to make a point, as a lot of art does (ever actually been to an art museum?), then its success in conveying the feeling, reasoning, or information that it wanted to convey is an objective criterion by which we can judge that art. Furthermore, why should we take beauty to be subjective? For what reason (remember, if it is entirely subjective then you cannot legitimately criticise my views about it on objective grounds, but by believing it to be objective I am free to ask for objective grounding for your belief. The wonders of self-referentially incoherent opponents) should we believe that art actually IS subjective? I am inclined to believe that art has some objective criteria by which we can judge it, especially if that art has a purpose. Such as reviewing a record. If the point of a piece of art is to review a record, then maybe it can give me some fucking information about said record. Otherwise, I am pretty fucking certain that its a heck of shitty piece of art.
And all of this notwithstanding, why the heck did someone ressurect this thread? I havn't been on the forum in years, but is this a new trend? Or has noone noticed the timestamp on the first post?
-
I konw I couldn't your MOM LAWLS
Seriously, I couldn't, seeing as I don't have a driver's license, I mean as if it weren't hard enough already... geez
-
And all of this notwithstanding, why the heck did someone ressurect this thread? I havn't been on the forum in years, but is this a new trend? Or has noone noticed the timestamp on the first post?
Not that you mention it, it is kindof old. but I love the way the post that revived it read 'end thread'.
-
This one's pretty nasty: http://www.rockmidgets.com/releases.php?&id=631
-
Try this one, it's just mean http://pitchforkmedia.com/record-reviews/j/jet/get-born.shtml
-
Try this one, it's just mean http://pitchforkmedia.com/record-reviews/j/jet/get-born.shtml
Hahahaha. To be fair, it's the most derivative record I've ever heard, even down to the album cover. I think they justified their own panning..
-
I was kind of wishing that rockmidgets.com would be a website devoted entirely to mercilessly critiquing bands that feature kids between kindergarten and Grade Four.
If there isn't such a website, someone needs to start it. NOW.
-
Wish granted!
Except without the "band" part.
http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=irule
-
I don't particularly care for reviews or the people who do reviews because I often times find myself not agreeing with them but I must admit that the Louis XIV review was hilarious.
-
i found some gems in the Aug/Sept 2005 issue of American Music Press.
ALMIGHTY LUMBERJACKS OF DEATH
"Always Out of Control, but Never Out of Beer" CD
16 tracks-everything this Detroit band recorded during their tenure in the late 80s/early 90s. Musically, they drew heavily from the likes of the OPPRESSED and early BLITZ, and sound all the better for it. Lyrically, unfortunately, they were (are) retarded morons. They love the flag (so fucking join up and fight like a real man, you hypocritical fuck) and pussy. Not so good for your country, or women, I suspect. (RK)
BREAK THE SILENCE
"Merciless Mercenary" CD
One song is called "Flea Faced God". Another is called "Scroll Of Anger". The singer is named A.P. Hellthroat. These reviews just write themselves. But yo, about that singer's name, Hellthroat needs to be a band name. Someone please start a shitty metal band and call it Hellthroat. Then record a demo, send it to me, and I'll make fun of it because it has demons and dragons and shit on the cover. (STM)
DEMONS AND WIZARDS
"Touched By The Crimson King" CD
Holy shit, normally I'd clown on a band like this and say something about demons and wizards, but I'll be damned, they beat me to it. They've made a preemptive strike. They've got hand! Shit. Whatever. It's still an album about demons and wizards, so I win. No, we all lose. (STM)
DEW-SCENTED
"Issue VI" CD
Are you dead fucking serious with that name? Dew-Scented? That was the best you could come up with? (STM)
SMALL TOWNS BURN A LITTLE SLOWER
"Morality As Home Entertainment" CD
Over recent years, band names have been getting longer and longer, more vague, and more inane. I think, for the most part, we've all sat back and accepted it as the way it is. But I'm here to say I've had enough--because this one just pushed it a bit too far! Seriously--it's just too long, too bizarre, and just makes absolutely no sense. C'mon now guys--SMALL TOWNS BURN A LITTLE SLOWER--are you serious? Is this a fact? Do you know this is the case? Have you burned, say, a large town, and timed it and compared this to a small town? I'm truly interested in knowing the facts! Oh, and the band itself--they're doing the thing that the kids like. File with: ANBERLIN, THE RECEIVING END OF SIRENS, UNDEROATH, et al. (MWB)
VARIOUS ARTISTS
"What The Kids Want" CD
The title says it all, doesn't it? And they're right... this sampler of Tooth & Nail/Solid State bands is EXACTLY what the kid wants. Tight pop with hooks and screams. The bands featured are TERMINAL, WAKING ASHLAND, AS CITIES BURN, EAGER SEAS, and DISCOVER AMERICA. It's what the kids want! It sells! Is it what I want? No. (MWB)
-
I desire a subscription to this magazine very much.
-
I would love to start a magazine like that. That would rock so hard.
-
Demons and Wizards totally deserves it. Seriously, way to steal your album title from King Crimson, assholes.
-
The name King Crimson was coined by Peter Sinfield as a synonym for Beelzebub, prince of demons; according to Fripp, Beelzebub is an anglicised form of the Arabic phrase "B'il Sabab", meaning "the man with an aim"
So they could have called it 'Touched by Satan', but instead they made it a cool tribute to a band I'm sure they love, given their taste in covers and apparent influences.
Plus the self-titled owns your fucking soul.
Anyway, criticising metal bands based on the principle of 'hurr hurr silly name' is a) about as original as a Darkness single b) biased, all metal bands have silly names. If you don't like or at least understand the cliches you shouldn't be touching the metal section. It's like having some dude who craps himself whenever he hears brass instruments reviewing all the ska records. c) says nothing about the actual music. Did the guy even listen to the CD? Did he recieve it? It isn't even a novelty review. It's like having yelling birds retarded cousin reviewing your records.
Similiar points to all those reviews of other genres that use similiar tactics. I wouldn't buy a rag filled with shit like that, to be frank.
-
Anyway, criticising metal bands based on the principle of 'hurr hurr silly name' is a) about as original as a Darkness single b) biased, all metal bands have silly names. If you don't like or at least understand the cliches you shouldn't be touching the metal section. It's like having some dude who craps himself whenever he hears brass instruments reviewing all the ska records. c) says nothing about the actual music. Did the guy even listen to the CD? Did he recieve it? It isn't even a novelty review. It's like having yelling birds retarded cousin reviewing your records.
well, the guy/girl who was clowning on those metal bands also gave stellar reviews to As I Lay Dying, Soilent Green, Cipher, Mistress, etc., which leads me to believe that he/she is the magazine's resident metal/metalcore/grindcore/whatever reviewer, a style of music that I will admit I don't know much about. I just thought the reviews were funny.
-
See, those are all those new fangled American grindcore bands that Fuse has been hawking off. Seriously, AILD and all their cronies suck ass.
-
meh, i was just pulling names out of the magazine. i don't really care, anyway.
-
See, those are all those new fangled American grindcore bands that Fuse has been hawking off. Seriously, AILD and all their cronies suck ass.
Beat me to it. This was on my mental check-list of things to rant about, but I got distracted watching DVD's of season six of The West Wing.
But yes, trumpeting, let's be frank, rather derivative art-grind and art-sludge and rubbishing real metal because they have silly names is just trend-whoring. Fine if it's Pig Destroyer or Discordance Axis or, y'know, any good grind, but seriously.
-
fair enough.
however, i maintain that Dew-Scented is a pretty fucking stupid name for ANY type of band.
-
TMT's Review of Black Mountain (http://tinymixtapes.com/musicreviews/b/black_mountain.htm)
Kinda makes me want to slap the reviewer.
-
I avoid most record reviews since I almost always find the reviewers to be pretentious twats who seem to love extraneous verbiage more then music. Normally, I just listen to tracks off of the internet and buy the ones I like or albums which friends recommend. This no doubt reveals me to not be a hipster but that doesn't really bother me either.
-
I personally have only a couple of reviewers who I would trust 100% (Fred Mills being among them), but, on the most part, I believe that individual reviews shouldn't be seen as indicative of a general truth.
I think the best way to get an idea about the album is to read at least three or four reviews from a variety of sources. Now, not everyone really cares to do this, which I understand, and not everyone has that much spare time, which I understand as well.
I just believe that that's the most effective way to take reviews.
-
I personally have only a couple of reviewers who I would trust 100% (Fred Mills being among them), but, on the most part, I believe that individual reviews shouldn't be seen as indicative of a general truth.
I think the best way to get an idea about the album is to read at least three or four reviews from a variety of sources. Now, not everyone really cares to do this, which I understand, and not everyone has that much spare time, which I understand as well.
I just believe that that's the most effective way to take reviews.
I tend to read 3 or 4 just because of my reading material. My parents' newspaper does album reviews each Saturday, and I buy two monthly music magazines.