THESE FORUMS NOW CLOSED (read only)
Fun Stuff => BAND => Topic started by: Shaft on 30 May 2005, 04:47
-
http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/record-reviews/a/autechre/untilted.shtml
(...In case it's not obvious... That review made me want to hunt "Dominique" and push lemons up her anus)
-
I dunno, I think it's a relatively interesting way of presenting two points of view. Had to check the rating to see what she actually thought of the bloody thing though.
-
Lester Bangs is the only record reviewer for me. LESTER BANGS 4 LIFE
-
hay guys, im from pitchfork and I obviously made every band ever popular by writing an article about them 8)
what?
-
See, that's not even the worst review because she actually talks about what the album sounds like. Some of them don't even grant us that courtesy.
EDIT: Case in point: this (http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/record-reviews/a/audioslave/out-of-exile.shtml).
-
I know it's all fashionable to hate pitchfork right now, but I thought both those reviews were pretty good. I agree with Khar on the Autechre one - it shows you two different points of view, so you are better informed as to whether you'll like it, based on which "character" you identify with the most.
As for the Audioslave review, it tells you that the album sounds like Chris Cornell singing stupid lyrics, just like the last one. I mean come on, Audioslave were pretty much a joke from the get-go anyway...
-
That Audioslave review pissed me off. The requirements for that post must be the ability to hear.
Not like I was expecting much from the new album, but they could at least, oh I dunno, review it.
-
For what it's worth, Dom is a dude.
Just sayin.
-
I never read Pitchfork so whenever the topic is brought up on here (and it is alot), I think of the great Project Pitchfork.
I always got my music from reading Isolation Tank (the catalog.. i guess it's a webpage now http://www.isotank.com). I see what all your problems are now with Pitchfork. geez... I can write better than that.
-
Dominique is a man's name?
Well, there goes my last logic circuit.
-
I think Pitchfork has like one token female writer Amanda Petruesh (last name certainly spelt wrong) most online music mags can't even get that. I still read Pitchfork but they don't seem to review much in my field anymore and as demonstrated here they try to be far too clever with the writing.
-
I have always thought that most of Pitchforks staff were idiots, they rarely talk about the music, just pulls off pseudo-intellectual crap instead. Though they are sometimes arsed to actually write their opinion, and then it's pretty either shit or heavenly nectar. The problem as I see is that they are not even trying to be objective, instead they let all their personal "baggage", flood their reviews. But alas they are the only foreign mag I know of besides Rolling Stone and NME...
...and they hate Mars Volta AND Tool, that I cannot forgive :(
-
And because they hate TMV and Tool, that's exactly why I don't entirely hate them.
-
I fucking love pitchfork, especially when nick sylvester writes stuff like this:
http://pitchforkmedia.com/record-reviews/d/daft-punk/daft-club.shtml
-
My favourite indie site review I've ever seen is Tinymixtapes review of NIN - With Teeth. That was actually pretty awesome. As far as overall goes, there's a review somewhere of 'Crotchduster - Big Fat Box of Shit' which ends with the reviewer giving it 'a million fucking snarly evil metal skulls with knives stuck in their heads out of ten' which I thought was pretty awesome.
-
http://www.tinymixtapes.com/musicreviews/n/nine_inch_nails.htm
That made my day when I first saw it. Also, Tiny Mix Tapes' review of The Residents' Animal Lover made me happy, because not only did they actually REVIEW IT, but it got a good score. woo!
-
http://www.markprindle.com is the only review site for me.
-
www.allmusic.com
That site owns everything. Seriously. It's called ALL MUSIC for a reason. ;D
It's very impartial and fair; everything Pitchfork isn't.
-
funniest review ever (http://pitchforkmedia.com/record-reviews/d/daft-punk/daft-club.shtml)
While not the best review I've ever read, it sure was the funniest.
-
http://www.allmusic.com
Allmusic is the Oracle.
-
Actually, I really liked "Godel, Escher, Bach: The Eternal Goldren Braid". That doesn't really affect my opinion of the review, but it was a damn good book.
-
My favourite indie site review I've ever seen is Tinymixtapes review of NIN - With Teeth.
hell yes. i used to love NIN, but i'm afraid that that review is bang-on. this would be my reaction also, if i wasn't some kind of helpless data-hoarder.
-
I'm finding most the reviews amusing. I really don't see much to be up in arms about.
-
that daft punk review is fantastic. i've not even heard the remix album, but the descriptions of the originals are spot on... especially "harder, better, faster, stronger".. that song is the fucking shit. in the cheesiest way possible, of course.
-
hell yes. i used to love NIN, but i'm afraid that that review is bang-on. this would be my reaction also, if i wasn't some kind of helpless data-hoarder.
I know the feeling. I have so much stuff clogging up my hard drives I hardly ever listen to.
-
I'm finding most the reviews amusing. I really don't see much to be up in arms about.
Well, it's one thing to be amusing, but it's another thing to be amusing whilst providing an informative record review, and that's the main problem that I have with Pitchfork; when they try to do the latter, they just end up doing the former, and that's not really what they should be doing. If I want music writing that's bitchy for no reason, I read Your Band Sucks. I don't want that from a site that's supposed to critically analyze music and give me an opinion on whether an album is worth buying.
-
Their review system is entirely whacko to help matters.
-
I find Pitchfork amusing. You just have to take some reviews with a grain of salt to enjoy it. Which is hard if they're out to get your favorite band, but hey... it's a review site.
-
Heh, they LOVE my favorite band, but I guess you already know that already. :P
Oh, DAYUM, that avatar is huge! This aint the Death Cab boards, you know!
-
Heh, they LOVE my favorite band, but I guess you already know that already. :P
Oh, DAYUM, that avatar is huge! This aint the Death Cab boards, you know!
Still? :o Hokay. How about now?
-
Dominique Leone is actually one of their better writers—he usually avoids the standard Pitchfork pseudo-prose and lockstep taste. That said, I think Pitchfork in general gets more shit than it deserves.
And yes, Mark Prindle (http://www.markprindle.com) is the best reviewer on the web.
-
Nah... People only mention the bad reviews. No one would say "Hey guys check out this great review! It clearly states what the music is like, and is written in a way which is easy to understand! It's not too opinionated or biased either!" The problem with Pitchfork is that when they give a weird review it's always in a new way that they hadn't thought of before, so it's fun to point out there weirdness and be all bitchy.
I don't really like the way the scores don't always reflect the review. I've seen some where the reviewer appears totrally indifferent to the album, yet has given it a high score. And vice versa.
Still, they're not completely insane. They gave my favourite album 10.0
-
I think I might have mentioned this before, but the reason the scores don't always reflect the review is that the writer does the review, and the editor of the site gives it their own opinion in the score.
Also, I don't read Pitchfork avidly, but it's ok, and while it shrieks pretension, a lot of their writers have imagination - I don't want a track by track guide to what an album sounds like, to the very note, I'd rather get an idea of what it made someone feel, or may have the potential to make someone feel.
I write reviews, and giving blow by blow accounts of song progressions is tedious to write and read. It needs some spark, otherwise no-one will bother to read it. That says, there is a balance to be reached, but if the writer's good, chances are you'll get a decent review which is enjoyable to read, gives you a vague idea of what to expect, and that you might not agree with.
-
I actually like the oddly-written reviews, but I feel they should address the album at some point.
Best review ever goes to Pitchfork's review of Louis XIV's debut.
"-Well you would definitely have me hoodwinked, Mr. Hill. There's one last thing I'd like to check before you leave. Can you stand up straight for me please? I'd like to check for spine curvature.
-My back! Shit Doc, that tickles. Like a butt blowjob!
-Exactly as I suspected.
-What's wrong Doc, is my spine crooked from fucking too hard?
-No, there's nothing wrong with your spine per se.
-Then what's wrong?
-You don't have one."
-----
Yet STILL, it got a better score than Travis Morrison's debut, which I feel deserved the perfect 0. XP
-
best line from the louis XIV review was of course..
"I'm a fuck machine with one speed! Fuck!"
-
See, that's not even the worst review because she actually talks about what the album sounds like. Some of them don't even grant us that courtesy.
EDIT: Case in point: this (http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/record-reviews/a/audioslave/out-of-exile.shtml).
But knowing (and lovin) Chris Cornell thru the years, this may be the funniest thing ever. Its a crap review but it is hilarious.
-
The aim of a piece of writing should always be to convey information to the reader - NOT to say "look at me! Look how clever and witty I am!" For a reivew - whether it be of a C.D., a book, a film or whatever - this is doubly so. At their worst the Pitchfork reviews are not reviews at all: they're smug smirks put into words. If the writers don't have the discpline to weed that kind of crap out, then the editor should.
-
That says, there is a balance to be reached
You know, there's a great book called Kill Your Idols, in which rock critics basically tear apart classic albums that they hate. The best essay in it is probably the review of The Doors, which is essentially a transcript of the critic and the book's editor listening to the album and saying why they don't like The Doors. It is pretty in-depth, but it manages to be funny while at the same time drawing attention to the points that the critic wanted to get across.
By contrast, the worst essay was that of the critic who hated Rumours. It was basically just a fantasy where he killed Fleetwood Mac. The album wasn't even mentioned.
And probably the second worst essay was the incredibly dry deconstruction of Neil Young's Harvest - a track by track discussion of why the album's bad, without wit or anything.
Point? There is a balance to be reached; however, I don't think
Nah... People only mention the bad reviews. No one would say "Hey guys check out this great review! It clearly states what the music is like, and is written in a way which is easy to understand! It's not too opinionated or biased either!"
is giving the readers of Pitchfork any benefit of the doubt. We criticize because we love, dammit, and we love when they hit that balance. They do need to be flicked on the ear occasionally, though, so they don't veer one way or the other and become crap (like the two essays which kind of marred an otherwise flawless read).
(i'm tired so there may be apologies later.)