THESE FORUMS NOW CLOSED (read only)

  • 28 Apr 2024, 11:44
  • Welcome, Guest
Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: 1 2 [3]   Go Down

Author Topic: Things Pitchfork Has Been Wrong About  (Read 34965 times)

Chesire Cat

  • Scrabble hacker
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1,363
  • Standing proudly behind unpopular opinions
Re: Things Pitchfork Has Been Wrong About
« Reply #100 on: 17 Jan 2007, 20:31 »

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!
Logged
"In this zero sum game everything given to another, reduces me"

Johnny C

  • Mentat
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9,483
  • i wanna be yr slide dog
    • I AM A WHORE FOR MY OWN MUSIC
Re: Things Pitchfork Has Been Wrong About
« Reply #101 on: 17 Jan 2007, 22:14 »

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.
Logged
[02:12] yuniorpocalypse: let's talk about girls
[02:12] Thug In Kitchen: nooo

Will

  • Bling blang blong blung
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1,158
  • Creeeeeeeepy bear HEARTS YOU!!!
    • William James (author page)
Re: Things Pitchfork Has Been Wrong About
« Reply #102 on: 17 Jan 2007, 22:20 »

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?
Logged
Quote from: JohhnyC
In grade six one of my classmates during sex ed asked if the penis could be broken. The teacher's response was "Not in the same way you'd break a bone. I still wouldn't take a hammer to it or anything."

Thrillho

  • Global Moderator
  • Awakened
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13,130
  • Tall. Beets.
Re: Things Pitchfork Has Been Wrong About
« Reply #103 on: 18 Jan 2007, 04:06 »

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.
Logged
In the end, the thing people will remember is kindness.

ImRonBurgundy?

  • Bling blang blong blung
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1,233
  • "That's all," he added.
Re: Things Pitchfork Has Been Wrong About
« Reply #104 on: 18 Jan 2007, 04:14 »

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.
Logged
You just came back to shit in my heart, didn't you Ryan?

Doctor Funk

  • Guest
Re: Things Pitchfork Has Been Wrong About
« Reply #105 on: 18 Jan 2007, 07:11 »

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.
Logged

Johnny C

  • Mentat
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9,483
  • i wanna be yr slide dog
    • I AM A WHORE FOR MY OWN MUSIC
Re: Things Pitchfork Has Been Wrong About
« Reply #106 on: 18 Jan 2007, 10:44 »

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!
Logged
[02:12] yuniorpocalypse: let's talk about girls
[02:12] Thug In Kitchen: nooo

Storm Rider

  • Older than Moses
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4,075
  • Twelve stories high, made of radiation
Re: Things Pitchfork Has Been Wrong About
« Reply #107 on: 18 Jan 2007, 10:48 »

No, it should look like this:

I should get on Gabbly.

But you did catch my error. Thanks for the heads-up!

Double-fixed.
Logged
Quote
[22:06] Shane: We only had sex once
[22:06] Shane: and she was wicked just...lay there

Chesire Cat

  • Scrabble hacker
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1,363
  • Standing proudly behind unpopular opinions
Re: Things Pitchfork Has Been Wrong About
« Reply #108 on: 18 Jan 2007, 11:23 »

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.
Logged
"In this zero sum game everything given to another, reduces me"

jeph

  • Administrator
  • Duck attack survivor
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1,848
  • MON DIEU!
    • Questionable Content
Re: Things Pitchfork Has Been Wrong About
« Reply #109 on: 18 Jan 2007, 12:51 »

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.
Logged
Deathmole Jacques' head takes up the bottom half of the panel, with his words taking up the top half. He is not concerned about the life of his friend.

Storm Rider

  • Older than Moses
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4,075
  • Twelve stories high, made of radiation
Re: Things Pitchfork Has Been Wrong About
« Reply #110 on: 18 Jan 2007, 12:57 »

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.
Logged
Quote
[22:06] Shane: We only had sex once
[22:06] Shane: and she was wicked just...lay there

Will

  • Bling blang blong blung
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1,158
  • Creeeeeeeepy bear HEARTS YOU!!!
    • William James (author page)
Re: Things Pitchfork Has Been Wrong About
« Reply #111 on: 18 Jan 2007, 14:29 »

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!
Logged
Quote from: JohhnyC
In grade six one of my classmates during sex ed asked if the penis could be broken. The teacher's response was "Not in the same way you'd break a bone. I still wouldn't take a hammer to it or anything."

BillAdama

  • Guest
Re: Things Pitchfork Has Been Wrong About
« Reply #112 on: 22 Jan 2007, 00:39 »

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.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3]   Go Up