Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
Is it me or are they doing this more often? So No Age, worth a buy for someone approaching his overdraft?
...if you're buying things based on reviews/scores, are you going for one over the other out of DiS and Pitchfork, or looking at both?
Only we gave Nouns a 9/10.
So I'd say yes: spent a tenner on it.
but a nine from Pitchfork is a lot rarer than one from DiS, therefore making the record stand-out a bit more.
The DiS review is good
I spent a lot on pre-ordering this week.
Mogwai Young Team re-issue, Superfuz Bigmuff re-issue, and Nouns. I NEVER pre-order.
Cannot miss out on the vinyl.
just search for young team. Vinyl is ££££££££ though.
I cant wait to get my hands on a proper copy maybe on rocord as well as CD and then some T-Shirts and genral No Age gubbins. Not to mention seeing them live heck that will be somat else.
but im listening to it again and its sooooooooooo fucking good
It's totally deserved.
I'm also going to plug Titus Andronicus (which I have been doing a lot) who pitchfork gave 8.5 to the other week but nobody seems to be talking about. They are AWESOME. I will get people liking this album.
why do people pay so much attention to Pitchfork ratings?
The whole decimal placing thing is so irritatingly pretentious for a start
record of giving accurate reviews?
I'm afraid that hasn't happened to me yet!
If we're going to turn against bands because a well respected magazine really likes their album, as indeed have a lot of well respected magazines, then we might as well all not bother.
1. Claiming or demanding a position of distinction or merit, especially when unjustified.
2. Making or marked by an extravagant outward show; ostentatious.
In what way is fixing a decimal point to the end of a score pretentious? For one thing, it means they don't spunk out 9/10s like DiS, which in turn means people actually sit up and take notice if a record gets over 9/10.
I think there's been two in the past month (April, not including No Age since that's only out today). In A Month in Records, only Frightened Rabbit received a 9/10, and IMHO it wasn't worth that.
March was an odd month, with Mystery Jets and Cadence Weapon and Why?. But they're all easy 9/10 records. If there's one thing DiS writers are guilty of it's giving an album 8/10 when it's more likely a 7 or even a 6, but I can't listen to everything before/while subbing/uploading, so I'm not always in a position to mark a review down. Or up, for that matter!
bring Half Man Half Biscuit, which didn't run until May.
was probably unfair, but at the same time I think you give too many out. Of course that's in part down to your scoring system, which was kind of my point e.g. you gave Antidotes a 9 when you admitted it would have received an 8.6 in a Pitchfork-style scoring system. An 8.6, while obviously an excellent score, doesn't have quite the same resonance as a 9, if you see what I mean.
"If there's one thing DiS writers are guilty of it's giving an album 8/10 when it's more likely a 7 or even a 6"
but DiS is always going to focus on albums in the general ballpark of what might appeal to its readers and writers, so reviews are always going to congregate around 7, 8 and 9. There'd be more 3s, 4s and 5s - giving the 10-point score more points of reference - only if they started covering shite that nobody's interested in anyway.
why Pitchfork don't just admit they use percentages.
is that people could give, even the slightest damn, about what reviewers or "critics" think in the first place. If these critics knew the secret to good music, they'd do it themselves.
Surely in an era when we can all listen to music on line as easily as we can read a critic's opinion, criticism could be argued to be superfluous ?
Whether you're talking about a professional review from DiS/PF or your best friend's opinion reviews are absolutely necessary to separate the wheat from the chaff. There's simply too much music to say, "just listen" ...what? to every band. C'mon, now.
I have been a critic of DiS scoring myself (and guilty of it too) but lemme say this. DiS doesn't have the manpower to print 5 reviews a day and as a consequence "picks" the reviews it wishes to post. Therefore, it has rightly tended to feature the better albums. PF's average score is a 6.8. My guess is the DiS average score would only be slightly higher.
If you go back and read Ryan Schreiber's shitty reviews when PF when DiS's age... you'll see that very soon DiS will be as good as those american fuckers. They just have a five year headstart.
Why is one person's view on a record more valid than another's person view who may hold a different opinion?
Who cares about scores and decimal points, they're all meaningless. If I like it, I like it, if I don't, I don't.
Before the internet, I could probably understand reviews were more important because there was no, or at least very little, benefit of preview. But now, with the internet and in terms of music, they're irrelevant.
Friend recommendations will always mean more than the recommendations of a self-appointed critic.
do so much more than give a thumbs up or thumbs down. In addition to opinion they also provide a vast amount of information and insight.
And I seriously doubt your friends listen to every worthy record nor do I think they can articulate it as well as PF and DiS writers do.
Anyway, the No Age album is brilliant. Even though I live in Los Angeles, wanna guess how I know about them? Yeah, from DiS and PF.
you're saying that one reviewer potentially listens to more records than five or six people who also happen to be heavily into music? That doesn't make sense, even statistically.
Reviews are dying, get used to it.
because there's obviously no smoke without fire (in most cases), and its a good way to find out about well-recieved music that you wouldn't have known about.
Plus its always nice when you WANT an album to get a good review and it does. As well as its nice to read other people's opinions.
But I can't understand why anybody would put their trust in a single website/reviewer. Which is where my problem with Pitchfork as a barometer of taste/whats actually good, comes in. That's just nonsense -- elitist nonsense.
I think its main problem is that it only covers albums from the last few years. Although I do remember someone on this site saying that different sources have more or less weight in the overall score, which would be ridiculous. The other problem is that unless all the reviewers of each album are as 'into' it to start with as each other, the number given to the album will be even less relevant (for example, a niche album is probably less likely to be liked by mainstream journalists).
used to be a lot more common. from about 2000-2004 you could expect at least one a month. Nowadays they have completely overhauled their scoring system, and anything above an 8.0 is worth shouting about (in their opinion). 9.0+s come about 3 or 4 times a year.
Take from that what you will.
'Nouns' is truly great, though.