Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
I have bad taste.
Bloc Party - 5.8.
The Stills - 5.8
The National - 4.3
Maybe I'm just getting old...
and we are all getting older...
You know that you're on the right track if your opinion of an album is the total opposite of the pitchfork consensus.
What did they give Logic Will Break Your Heart, 3.8 or something?! Jog off!
review more than i'd trust a review from any other website/magazine/media outlet. fact.
They've been the most consistent with what I've felt.
Drowned in Sound - 4/10
Pitchfork - 10.0
Extreme example but yeah, Pitchfork is pretty much always right in my opinion.
- that I'm more than aware of. But lately mine seems to be differing more often that not, to the point I'm finding it hard to trust anyone. I remember when Kitty Empire used to be on the button...
'The Boy with the Arab Strap' 0.8/10
eh? Apart from anything else did they think 'well it's better than 0.6 but not nearly good enough for 1/10, so 0.8 sounds fair....' such a bizarre review, score.
did they give 4 to?
i love my fair bit of snobbiness and the foals review was great, but most of the reviews act as more of a middle finger to the general consensus than an actual review.
This might have applied to Pitchfork five years ago but these days, even if I disagree with some of their reviews, the score is usually backed up by some half-decent analysis.
Case in point, the last Mono record, which is a 9/10 for me but they gave it a 5.something. The reviewer basically said that he felt like the band were calculatingly trying to engender a certain emotional response from him, which is a decent enough reason for the score.
that eventually they'll be reviewing the JoFo album, and then this board will explode.
wait til they get their hands on wild beasts ang give it the lashing it deserves
as long as it's given a low enough score
a review is only one person's opinion. plus, if pitchfork gave these particular artists high-scoring reviews then they'd lose some indie cred...
given that they gave Silent Alarm 8.9 and Boxer 8.6
the summary paragraph of the zach hill record sounds ridiculously awesome. then they gave it a 6.9
p4k generally is good, most people just think its shit because sometimes it disagrees with them. that bloc party review is excellent.
"Hella drummer enlists No Age, members of LCD Soundsystem, Marnie Stern, and Les Claypool for his solo debut, which features hints of Liars tribalism, Boredoms bombast, Smell-scene art-punk, Lightning Bolt repeti-grooves, and Frank Zappa prog-overload."
It sounds really interesting in principle, but I imagine it's a little wearing over the course of an album (I'll probably get it anyway).
just from the collation of the other touchstones. you're right about the actual tone.
as for wearing over the course of an album, ive always got that with zach hill really
3.6 (and I think they gave his debeut a 4.whatever as well)
the Foals review I thought it was devicive to get Tom "I hate indie" Ewing to write it.
And they gave 9 to Fleet Foxes...
I'm really baffled by this.
Sure, on the one hand its nice to know other people's opinions on a record in the form of a well-written article. And even better when a record you love, or are looking forward to, gets a great review.
But how can anybody's genuine opinion on something be coloured or changed by the prententious decimal point-ism of a few faceless elitist hacks?
I just don't get it!
I don't give that rag anymore time than I give any other rag including DIS. It's all in individual perception of the writers not "pitchfork" or "Drowned In Sound". It's one persons feeling so how can anyone say that Pitchfork is always right. That is a silly statement.
Pitchfork are important enough than if they gave a 9 to an unknown band thousands of people will suddenly listen to it and like it...
But if they give a 4, no one will give a shit...
Personnally, I don't give a shit about what they're telling but you can't deny their importance !
but tis a shame that kids these days jump on such a “free for all” hype machine. There is no difference than reading the gossip that NME puts out. They do it cause people buy into it and it’s all a shame…really.
but I don't think Pitchfork should be one...
But that won't last !
It never last.
online or in print. But my point was a simple frustrated one... The records I have loved the most in the past 3 months have had universal indifferent reviews! Doh.