Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
When I saw this thread title I thought they'd given it 0 (or close to it) or just put up some daft photo rather than doing a review, which would lead to another long Pitchfork argument. This is just an average review! What a let down :(
Didn't really think Pitchfork were ever going to go crazy for it anyway.
i was hearing some positive stuff about the album so it's a bit disappointing
that's the only bad review of it i've read so far though.
of people diss pitchfork, but generally when they talk i listen...
i'm interested in what they have to say too, but i don't value their oppinion any more or less than any other music website. I usually go by an average of review, and since i preordered it last night, this won't put me off. I doubt it's a bad as they say it is.
tots up average scores, it's great
in terms of where the reviews come from. Plus an album can score really high off only a few reviews.
But it is useful sometimes as a guide. Plus it gives links to lots of reviews which is good.
to compare the most effusive review with the worst review
Meta-critic...yes it is.
from the stuff i've heard
a very well written review
[wipes bits of sandwich off laptop]
Thanks, man. Made my day.
like 'be here now' or 'x and y', when a massive band release an album the music press go nuts, and 6 months down the line realise it's a shit album and spend the next ten years slagging it off.
death magnetic got kkkkk in kerrang. i'ts nice to see pitchfork being sensible.
that Pitchfork review was exceptionally well written and argued.
4.9? I mean really, what's the thought process? Is it a 5? No, not quite good enough 4.7 then? Oh no it's better that that etc.
Fair enough review though but honestly Pitchfork are probably the last people I'd listen to for a Metallica review. As for saying 'Hetfield's lyrics are toilet-grade; his younger self, while brash, would never have written tripe like "Mangled flesh, snapping spines/ Dripping bloody valentine/ Shattered face, spitting glass."
Really, I could quote dodgy Metallica lyrics all day! But I will leave you with 'No life till leather, gonna kick some ass tonight'
st anger was mauled
was shit. Death Magnetic isn't. In all fairness it really is a 6 or 7. Even if you're being harsh. It's a good record, plain and simple.
And Hetfield's lyrics have always been stupid. Always. I disagree on any change. But lyrics isn't what metal about, they've always been ridiculous by default.
the vast majority of stuff published on Pitchfork is very well-written and usually (although not always) well-argued and justified.
It's the best site out there for album reviews by a mile.
didnt they run out of ideas a very very long time ago?
And Justice For All was the last good thing they did.
not THEIR greatest, but still pretty damn brilliant. pitchfork are fucking shit anyway, how anyone takes that turgid, solipsistic drivel seriously is beyond me.
being a mainly good website with often (not always I know) good opinions about music I imagine
now it's fallen in love with itself as the indie king-maker. and while it's brilliant - in theory - that a start-up website can have the power to 'break' bands' by introducing them to so many new people, it's retreated into parody by taking itself so, so seriously.
like, when was the last time you read a review on pitchfork for any other reason than to shore up your own opinion? it's a taste-justifier these days, not a taste-maker. and when did you last read a surprising review? i used to love its humour and irreverence, but now it's so po-faced (except when giving Dan Le Sac 0.2 or something equally pointless) the joy's been sucked out of it.