Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
who saw a thread on this coming.
Cue argument about review and Pitchfork in general and how it's the root of all elitism hipster evil etc
I forsee another one of these if they slate the Mogwai album.
even I might slate the mogwai album, not shaping up to be that great.
"The Hawk Is Howling"? I think it's pretty decent so far. Better than this "Pitchfork" album is, at least. I think Kings of Leon peaked with "Aha Shake Heartbreak" anyway.
on p4k and came running back here to see if the drama had started yet :)
pitchfork are wicked
I just logged on to start a thread on this....
that they were going to slate it.
its probibly tru though
"guy can't see past his own dick", mind.
It's odd, I agree with a lot of what they said, yet I like them and am looking forward to the album. Ho hum. I must be a dumb limey.
But then U2 seems to be Pitchfork's insult for everyone.
as they gave really good reviews to the recent reissues of the first few U2 albums - I know they probably are sneering at U2 as they are now or the way bands try to ape them but it's odd I guess.
the new Alexander Tucker record yesterday. Pretty strange review; dude's main issue seemed to be the press release mentioning Jim O'Rourke and Steve Reich.
Mogwai will get a 6.2. Trust.
and weirder, they hadn't reviewed any of his previous wonderful efforts...
do they like any british artists? radiohead excepted. oh, and fucking new young pony club.
with sounding like U2, aren't they? They always give KoL bad reviews regardless.
but the new KOL stuff does sound like U2 in that it's big and pompous sounding. That new video is a joke, making the band sex symbols and what happend to his voice? Their last album walked a fine line, but this new record has crossed it into stadium wank territory.
or does the word "Followill" look really weird typed out?
it is only one persons opinion, to put a score rating will always cause debate, its a strange but unique system using 0.0, a bit like the odd A-style.
PS Anyway I think they are sh*t
...but time will tell. I think they're making a pretty good fist of making The Big Music without losing what made them great/sounding too much like U2 and Coldplay.
They actually haven't changed that much, Sex On Fire isn't a million miles away from California Waiting.
that is all.
it's a pretty poor album. I'd give it a 5/10 and i'm a fan.
I just dont get the love for kings of leon.
At least its not just a stupid joke review.
I have no idea where the love comes from with KoL.
Always thought they were shite.
there are only so many mid-tempo songs that I can take a hick singing about fuck all, to no discernable tune.
fuck it, it's just great songs, there's nothing more to it. it's a bit like creedence clearwater. i like my experimental music as much as the next man but sometimes you just want to listen to some straightforward great songs..and i defy anyone to tell me that something like 'trani' is not the dogs bollocks. even sir bob dylan said so himself.
I think it's healthy to totally disagree with review sites at times.
After the past 3 KOL album reviews on Pitchfork, I won't be buying the album based on this review.
this is pretty deserving, to be fair. Total style over any substance. They read like some backwoods in-joke that isn't funny. Blender is a shit magazine but the words out of those douchebags' mouths was ridiculous.
"Uh I woke up and there was a new Skyline in my driveway uhh dude I so don't remember ordering that."
"uh yeah bro I'm totally buzzing right now. Midday, yeah! Fuck. I need to go to the studio."
Frat rock pre-molded assplugs.
that even mean? Pitchfork's greatest strength is that it's kind of the anti-NME; sure they've got favourite bands and all, but they manage to resolutely not get over-excited or carried away with things they simply WANT to be good.
and a 3.whatever is a tad harsh, the album really is a bit rubbish. I really liked 'Because of the Times', but it seems like what they did here was "right, people liked 'On Call', lets make a whole album with songs paced the same way." When I'm writing my review I won't rate it very high either. Obviously not a three, which KoL avoid just by the sheer quality of the band, but the album itself is, especially compared with their earlier work, really quite rubbish.
Pitchfork is simply bollocks.
they're pretty bang on alot of the time
always had a thing against kings of leon. But i think this time theyre right, I dont think the albums very good either.
Why do you give a shit what some critic thinks?
Are you worried you'll meet some really cool Pitchfork hipster who'll laugh at you if you tell him you like this record?
"This is so undeserved. It deserves so much more."
OH RIGHT. THANKS FOR TELLING US. LET'S ASK THEM TO CHANGE IT COZ YOU THINK IT DESERVES MORE.
i doubt they give a shit what pitchfork thinks, everyone i know is bumming them at the moment.
agree with Pitchfork. Kings of Leon are laaaaaaaame
but I really like Sex on Fire (dodgy lyrics aside). I also thought Crawl was excellent
is a goodun i must say.
The old Rumble Strips album - 7.6
Are they fucking insane? How on earth does that record warrant a 7.6. They are bland, forgettable and just plainly dull. They do nothing new at all, the lyrics are dire and they are pretty much entirely forgettable.
It's not the reason anyone on here would willingly admit to, but Pitchfork pretty much has a monopoly in the indie-rock-and-so-on taste-making stakes these days. There's certainly no other vessel with as much influence. Heck, I would even say we should all be grateful to it.
To be honest I have more beef with folks hamming up their anti-P4k stance in an indier-than-thou attempt to claim the high ground. And, y'know what, it's a bit petty.
Its kind strange.
pitchfork covers some good music and gives a valid opinion on it. I don't agree with all that they say but why would I.
I don't think its run by hipster tools, that is more like the NME than pitchfork. Its run by geeks bloody geeks like us.
In the words of Gob Bluth, "COME ON!!!!"
Never, ever had course to agree with WrightyLew before, but there's a first time for everything, I guess.
I can't see how you could qualify your "indier-than-thou" contention about anybody who dismisses Pitchfork as elitist toss, because it simply doesn't hold water.
My base opinion is that reviews are there, of course, as a guide; a by-product of this is to "taste-make". It is a bonus if a review is well-written, and often a delight if you happen to agree with it.
My problem is with those who slavishly agree with p4k(!) and their crashingly pretentious decimalisations because it makes them look cool, and, dare I say it, indier-than-thou. Although the Jet-monkey-wank was spot on.
Anyway, too many words, too late, must sleep, each to their own etc...
I must stress that I'm not totally anti-Pitchfork, because, like many a music writing outlet, they offer a mixture of very good and often very poor writing.
My problem, my experience, is with the attitude of many a reader who is blinded by its influence.
Its just people's opinions; hardly an earth-shattering point, but some people would do well to remember that and keep things in context
it is just one persons opinion people get far to worked up about pitchfork at the moment its just silly.
seen KOL 25 times and i think they are amazing and i think the new album is amazing cos they are amazing.
So don't knock it, don't knock it (I been here before)...