Logo
DiS Needs You: Save our site »
  • Christina Vantzou - No. 4 1 day ago
  • The Fangasm: The Midnight Organ Fight by Frightened Rabbit 1 day ago
  • Laura Veirs - The Lookout 3 days ago
  • Eels - The Deconstruction 3 days ago
  • A Place To Bury Strangers - Pinned 3 days ago
  • "I am fascinated by art that asks a lot of questions": DiS Meets Jenny Wilson 3 days ago
  • Planet Gear: Erland Cooper 3 days ago
  • Evolution and Equilibrium: DiS Meets Wye Oak 4 days ago
  • Logo_home2
  • Records
  • In Depth
  • In Photos
  • Blog
  • Podcast
  • Search
  • Community
  • Records
  • In Depth
  • Blog
  • Community

Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !

Boards

Music Social More…

Bitchfork give Brighten the Corners 8.7

Ozymandias [Edit] [Delete] 38 replies 11:39, 10 December '08

http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/article/record_review/147823-pavement-brighten-the-corners-nicene-creedence-ed

bullshitbullshitbullshitbullshitbullshitbullshitbullshitbullshitbullshitbullshitbullshitbullshitbullshitbullshitbullshitbullshitbullshitbullshitbullshitbullshitbullshitbullshitbullshitbullshitbullshitbullshitbullshitbullshitbullshitbullshitbullshitbullshitbullshitbullshit

Share on
   
Love DiS? Become a Patron of the site here »

View Nested Linear
  • whats wrong with that?

    too_black_too_strong | 10 Dec '08, 11:41 | X
    • It is better than an 8.7 by a longshot?

      Ozymandias @too_black_too_strong | 10 Dec '08, 11:42 | X
      • thats nearly a 9

        too_black_too_strong @Ozymandias | 10 Dec '08, 11:42 | X
        • I don't know

          I think it's as good, if not better than Crooked Rain or Slanted, which they gave 10's...

          Ozymandias @too_black_too_strong | 10 Dec '08, 11:43 | X
  • is that Pavement hate?

    or saying you think it should have had more? It's a pretty predictable mark, I'd say...

    lukowski | 10 Dec '08, 11:42 | X
  • It's a review of all the extra material too

    not just the original album.

    bobbygeorge | 10 Dec '08, 11:45 | X
    • the extra material is fantastic!

      Ozymandias @bobbygeorge | 10 Dec '08, 11:46 | X
  • ha ha amazing

    Ozymandias should have a medal for indieness

    SHIT MAN, THAT ALBUM'S TOTALLY A 9.4233333333333333333 AND A FREE HANDJOB, ARE THOSE ARROGANT FUCKS JUST HATING ON PAVEMENT TO LOOK COOL?

    lukowski | 10 Dec '08, 11:47 | X
    • I think I can safely say

      no Pavement album deserves a straight 10.0 if you're going as fair as using decimal places...

      tom_edwards @lukowski | 10 Dec '08, 11:55 | X
  • Still my favourite Pavement album.

    I don't care what the indier-than-thous think. Brighten the Corners just has the best blend of absurdity and inventiveness matched with an actual desire to write brilliantly crafted songs that stay with you forever after a single listening.

    8.7 seems extraordinarily low as a score for the album itself, but I've not heard the wealth of outtakes and rarities it's being rereleased with so it's entirely possible that there's been a slight quantity/quality issue that's diminished the score in some way.

    Of course, it's also a Pitchfork review, and pinches of salt were made available to you as you entered.

    Yvash | 10 Dec '08, 11:52 | X
    • 8.7 is a poor score on Pitchfork now?

      I think it's pretty much the same mark as they gave the original album when it was released incidentally.

      charliepanayi @Yvash | 10 Dec '08, 11:59 | X
      • 8.7 is poor when it's the score for Brighten the Corners.

        It's a solid 10. Of course, that's just my opinion, it just seems churlish to me that they gave 10 to the first two albums which BtC is arguably better than.

        Also, time is important - BtC has stood the test of over a decade's worth of listening superbly. It doesn't matter what it was given originally, it's become a 10.

        Yvash @charliepanayi | 10 Dec '08, 12:02 | X
        • Don't forget you've still not heard it.

          gggg @Yvash | 10 Dec '08, 12:05 | X
          • I know, I'm being subjective.

            To me, the album as it is is a 10. This Nicene Creedence edition might be bloated. I'm certainly not sure if I'm going to double-dip on it, seems half my favourite albums are getting kitchen sink reissues these days.

            Yvash @gggg | 10 Dec '08, 12:09 | X
    • :

      "I've not heard the wealth of outtakes and rarities it's being rereleased with so it's entirely possible that there's been a slight quantity/quality issue that's diminished the score in some way."

      Probably best to hear it first then, before rubbishing the review.

      gggg @Yvash | 10 Dec '08, 11:59 | X
      • Where have I rubbished the review?

        You seem to be using an odd tactic of using my point... to back me up. I'm just saying there may be a reason for the score and that wailing 'bullshit' at a Pitchfork review is all a bit King Canute anyway.

        Yvash @gggg | 10 Dec '08, 12:13 | X
  • A lot of the stuff on the other disc

    Is a bit naff.

    I keep reading people here having a go at Pitchfork, yet they still read it everyday. I find that weird.

    Hahaharoldramis | 10 Dec '08, 12:29 | X
    • seconded

      Filip @Hahaharoldramis | 10 Dec '08, 12:42 | X
  • that is more than fair

    i'd give it a 6.3 myself, it has some strong songs on it but as an album its abit weak

    ThingsThatFly | 10 Dec '08, 13:26 | X
    • I'm completely sick of Pitchfork

      Anybody that things you can actually measure the quality of music TO THE FUCKING DECIMAL obviously knows nothing about music or art to begin with.
      Thus, they can FUCK RIGHT OFF. Sick of it.

      That felt good :)

      drakepress @ThingsThatFly | 10 Dec '08, 13:57 | X
      • giving scores is a necessary part of a music review website

        I think using their 100 point scale gives a better idea if their opinion than a normal 5 or 10 point scale

        ThingsThatFly @drakepress | 10 Dec '08, 14:06 | X
        • *of their

          ThingsThatFly @ThingsThatFly | 10 Dec '08, 14:06 | X
        • It's really best to read the actual review

          than count on the mark at the end of it. The words are what the writer thinks.

          Yvash @ThingsThatFly | 10 Dec '08, 14:09 | X
          • this x 1,000,000

            lukowski @Yvash | 10 Dec '08, 14:15 | X
            • * ^

              lukowski @lukowski | 10 Dec '08, 14:16 | X
          • of course

            but im not going to read every single review, but if I see it has got a strong mark I am more likely to read the review to see if it is my kinds thing.

            Reducing something to a rating has its problems and should never be taken on its own, but overall it is helpful, and the pitchfork system is better than most, a high rating on pitchfork means something as opposed to dis where anything getting less than 8/10 is rare

            ThingsThatFly @Yvash | 10 Dec '08, 14:34 | X
            • *kinda

              ThingsThatFly @ThingsThatFly | 10 Dec '08, 14:35 | X
        • Why is it necessary?

          Why not just a one line overall comment? And when they think you should buy something or somethings a classic, just say it. The degree of accuracy just does my feckin' head in for something so subjective. They're not musical scientists.

          drakepress @ThingsThatFly | 10 Dec '08, 14:10 | X
          • I think a mark out of 100 gives the a clearer idea of how highly the reviewer recomends it

            The overall comment can be found by readin the closing paragraph, whats wrong with both. It is useful, im not too fussed of keeping abreast of the latest music but if I was then reading 7.8+ pitchfork reviews and checking out the ones that seem to be a good place to start.

            ThingsThatFly @drakepress | 10 Dec '08, 14:44 | X
      • dude this is ridiculous logic

        thinking you can quantify quality on any scale is pretty stupid anyway, and i personally would rather a 100 point system to a 5 point system. and its amazing that someone would think 8.7 is a bad enough review to get up in arms about.

        lazerlife @drakepress | 10 Dec '08, 15:17 | X
  • Pitchfork write good reviews

    that is a good review and score

    grow up

    Amodestmousearrives | 10 Dec '08, 14:18 | X
    • I don't think the point of being a fan of a band

      is to have considered "grown up" opinions. If I'd had enough drinks I'd get into a fist fight over this album. The fact is that's how much I love it. Silly and pointless? Yes and no. Surely if we weren't passionate about music we wouldn't be here in the first place, right?

      (I mean on the messageboard, not on earth. Admittedly even Malkmus can't claim to be indispensable to creation / evolution (take your pick))

      Hectagon @Amodestmousearrives | 10 Dec '08, 21:31 | X
  • I like the use of bullshit here

    I kinda like Pavement but I'm a bit annoyed at the legacy of shit twee lo-fi indie pop they left behind of loads of pretenders thinking there kooky and can write songs and not play very well.

    jimitheexploder | 10 Dec '08, 14:38 | X
  • ...I'd say that that's about right.

    Sibley | 10 Dec '08, 14:44 | X
  • this is a joke thread, right?

    tv_party | 10 Dec '08, 14:46 | X
  • The surefire way of improving the score is to remove

    Passat Dream and Date with Ikea. Neither song deserves to be within 100 feet of a Pavement album let alone on one. Must try harder Spiral.

    saps | 10 Dec '08, 15:14 | X
  • hi

    i'm not the biggest Pavement fan, right, but this is a really terrible album. A really weak fax copy of all of their positives, shitty abstraction, grooveless indieness, phoned in energy

    8.7 is way too high

    douchebag | 10 Dec '08, 21:03 | X
  • Fact is, to Pavement fans

    this record is simply unsurpassable. Utterly perfect in lyrics, sound, songs, arrangements, yelps, instrumentation, tone, every little string bend and everything else all the way through.

    Admittedly the Pitchfork system is a bit daft, where it is essentially giving a score out of 100, but this record is easily up there with anything else released in the 90s - the equivalent of OK Computer, or the 36 Chambers, or whatever your particular reference point is, and if Pitchfork can't acknowledge its shimmering brilliance with something at least above a 9.5 then it kind of calls into question what the point of Pitchfork is.

    And yes, of course this is just my opinion etc, but honestly, I challenge anyone with an ounce of love for "alternative" music in their blood not to be repeatedly awed by the opening chords of "Starlings of the Slipstream", among numerous other priceless moments of sheer joy on this record.

    sincerely yours
    PAVEMENT LOVER

    Hectagon | 10 Dec '08, 21:28 | X
Share on
   
Love DiS? Become a Patron of the site here »
View Nested Linear
« Back to Music forum

Report this thread
Drowned in Sound
  • DROWNED IN SOUND
  • HOME
  • SITE MAP
  • NEWS
  • IN DEPTH
  • IN PHOTOS
  • RECORDS
  • RECOMMENDED RECORDS
  • ALBUMS OF THE YEAR
  • FESTIVAL COVERAGE
  • COMMUNITY
  • MUSIC FORUM
  • SOCIAL BOARD
  • REPORT ERRORS
  • CONTACT US
  • JOIN OUR MAILING LIST
  • FOLLOW DiS
  • GOOGLE+
  • FACEBOOK
  • TWITTER
  • SHUFFLER
  • TUMBLR
  • YOUTUBE
  • RSS FEED
  • RSS EMAIL SUBSCRIBE
  • MISC
  • TERM OF USE
  • PRIVACY
  • ADVERTISING
  • OUR WIKIPEDIA
© 2000-2018 DROWNED IN SOUND