Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
Oh shit! lololol
are they a hype band or something?
but it never came.
it's quite clear and obvious that the reviewer does review the album.
I guess I meant in terms of a track-by-track, but given his feelings towards the album as a whole there would probably be little point in him digging through it.
I'd rate it a 6-6.5. I've given it a few listens, and I think it has the potential to grow
Given how pitchfork wank over animal collective and their perceived experimentation, I'm confused by this
It's a harsh review, but then they're in a harsh mood lately.
But this review seems to be slagging off the experimental side of this album, which is something AC are renowned for. Plus as someone as commented above, there is barely any mention of reviewing the actual tracks/music
and why should they blanket praise anything that is "experimental"? I appreciate the term has become basically codified to mean "music with synths and laptops" but that doesn't mean it neccessarily /works/ every single time, and the reviewer clearly thinks it doesn't in this case.
All jokes aside, it actually is an interesting gambit to find a continuum within all of those coordinates in terms of bands interacting with personal computing-- after all, D-Plan had a frontman who was essentially a poptimist blogger before we knew what to call it.
Simpsons pop culture references
so is calling the lead-off track on your debut album "MY KZ, YR BF"
It looks like the reviewer went at it with an online thesaurus much like Joey from Friends. What I'm getting at is not the fact he disliked it, but the fact that these pitchfork reviews seem to write their reviews by using long words and pop culture references to get their point across. It makes them extremely difficult to get anything out of them without having to re-read it about 10 times
And yes, the track name is also very pretentious - agreed
Homer takes ingredients that, whilst fine on their own, make a terrible meal. The scene is kindof a classic. It's funny. It works. And, if nothing else, it makes the review more entertaining to read. Isn't that the point?
I can understand your point about Pitchfork writing wordy reviews (again, not pretentious by itself) but that's hardly one of them.
the pop culture references, far from being pretentious, are the exact opposite - there to puncture the moments when the reviewer feels the need, rightly or wrongly, to use longer words.
They're hardly the most self-promoting, needy of a good slap down kind of band. In fact, I recall quite a lot of love for them a couple of weeks ago.
"Everything Everything wear LEE" above a picture of said combo wearing LEE gear funnily enough. The media whores have been chucking the bags of coke around again methinks. Anyway more importantly they sound like Haircut 100: FACT. Obviously depends on your personal taste whether that's a good thing or not.
you just made me like EE less
I'm normally not one to criticise reviews but that is ABYSMAL
And it's not!
cant stand animal collective
they've been unreasonably harsh on them for years now.
Four Tet (OK not a band)
All got Best new Music over the last few months. So no, not really. They are overly harsh on some acts and tend to overlook British acts for their end of years lists sometimes, but then conversely they're nicer about bands like Stornoway who are as popular as dog crap on here
I remember The Futureheads getting a fair whack of coverage when they were still a big concern, which was around the time I started reading Pitchfork. Internet Forever got a forkcast thing. loads of others as well I'm sure.
they still cannot help but make some snide comment about 'British Indie' and how shit it is. Really pisses me off.
sounding American is just a bonus.
all 'safe' bands.
And I don't agree with the sentiment behind: "If anyone's got a more irritating voice than Jonathan Everything, they probably also have a harp and a few good stories to tell", but it's a good line.
If you can cope with Hayden Thorpe - and Two Dancers got 8.4 - then his voice shouldn't be too outlandish.
say he can cope with hayden thorpe's voice, either?
The fact that it almost entirely echoes my sentiments about this unlistenable clusterfuck of an album helps though.
On the subject of being 'experimental' though. Not that I like the word very much, but I believe the adage that if you like something and it happens to be experimental (IE I really like 'Rated O' by Oneida) then the experimentality improves the critical acclaim) whereas if you don't like something and it's 'experimental' it makes it very easy to pick the holes and criticise (IE I don't have a lot of time for The Mars Volta).
IE by doing something different you're always going to polarise. The line "Credit Everything Everything for finding their own niche, but it's one that's been unoccupied for good reason." which I quoted somewhere else, sums my mood up.
But why keep bringing up The D Plan as a comparison? They sound nothing like them. If they were really jonesing for a "like the d plan but wank" comparison, then didn't they review Los Campesinos recently?
but i read it and dont see why its a bad review. it's certainly not pretentious. well thought out ideas expressed well. whether or not i'll agree is totally irrelevant.
i've enjoyed on-the-warpath pitchfork this week. the of montreal and interpol reviews in particular have been pretty good reads.
"Future Mercury Prize contenders continue to make it difficult for us to take UK hypes very seriously"
but to claim it defines itself on wacky time-sig changes, electrowankery and impossible-to-catch melodies is completely fucking off-base - the dude hasn't given the album anything like a proper listen if that's his blanket criticism.
Most of the tracks on MA are much more concerned with song-construction than on experimentation, and a great deal of them hang together perfectly logically. I understand how one might take exception to some of the synth-settings or the singing, or if this kind of indie isn't your thing, but to launch such criticisms at the album without referring to specific examples makes me highly suspicious that you've not listened to it properly.
if Dirty Projectors were British and Everything Everything American (bear with me) would Man Alive and Bitte Orca have got altered marks? They're kinda comparable in the falsetto, histrionics, time signatures, multiple changes of tempo within one track etc. Not a direct match but similarities are there.
Yeah I know it's a bit of a ridiculous thing to say but there can be a downshift against British acts - not all I know, but Pitchfork can often mention British hype in a strongly negative as if they don't hype people to fuck as well. But 3.8, nah. Just...nah. It's like Whatever People Say I Am, That's What I'm Not and Favourite Worst Nightmare both getting 7.4s: what?!
and i think any P-FORK IS RASICT stuff is pretty lol
seriously though, when people talk about pitchfork HYPING bands, that's a product of their popularity and not their editorial content, unless you think giving some positive reviews once in a while is anything to criticise.
If Dirty Projectors last one came out now they'd be giving them flak for following the proggy tendencies of last year...
just in their own style
It was more the pitchfork's a bit racist thing I wasn't getting behind...
admittedly a couple of items there aren't but if you're going to use a couple of superfluous twitter quotes that aren't even given much front page coverage as examples of HYPE, you're barking up the wrong tree.
Dirty Projector's album is better, but not that much better.
I often think that pitchfork consider the British music scene as overally insular and self-satisfied and they automatically react against it. Like they'll check what the NME thinks of a band and think the opposite. And they'll happilly champion the likes of Best Coast, who are totally a product of hype.
There's very rarely anything inbetween.
(Prime example: http://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/12191-the-airborne-toxic-event/)
I do, however, completely disagree with his thoughts on Man Alive, but that's the nature of music journalism.
I remember the furore around THAT one
I've listened to the album a few times now and I thought it was rubbish to put it lightly, the only decent track on there is My Kz Ur Bf and even that isn't incredible.
Sometimes with the reviews they come out with I totally disagree with them, like the Rolo Tomassi review 6.1, I though it should have been way higher at least a 7.0 or more
so i think we can rule this guy out of the decent reviewers at Pitchfork camp for a kick off.
astonishing to think that a man singing in *falsetto* is enough to put someone off an album!
Everything Everything's album is bloody amazing in places. 'nasa..' and'final form' are gorgeous bits of work. i don't know anyone up here (manchester) that doesn't at least like them a lot if not love them to bits. i'm not sticking up for them just because i live here.
are my foremost argument against Cohen's review tbh
if this band was American?
they got off lightly
I don't normally give a flying one whether reviewers like what I like or not, but that's borderline offensive.
Now, what are they going to give the new Weezer album which I also like...
and deserves better than some wanker who's given it 1 listen and concluded "I don't like his voice".
"But stuffing everything humanly possible into your songs can be overwhelming, if not identity-sapping."
but it does seem like he's not given it more than one listen for the most part...
when people are more interested in discussing a music website and its reviews than music itself. A sad state indeed.
but then there are those tracks that have the old (what I call) computer gamey noises at the start. I really didn't like it when I first listened to it but after a while it does really grow on you and the majority of the songs are quite catchy.
I know elevator music doesn't really exist, and we call them lifts, but you get the gist
Fuelled by Raman and 90s Alternative Radio that the likes of Everything Everything aren't exactly his bread and butter.
The lack of any real insight here isn't therefore exactly much of a surprise.
The elevator from Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, perhaps.
Why do you all care so much?
but I'm surprised at how much there is.
It's a shocking review written by someone premeditatedly biased against the nature of EE's music. Typical Pitchfork reactionary twaddle.
EE are Mansun for a new generation. If you don't understand why that's a great and exciting thing, you don't deserve ears.
"OH SHIT WHERE'D MY EARS GO?????"
As said above, I really do like EE, but Mansun, for Six at least, were on a different planet to these guys
also Pitchfork gave Six a positive 7.8 and AOTGL 9.3 :'')
but on my first couple of listens to Man Alive, Six is the only album I can honestly compare its outlandish, lighting quick inventiveness and penchant for sneaky ear-worms to. And it's probably going to be as wholly misunderstood/divisive as Six too, if the difference between reviews at DiS and PF are anything to go by.
the first things that came into my head when I heard it were Late Of The Pier and Wild Beasts - they need to learn how to construct a multi-song prog suite with genuinely startling switch-ups and batshit sonics before they can be spoken of in such terms - yeah their sense of melody and song-structure is really good but they're still pretty conventional, and they don't segue! Mansun are a level up in terms of dazzling, mindblowing instinct and sonic fuckery. also Six didn't receive such blanket praise from the UK presses* for Pitchfork to try to swat away...
*ok it got QUITE a lot of good press, but not enough
I'd say they're FAR more in the spirit of Six than EE, albeit with (mostly) shorter songs. Segues to fucking die for!
is making me a little misty eyed!
I still don't think it's a bad thing to compare EE to Mansun (and Mansun were one of the most pivitol bands in my life); I admit it's more of an honour for EE than Mansun, but it's like listening to early Mansun for me, Take it Easy Chicken for example. The prog wasn't with them just then but the formulae was almost inconceivably complete at that embryonic stage - just look how far Mansun went from that point (before studio interference and in-fighting set in, of course). I choose to believe EE can make the same grade, and I'm already delighting in their first steps. So few bands really hit such a sensational note on their debut.
Incidentally, never heard any Late of the Pier but Wild Beasts are phenomenal, I can see similarities between EE and them too, though Wild Beasts are seriously spartan in song construction in comparison.
hooooooo boy are you in for a treat. listen to the whole thing in one sitting and then thank me.
my CD version has a KICKASS bonus track called Dose One that comes in after the thing on the end of Bathroom Gurgle and fits like a dream but you'll have to make do with the album proper...
Would say EE could make their song-structures MUCH weirder - in that regard they've got nothing on Youthmovies, for instance ;)
Lapsus Linguae/LOTP double-bill is one of the best alphabetical juxtapositions in my iTunes - the You Got Me Fraiche/Fantasy Black Channel double bill is less than 80 minutes of completely fucking blistering 00's British prog-indie of the highest goddamn order
FORGIVE ME MERCIFUL GEEKS
is called Dose A, not Dose One. GETTING COAT NOW
are people STILL getting butthurt about Pitchfork marking down albums they like?
Not a group of music journalists, and that they giving different marks to albums that sound similar but reviewed by different people isn't incongruous
the score is decided on collectively, and they then choose a reviewer who they think is best able to express the collective viewpoint. truefacts.
Why not 3.5 or 4/10? What's the extra 0.3 for? A good 10 seconds of synth? It's FUCKING BOLLOCKS.
It's like a percentage mark essentially
had so many Pitchfork apologists?
Someone starts a thread criticising a Pitchfork review and faster than you can say 'pretentious' there's a group of zealots demanding that any criticisms are fully explained (and even if they were they'd probably need to be cited for verification).
of the bands fans bemoaning the lack of track by track analysis, and saying the reviewer has only listened to it once (how do they know????)
I could. I'm not sure what you're getting at.
We are the Pitchfork Zealots! We have as our holy text the Pitchfork review for Kid A!
You were joking, right?
he's comparing is to nazis!
I wouldn't go that far Goebbels.
that listened to a bunch of their songs on youtube
and thought they were a mess and utter tripe and pitchfork were being generous? I mean where are the fucking tunes? total mess. Yes weird, no not good.
I mean there are plenty of criticisms you can throw at EE, but crikey
Pitchfork reviews are no more valid the viewpoints expressed in the music section of Heat magazine. Unfortunately for Everything Everything and hundreds of other bands they carry enough clout to ensure they don't do shit in the US and also disuade potential listeners in the UK. Personally I hope that doesn't happen cos EE are a bit like XTC and I love those Swindon based motherfuckers
...use this forum, so I wouldn't worry about it dissuading UK listeners in any way whatsoever.