Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
and are selling out dates all over the place. I'm pretty sure they don't give a shit
when your up to your eyeballs in coke and hookers.
Besides, they've had it in for them from day one. Have a look at their review of their first record, it's one of the worst i've ever read, no matter what you made of the album.
Pretty sure the countless positive reviews in the British music press will be much more of a concern to them. I highly doubt bands sit around waiting for sites like Pitchfork to say whether or not they give their approval, they're not nearly as influential as some of you like to believe.
That said, i'm not the biggest fan of the record.
Most of them, yes, but they've been very supportive of some British bands. Los Campesinos!, for instance.
That one is pretty justifiable. P4k suffers from the same insecurity a lot of American criticism does, which I think comes from having nothing culturally indigenous left and the subsequent desperation to define America as being the new. Most P4k discussion of British bands is peppered with clichés like 'no new ideas' or 'derivative but still good'. The Maccabees review bangs on about how British bands are worse now than in 2005. Bands like LC! imo are the exceptions which prove the rule.
That said, P4k's WU LYF review was a million miles ahead of the DiS one, which spent the whole time whinging about the great crimes the band had committed by (1) having a manager who knew about promoting bands and (2) not self-publicizing as heavily as other new bands.
but they're positive about plenty of them too, it's just when you mention these acts, the stock shift the goalposts reply is "oh they're typical Pitchfork acts/those acts get good reviews everywhere" - conversely they're often nicer about British acts who get rather bad press here (OK I'm thinking of Coldplay at this point pretty much)
And it sounds retardedly conspiratorial I know, but I'm convinced their (imo) absurdly generous reviews of Coldplay are part of a 'this is all the UK can do' narrative
When dealing with British music, is ignoring bands that they could potentially rave over (Django Django, Islet, Zun Zun Egui etc). Then again, they'd probably just give them all 6.8 and have done.
How long ago was it that people stopped making blues, jazz and rap records? I forget.
Belle & Sebastian?
The Twilight Sad?
Bat For Lashes?
Radiohead? (topic de-railed)
... ok, I'm out.
however I can see where some people would find it pretty mediocre, it's not hard to see how, I can imagine this album being particularly boring if it doesn't strike a certain chord with you.
which is The Maccabees best album.
*pitchfork hates the maccabees*
in its quibbles (reaches for something epic and falls short, too long, etc. etc.). I think it's harsh but that's only because I enjoy the album.
But only a little. I like The Maccabees, Wall of Arms is excellent but this one is nowhere near.
The Green Album, Hurley and especially Maladroit were great albums. Yet Weezer are slated time and time again for no reason. Pitchfork can be real trolls. Just learn to accept it.
to have slated post-Green Album Weezer.
it opens with a paragraph about "the state of British indie". I don't give a fuck about the score they gave it, my distaste is not about their opinion of the album, but all this patronising shite that Pitchfork constantly come out with about British bands, excluding the ones who heavily tour in America/idolise US acts (e.g. Los Campesinos)-
"they feel like a reflection of the stalled state of British indie music in general", " two of the few real UK indie success stories of the past couple of years", "they are the sort of band that looks much better in a throng", "a time when UK bands had it good", "make them feel like they somehow belonged together"- the point is not whether or not these things are true, it's that they're said in the most patronising way possible.
Pitchfork, or certainly many of its writers, view British indie bands as these quaint, backwards little things, at the same time of giving ludicrously high scores to albums as intensely derivative as that last Girls album- though this is viewed as okay, cos it's derivative of "classic American rock music", rather than British bands which are either accused of being unrelateably kitchen-sink drama esque (in the case of Arctic Monkeys) or, as in the case of this review, accused of stealing from what Pitchfork view as "their" band (Arcade Fire), though they don't feel the same way about Pains of Being Pure at Heart stealing even more shamelessly from British indie music of the late 1980s.
I'm not saying that Pitchfork hate all British acts, but the attitude is that British acts have to try twice as hard as US ones in order to garner any acclaim on the website. Imagine if that Smith Westerns album from last year had been released by a UK band, who had come up via the UK music scene, BBC and NME. Would it have a received an 8.4 and a Best New Music then? I'm sure that most people on here disagree with me, and will argue that it would, but I think the evidence indicates otherwise.
by one of the British writers, who seemingly gets thrown most of the British stuff to review. (And dislikes everything)
kinda like when really middle class people complain about things being "really middle class"
On the money
The guy didn't like it. It's not a conspiracy. It is, to be fair, an intensely average record by an intensely average band.
if The Maccabees were from New York, it would clearly have been given 8.6 and Best New Music tag! There's always an uterior motive in these review scores!
this is the kind of thing that music forums are designed for. if no review was ever debated then the world would be a little more boring. fwiw i think people have a few good points here (calumlynn particularly). and i'm irish
The whole idea that a reviewer had some ulterior motives in the score they give is usually nonsense though. Plus some of the arguments are unarguable dead ends - The Smith Westerns aren't British so how can you debate the idea that if they were Pitchfork would hate them.
The idea that there was some other reason behind the bad score other than the reviewer not liking it so much.Pitchfork doles out tons of bad reviews to bands of many ethnic origins. Kind of reminds me of BNP supporters complaining that immigrants always get the rub of the green despite no evidence to bear this out.
Can't remember which one it is.... they're all so, so boring.
Too old, I guess. Sorry, I just found the idea that Pitchfork has some kind of anti-British bias based on a poor review for a pretty ho-hum record rather ridiculous.
I think it's quite an appropriate review...
I haven't listened to to the album or read the review but I reckon it hits the nail on the head.
I don't see what's the problem is with saying an album by a very average band is average and uninspired... If you like them good for you... But this reviewer clearly doesn't and I'm on his side of the fence... He's right, it has all been done a lot better before...
Who's to say a lot of people only thing the Macabees are amazing because they're British. It works both ways.
...definitely harsh and I personally like the album. But they have a point about Forever I've Known, It really does sound like Win Butler.
typically hates any British indie guitar bands that came through some sort of hype or end up selling some records. More underground bands don't quite have the problem (like Los Campesinos). They are very generous to a lot of mediocre electro folk, boring Americana type stuff but are really hard on bands who actually stand apart like British Sea Power. I think they are generally annoying and clueless over there.
its just not that good an album, i bought it and was just very underwhelmed and occasionally irritated by the songs..
but in no more of a way than British publications mark them up for the same reasons
and from people who really ought to know better.
even relevant as a review website any more?
I read a great article about the massive impact they had originally but I thought the common consensus was that they were a bit of a joke now? Them white college boys over there sure love that RAP though, amirite? Plenty of token urban stuff dropped in their end of year lists.
people who complain about Pitchfork having "token urban stuff" are the exact ones who would complain if they didn't cover any at all
Scouts honour m'lud.
Here you go: http://nplusonemag.com/54
They gave Foals' 'Total Life Forever' 7.6 as I remember which is nothing to sniff at and neither of these bands I've just mentioned would be considered particularly 'urban sounding' in their material.
Then again they have given Burial's new EP a really positive rating and gushed over it today.
and that Foals review still had to get a reference in to how they "sent the UK press into hyperbolic fits three years ago" in the first paragraph.
Amazing how people still complain about the positive reviews
Yes, Pitchfork complain about the hype surrounding a lot of UK indie, but aren't they basically correct? Remember The Vaccines? Or The Bombay Bicycle club or any of the number or similar bands who come through on a wave of hype every year? Don't people on here complain about the very same thing? Of landfill indie and the pointless hyping of mediocre drivel? Is it not ok when Pitchfork say it? Why is it bad to mention in a review of Foals that they had sent the UK press into hyperbolic fits? what part of that statement is incorrect? Its worth noting context when reviewing something, in my opinion.
I don't even read Pitchfork that often but it does get pretty tiresome when these threads pop up just because they criticize something that somebody really likes. Plenty of people agree with the review, plenty disagree. Pitchfork probably don't have it out for British guitar music, and they are probably generally right about the sate of British guitar music.
it's just the patronising and condescending way in which they say it.
Again, if you read my post, I don't care whether or not Pitchfork like the Maccabees album. My problem is that they're using it as a vehicle to get in another pointless dig at "UK indie music".
And they're not right about "British indie music"- as has been discussed a million time on these boards, there are as many great bands as there have always been, they're just not in the mainstream at the moment.
But surely the point they are making is about those mainstream indie bands - those are the ones that generally get a good kicking on pitchfork. Those are the bands that obviously get all the hype. Surely the dig is at the way these acts are placed on a pedestal by the music press in this country? I don't know. Maybe I am wrong.
and as I said on another thread a few weeks ago, you have the case of the first Arctic Monkeys album, where the reviewer basically says "Yeah i'm sure if you're British you'd be able to relate to this but for the rest of us, this is crap" which is a vile and patronising thing to say- I mean, imagine if in a review of a Bill Callahan album, a British writer said that "only Americans could be interested in this"!
The one that gave the Arctic Monkeys a 7.4. The review that ends by saying: "I'd guess that to a disaffected, chavbaiting 17-year-old from Doncaster (or Rotherham, or Hull...) this is the perfect soundtrack to moving loveseats around a stock room. Fittingly then the NME awarded this album a 10/10. To the rest of us, however, the album is at times charming, oddly affecting, and certainly promising but understandably something less than life changing."
Which is the most important part of the paragraph
"And in the end then this is about teenage life-- and a pretty specific type of teenage life at that. NME editor Conor McNicholas told The Guardian last year that "there's a big sofa supermarket by Doncaster train station. I always look at it and think someone's got a Saturday job there, they're 17, they're stuck in Doncaster and they fucking hate it-- that's the person we're publishing for.""
Which neatly sums up what I've always thought about NME; it's not for me.
they are very fond of the arctic monkeys and always rate their albums.
they are very fond of plenty of British bands and rate their albums.
I don't CARE about the scores. I don't care whether Pitchfork like the band in question or not. My problem is with the tone of the review, the patronising, condescending tone which dominates a vast number of their reviews of British indie bands. Read the first paragraph of all four Arctic Monkeys reviews.
but if they fill the review with loads of shite about how dreadful the UK indie scene/NME hype is and how there are no decent British bands and how all British bands just want mainstream success and have no artistic value etc etc etc, I'd still be just as angry.
I even read the review that you mentioned before and I didn't find it to be that patronising. I thought it was pretty fair in fact. Indeed, I believe this to be a nonsense argument, because I don't believe that this has anything to do with the band being British. Yes, you might think that the tone of some of these reviews comes across as 'vile' or 'condescending' but I'd argue that is the same with any number of the harsh reviews on their site, regardless of whether the band is from Britain, Canada, or Angola. Maybe they take what you might deem to be cheap shots at the British indie scene, but that just comes down to a simple question of taste. You might think that this is not the case, but as has been mentioned before, a lot of people think these kind of comments are warranted. Moreover, I'd argue that what you are taking offense to in those Arctic Monkeys reviews is merely the reviewer providing a context to a largely American audience. Whether these reviews are well written or not is an entirely different argument.
...is because there are very few British indie bands putting out decent albums. It's that simple.
If there were, then I doubt there'd be much rumbling about a nothing band like the Maccabees getting a bad review...
Bloody Pitchfork. Angolan music is leading the way.