Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
maybe this, idk...
Homework and Discovery got 4. and 6. something respectively if memory serves
It was a disgraceful hatchet job of a review. With the very greatest of respect, I'm sure if British Sea Power wanted to sound like & attempt to replicate the success of U2, they would have done a far better job of it.
Nada Surf - Let Go 3.8
Longwave - Secrets Are Sinister 4.8
Shower of bastards
and I vaguely recall them accusing 'Putting the Dog to Sleep' by The Antlers of being the worst song on Burst Apart. YOU WHAT MATE?!
That Stills review is just awful.
They didn't even include Antlers in their albums of the year list that year either.
in my opinion. but clearly most people love it and i respect that.
review has subsequently been deleted from their website but I found it here:
I'm a huge Tegan & Sara fan. They gave So Jealous 3.4. I think the review was written by a child.
Souljacker - 4.9
Shootenanny! - 2.8
Blinking Lights - 6.5
Hombre Lobo - 4.9
End Times - 3.9
Tomorrow Morning - 3.6
What a load of bollocks. E has more talent in his left pinkie than most of the shite they trumpet on that site. I'm glad they didn't bother reviewing Wonderful, Glorious.
ever listening to him in the first place. Most those albums are at least an 8.
That's the best double album ever made. What the fuck is wrong with them?
closer to 13.0 than 3.0
Possibly as a result of this review idk. Maybe I should listen.
Well worth a listen. They're pretty awful when it comes to reviewing Red House Painters/Sun Kil Moon/Koz in general, as they worship him whenever he's mentioned then moan about him in reviews.
they did put it in their best albums of the decade list a few years later so obviously realized they were wrong
Made even wronger by some bellend calling himself 'Ethan P' pretending to be KRS One
That was repulsive
What kind of cock do you have to be to write a review like that?
even if it is a royal pain in the arse to play.
Pretty sure someone editorial has a SERIOUS BEEF at Pitchfork.
They're averaging 3.82!
There are rules 5.4 / 7.0 on DiS
Something to write home about 2.0 (!!!) / 9.0 on DiS
On a wire 3.3 / 8.0 on DiS
Red Letter day EP 5.1
Simple Science EP didn't get picked up on PF, on here it got 7/10. So on DiS, they're averaging 7.75, over double what they do on Pitchfork. Average career score on Metacritic is 6.7
until I found out it was a cult classic among SY diehards.
has since spoken his regret of giving it such a low score. I think SY were sanguine about it.
It's a masterpieceeeeeeeeeeee.
'it's not Van Occupanther'. It wasn't meant to be.
FUCK. OFF. NOW. IAN. COHEN. YOU. WANKER
might have just not liked it you know
elitist trash. With heavy nods to 'he's not American, he's not talented like you UK folk think he is' bullshit. Eugh. Here Be Monsters getting 4.0 too, a beautiful album.
Here Be Monsters 4.0
From Every Sphere 5.8
I made sure not to send the new album to them, it got decent reviews elsewhere (apart from Q, who have slagged off every record I've released) http://www.metacritic.com/person/ed-harcourt
From Every Sphere is the only Harcourt album I've not actually played yet, I've got them all now but the others are still aping my attention. The Beautiful Lie though, lawd how can any album with Until Tomorrow Then not charm the arse off you.
People whose opinions about music are easily swayed by some else's aren't interested in music. Even when it's the sort of peacock soapboxing that Pitchfork deal in. They used to be so much worse though..I imagine that a lot of those writing for them a decade ago are now either writing experimental prose or are alcoholics.
I can never get through it.
Red House Painters on the other hand...utter snoozefest.
I always assumed that RHP and SKM were very similar artists; so if you liked one you'd like the other (like Microphones and Mount Eerie). I remembered hearing and enjoying SKM's April year's ago so I thought I'd start again with RHP and move through it...but it is so dull! Presume I should just skip through their whole discog?
I was expecting you to say Down Colorful Hill which is about as far away as RHP stuff is from Sun Kil Moon. Ocean Beach is a lot lighter and closer to the stuff Kozelek does in Sun Kil Moon so if you don't like it then I'd guess you won't like any of the albums before that. Just in case though have a listen to Grace Cathedral Park and Katy Song on spotify or youtube or whatever. If you don't like what you hear there don't bother going any further.
My mind just recoils at the notion.
Not having it. Can't be done.
DCH and the two s/t records are the best music Mark's ever made, and I WILL FIGHT anyone who disagrees.
seemed a bit harsh.
granted, TMV released some utter shite, but 4.9 for Deloused and 2.0 for Frances the Mute isn't right.
THIS is the most wrong they've ever been. Those two albums are stone-cold classics. Flawless and indispensable. To rate them any lower than an 8.0 each is motherfucking blasphemy, and to rate them THAT low is asking to be smote by the god of thunder (who, coincidentally, is also the god of prog).
That they even covered their breakup is a shock, especially because it included no snark. Bunch of fucking assholes.
Man, that is a real sore spot for me.
Still makes me unreasonably angry
Because I, like Sean, will never stop being a fawning NiN fanboy.
no, 2.0. Two point zero.
That alone would have inspired me to have started DiS (although I didn't first find Pitchfork until about 2002/3)
It's so ponderously awful though. Like that National thread proved, lyrics can frequently sound terrible when written or spoken without any context. Trent's no great poet, but he understands how words sound and how they work with his music.
pretty true now innit
needing & feeding & bleeding
their CODY review stuck in my mind as being a good example of this
either about it not sounding enough like Young Team or sounding too much like Young Team.
Obviously I've got no problem with a critic slating an album they don't like, but this review isn't even consistent with itself. He claims to rate Alopecia and Eskimo Snow (an album that Mumps, etc is a lot better than, imho) but the faults of this record that he lists can be found in those records too. It's as if he doesn't like the band (which is fine, I can imagine they sound annoying to some people) but he's been told that the company line is that the previous records were good, so he better contrive some half-arsed narrative about the band 'losing it'.
But not 2.8 crap.
pelican - cities of echoes, where literally the entire thing is about how bad the drumming is
giving it 4.4 based solely on the quality of the drumming
I've never heard Pelican but I found this interview where the drummer responds - he seems to have taken it much better than most would have
personally I think that drumming style suits the band it's not like they're Mastodon.
but, to be fair, he sorted himself out for the following album
They still give it a crap mark, though.
but the drumming is what always put me off Pelican tbf. Ruins it.
but I can kind of see why they did it. They have a massive hard-on for Modest Mouse so are looking at them as bad covers. I don't give a shit about Modest Mouse, I didn't know most of the originals so I just saw it as another Kozelek record and enjoyed it very much. Some of my favourite tracks of his are on that record or versions of them played live.
I mean the review is bad, I love the records...
I'm a huge Modest Mouse fan so that sounds quite cool.
But Kozelek adds something haunting and beautiful to each song. It's inspired by not just the music the band makes, but the general philosophy that goes into their music. It's lonely, and it's haunted, and it yearns for human connection, but is unable to find it. And, while Isaac Brock expresses this by yowling about it, Kozelek uses the approach of creating an aura of pain to get it out there.
I would go as far as to say that, if Tiny Cities had been just a half-mile better, each of his versions of those songs would become the definitive versions. I just wish he had tackled "Bankrupt on Selling", but I don't think anyone alive could even begin to touch that song.
Only got 6. I think it's 36 minutes of perfection.
8.4 BNM :'D
i'm not proud of this review and wouldn't do anything like it nowadays, but if we're talking about how bad they are...
Thanks to the wonders of being in the future we don't even have to apply our imagination!
At the time I was fairly impartial to a bit of twee pop, and I still found it excruciating.
7/10 - "Best album since Let Love In".
Pitchfork don't really like CocoRosie.
They were all also very muted about Hope of the States' The Lost Riots
But the correct answer is The Mars Volta
funny thing is, my first introduction to Pitchfork was a scathing review of something I liked. the first handful of reviews I read were all like that, and I got all angsty and embittered about it, but when I found out they liked Radiohead, I was compelled to dig further despite nursing a lot of hate for them.
I got over the hatred, naturally. either through realising that it doesn't matter that they have differing opinions on some music, or by realising they were ultimately right about a lot of music actually being a bit crap.
I really enjoy their reviews; they're considered and mature and often help me look at a record in a different light. I think they give high scores to some wank music (hello The Pains of Being Pure at Heart), but over the past few years, bar the BSP review, they don't seem to have vastly marked down many records just to prove a point. In my opinion, Pitchfork has the most consistently well written music reviews outside of Wire. That makes me sound really boring. I think I just like considered reviews better than Coke Machine Glow-esque faux intellectual posturing or anything which is hyperbolic and kerrrazzyyy.
a lot of the Pitchfork hates seems to stem from the bullshit they did almost a decade ago. I think the only thing that really annoys me about them now is their tendency to cover a lot of mainstream artists. Otherwise, they ditched the hostile review almost a decade ago.
Doesn't mean it can't be good.