Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
they mention DiS though.
I thought they'd actually done a review of mike diver and given him 3.4 out of 11.6 or something.
where does it 'dis' him?
"This rigor doesn't come through in the cover, and when a Drowned in Sound interviewer pressed Stephens on the topic of "Long Summer Day", he equivocated. "I don't think it comes as something strategic," he said, and the interviewer demurred, because he was "in no mood" to really broach the topic.
In the same interview, Two Gallants repeatedly complain about critics not "getting them.""
funny for them to reference DiS though.
What a shit review...
than the actual music.
that i don't understand this review ?
i was just thinking today about your quite-good-but-not-quite-perfect grasp on english.
so, i'd say 'yes'. you wont understand most reviews on pitchfork. all pitchfork writers are born with a pretentious moustache and a thesaurus sewn onto their left hand.
I'd put 'Wut?' on every one
Sounds slightly pretentious too
plus, who'd want to read pitchfork in-jokes?
'quite-good-but-not-quite-perfect grasp on english ?
I've never learned english at school !
Which explains why my english is shit !!!
And I was joking : I understand the review ( well most of it anyway ) but can't understand why someone would write something so useless for a review.
i find it quaint.
i wish i was as good at french as you are at english.
But I've learned english by reading comic books !
And playing RPGs ! ( might explain quaint then...)
that explains a lot actually.
post me some french comic books?
we have 'bandes dessinees'.
It's considered as an art.
And quite expensive.
Take a look here :
which my father unaccountably bought three volumes of for me. I think he expected me to learn French to read them.
is printed in comic book format in the UK.
It's not the case in France.
just why should you have to make such an effort to find out if a record is any good?
I do think there's a place for that kind of academic type review for popular music, though - can't see why it should be restricted to books.
"Nostalgic indie bands treat history like a playground, and one need not convey an understanding of the monkey bars' provenance in order to swing on them."
Actually is just a bunch of words thrown together.
A random post by Prole makes more sense than that does. I know what they're trying to say but only in the same way I can understand a tourist who's only grasp of English is a few important verbs and nouns...
it's pretentious shite, but it isn't nonsense.
it is overcomplicated and while the sense is there it could be written far better. To my mind that makes it a worthless piece of English prose. It's the English equivalent of a 20 minute drum solo...
just thought the 'just a bunch of words thrown together' was going a bit far.
but we are all united in scorn for the fact that that review doesn't actually say what the music sounds like
I should be allowed a little hyperbole, though, Shirley?
and thinking 'oh they like this record' then I looked at the rating and had to read it again and go 'oh yeah, they hated it'.
they are ridiculous. the review of 'extinguished' by prefuse 73 is particularly ridiculous.
this one's really good though - http://pitchforkmedia.com/record-reviews/l/louis-xiv/best-little-secrets-are-kept.shtml
how do you handle history like costume jewelry?
how do you throw into stark relief?
my head hurts :(
rather than respecting it.
Which art around the song it has here attraction has been woven; guitaren which are registered to the fence of consonance, tangibly, densÃƒÂ©ment and to surrounded; tecleos and rascados of buzz far; striez therefore create sensitive birdsong, he must belong up to a beetje secret valley. Behind in 2002, the guitaristen Brian Huffines garage-roca and of Aaron Hodge, confessed as of now as the baffle of the jet, decided the guitaren of the elektronika and the ditch in the advantage of keyboards, dechados and embrace computers. The white faces are the first offer apareamiento of Louisville, Kentucky - four possibilities of a red poppy - elektronika with they order of the atmosphere. Hey, delay! The interrupted acoustic guitaar 12-string and the tight link give marimba to del him an exotic atmosphere del park attractions, and of Daniel lazy stemlollops, with style of Smiths forward already del squares adaptation zigzaguear, to return del to rhythm, the jump and in chascando friendlily in the fund. Aa-lado, ' not of I in its RemezclÃƒÂ³?', mania a style little girl unites - del unites voice 60s (the group of the little girl who from the sisters of Smiths are composed) with ÃƒÂ©gouttement, the minimum elektronika and a battle which runs to to average galope - singalong pegadizo, by notching departments in gelukkige, of beat with a voice lead which indicates fire of those arcada on Wyn del. , Has been bent splendidly, bleeping, immediately the mÃƒÂ©morable to song that good for the next album of Danielson predict, the ships that they in May 2006th of ' the reverberation ' he go himself improve will become launched then the subparagraph, vocal of Milberg stringer which sounds more strong with the accompaniment of one electric guitaar and the pieces of synth which they calm down, but other olvidable time immediate are. EP of Gulch of the brilliance as from new montan@as black "pure Article of the aerator" is. By to four to offer b - do not square of previous launching of 7"y of two new songs, are EP of Gulch of brilliance, four - songs good do enough for the album of the principle cut all that and two are which they do not calculate probable in their second effort length - which plays. It is not entirely bad however, even when the early acoustic attraction of ` of the sides ' and ` chains me to to length what ' of consonance as cast-offs of the eliminated meeting MTV are of what is nirvana. The contacts of lift living ` of the favourites on the ocean be ' and the song of Ilana of ` ', the parts of grunge-lite powder - he with sand to explode where there in the same vena under its he does not choose better thrown ` ' and ` each ', but with refrains definitely less pegadizos.
Don't you write for pitchfork?!
pitchfork read DiS.
news from DIS
get their news from NME.
St Michael the Demure.
round round baby right round...
was a DiS tribute site, right?
Same music covered, similar colour scheme, occasional reviewer lapses into self-satisfying smug wankery bollocks...
being a reviewer. wankery bollocks, just read my user report on DPT.
I rarely ever agree with them, and that's when I can decipher what they are saying - that's why I hardly ever visit the site. The features piss me off, some are like at least 5 bloody pages long! Do people honestly have the time to read through that?
if it was well written. i refuse to read pitchfork because it reads like someone ate alphabetti-spaghetti and shat on my monitor.
i LOLed big time.
psuedo-intellectual bollocks. It could be said in a much more economical way but it chooses to venture up its own arse. BAH
is a fairly decent review - the guy's just trying to be a bit more interesting and challenging than most reviewers.
If you're talking about music, which is trying to be aesthetically pleasing, why not try to mirror this a bit with the style of the review?
Also, music is a 'total social phenomenon' - I think its undesirable or even dangerous to wilfully pull it out of its social context. I think the "why can't he just talk about the actual music" comments miss the point - music isn't just about pretty tunes.
I actually quite like the review. All he's saying is that there's a tendency in music, as in many types of 'art' to compartmentalise and stereotype historical periods in a way that can be dehumanising and in many cases potentially offensive.
He's questioning the 'authenticity' of modern middle class people talking about racism in the South in the early 20th century, which is a difficult issue - I'd like to think music could be an arena for questioning traditional notions of authenticity.
Perhaps more importantly he's questioning their motivation. I.e. are they using very personal accounts of racism in a flippant or cynical way, or trying to take a vague approach which stumbles over the nuances?
Well are they? I don't know, I haven't heard it. But not everything you don't understand or can't immediately verify is necessarily shit.
but why is your post so easy to read and that review so very fussy?
it's easier to make a point if you just say what you mean without sounding like your trying to pull your english teacher. i understand the review perfectly, i just don't see the need for all the linguistic acrobatics.
but I am better
What I actually meant was:
Hypothesis 1: he's just trying to make it a bit more interesting - as I said before, why not talk about creative music in a more poetic way?
Hypothesis 2. he's making it sound deliberately convoluted because he is trying to consolidate his own rhetorical force, by:
a. contrasting the artists' apparent 'inauthenticity' with the reviewer's own originality and authority as an intellectual/creative force
b. to mystify other people in the attempt to exclude them from the debate or secure their assent by blinding them with clever sounding references and witticisms
But really, is it actually that complicated?
at music quizzes then? Huh?
i find it slightly embarassing that everyone is so against creativity and ambition in writing, when the guy's using the review to raise issues he has with the record, ideologically, as well as talking about the music. i've read stuff about them before, and this tells me more what to expect than some stuff. before i read it i was under the impression that they were an acoustic folk band from some pieces on them.
hypothesis 2 gives the pitchfork fella far too much credit.
i suppose we just have differing opinions on what is 'poetic' and what is 'toss'.
what sort of fascist would i be to have a problem with creativity? a decent proportion of the writing here on DiS manages to be artistic as well as factual, the difference is that this pitchfork article sounds forced. the writer, to me, sounds like he is punching above his intellectual weight, and for no reason other than to sound impressive.
i will concede alcxxk's point, i too thought that two gallants were a folky-thing before reading this review.
When the NME wasn't shit, the writers included Paul Morley and Ian Penamn. For them five pages was a brief article. Such in depth writing about music is now confined to the Wire.
"Do people honestly have the time to read through that?" What a horrid question. Which people? What are they doing that prevents them from finding the time?
Plan B have been known to.
but if they did i would beat their fucking faces, because that man played party hard on friday night and now he's on my 'best people ever' list
I know, I've seen it a thousand times and it still makes me laugh. The other Jet review too. And the Louis XIV one. ...and the Oasis one. Brillyuant.
AND SO DOES DiS!
and that review in no way shape or form dissed Mike. To the contrary. What the fuck review did you guys read? Flattering, it was. Can't you guys read?
fishplums there should have been a smug bit of self-satisfaction knowing your more famous counterpart reads DiS, eh?
and I can't be bothered to read it
I hate the term "sophomore release" et al. Fucking stupid.
hasn't even commented on the fact that, apart from a song that could be construed as racist (but probably isn't intended that way - at worst it is horrible postmodern style 'oh look at us we are being racist but aren't racist which is funny'), the album contains some genuinely great songs.
that any sane person could construe the song as racist, or "postmodern" Especcially in the context of Two Gallants style, which is quite often storytelling from anothers perspective.
That review is a load of gash, it mentions two songs off the album.
or whatever trying to speak from a point of view of something they have no experience of, why the fuck shouldnt they? its mornonic to assume you can't empathise with someone else or should only write about what you know. Dickens?
Surely it's better than brushing it under the carpet. In a way it drives home a part of history harder (to a white audience) hearing the words from a white person as it (hopefully to most people) comes across as shocking and makes you think more or whatever.
I prefer reviews like that more than the throw a million adjectives at the page approach. Whoever the reviewer is, they have a way that doesnt try to fit in with the current trend for "painting the scene". If you're a gifted writer then it will work every time, but more often than not it seems an attempt by reviewers to disguise a lack of depth in a swathe of hyperbolic imagery.
I'm surprised they can even see their screens to read DiS given that their heads are so far up their own backsides every website must look a disgusting shade of brown.
yeah, I said it, fuck Pitchfork.
I've tried to like their site, I really have, but they don't do themselves any favours with reviews that are, for the most part, tantamount to reading a description of some spotty indie geek wanking in front of a mirror.