Pitchfork

i think the whole point with the Audioslave reviews is that for the most part it's not the kind of album or band that the average target reader for Pitchfork would give a crap about, so why should they? especially not in 2005. i mean really, why would you go to a place known for reviewing independent and less than mainstream releases for a blatantly mainstream supergroup's 2nd release.

i must say the lyrical replies were quite funny. Cornell's double baked lyrics worked phenomenally well in Soundgarden but then again Thayil studied Philosophy in university as opposed to Political Science like Morello. a forced fit will never be as smooth as a natural one.
 
Doesn't really mean much coming from a person who has expressed his vehement loathing of virtually anything indie on more than a zillion occasions.
 
yes, but all those sites just have regurgitated music lists. I swear, everything from Stereogum to SPIN.com, all the music sites basically listen to the same albums. I would love to see just one list that doesn't have Girls as one of their Top 10 albums, or that didn't list Animal Collective as nuraber one. Not saying I'm not a fan, it would just be nice to see someone do something different.
 
Spin did some over extensive article on them as well, it wasn't even focused on their music, it was mainly about how awkward Bradford is and how he wears dresses onstage.
 
crazy

the title track on NYCG+F is one of SY's best songs EVER. Free City Rhymes is also stunning. You may not enjoy it, but to say its "devoid of any ideas" is just wrong. Some excellent guitar work, sometimes really gorgeous, sometimes very eerie. I find it a perfect autumnal album, it has that really mellow, dreamy-yet-sparse sound that I love in the autumn (for whatever reason). The only thing that really lets it down is the lyrics, occasionally.

Bad Moon Rising is one of SY's best albums. Maaaaan.
 
Yeah. And most it has come from that stupid jackass Brent DiCrescenzo who used to write for them. That guy was the worst reviewer ever.
 
I have Cryptograms, nice enough, nothing enormously special though. Yeah, pretty overhyped i'd say.
Are Okkervil River hyped by Pitchfork? I'd give the award to them.
 
You have to admit, they can be full of shit on a good portion of their reviews. I understand their influence on the music industry, but that doesn't prevent them from acting like complete twats from time to time.

Like this.
 
DH are pretty much their pet band for the last 2 years. Anything related immediately gets a best new music nod. I'd say DH owe 90% of their recognition to Pitchfork. I actually don't hate them as much as I made out, but I don't think they're really good enough for the kind of widespread acclaim they've garnered.


I never saw Okkervil as one of Pitchfork's pet banRAB and believe their recognition has been quite widespread. Also, they're a well good band! You disappoint me, Luke! Have you heard The Stage Names? The lyrical imagery is astounding
 
I'm not sure I understand this sort of reasoning. Does anyone here actually know someone whose opinion on music is based solely on reading Pitchfork's reviews?

I agree with everything Rainy said, in the indie community they have no equal. I still read them because I need some some way of filtering the incredible amount of music being released these days on line. I disagree with them on most accounts, but I'll still check out anything they praise because once in a while they put the spotlight on some spectacular artists which could have gone under the radar...
 
9. Gorillaz - Gorillaz 7/10
Everything Pitchfork likes in an album is here, yet for some reason they thought that overall, it was just an ok effort. It was genre splicing, corabining experimental elements from 13 and Think Tank (receiving a 9.1 and 9.0 respectively).

GorillazAlbum.jpg
 
Back
Top