This Pitchfork review is weird and stupid. You guys are... the wedge of time between Monica Lewinsky and 9/11? I'd get pissier about the review except the writer is obviously phoning crazy in. That number is really unfair, though, to pair with such a batshit-pointless review. Giving a solid album a 5.5 and then splatting out that tortured simile of a pseudo-review is not cool.Fuck 'em. Have a great show tonight, guys. I wish I could be there.
always remember "if meg white was on drums, she would be a better drummer than me".pitchfork is a bag of dicks. a bag of veggie dicks.this is my third comment today, what the fuck is wrong with me?
Yeah, I read the review this morning and share the same thoughts and feelings stated above.On the plus side, it gave me a good journalism/blogging idea: http://ilikewrpi.blogspot.com/2009/06/reviewing-pitchfork-so-many-dynamos.htmlGood luck at the show tonight.
I give you all a 10 out of 10...and The Loud Wars gets an 11 out of 10.Oh yeah, that chat thing last night was really cool. Glad to hear that you guys are coming to Akron!
And now this!!!http://www.newsday.com/entertainment/news/celebrity/ny-michaeljackson0626,0,57920.story
Careful analysis has indicated that if you wanted to pull together a Michael Jackson tribute in the next 48 hours, "Smooth Criminal" is by far your best collective bet.
My analysis says that they will play it in Akron...for some reason.
1: pitchfork is run by people who love to talk about things because they like to hear themselves talk. i assume most of their friends probably started tuning them out in conversation when they go off on a rant about blahblahblahnobodycares' band/album/scene, so they banded together and started putting it on the internet. or at least i'd expect my friends who are like this to be hired by pitchfork in a heartbeat.2: that review was obviously written by one of those people, probably because he came up with a clever line about the dismemberment plan and then had to create a place to use it, like a "review" of an album that says almost nothing about the music on it and everything about how much he doesn't know about you guys.3: anyone that dense doesn't deserve to make you guys feel crappy about what you do. pitchfork is ghey, it serves its purpose but it's way off the mark at times. sorry for the rant, i'm just really angry. haha.
i hate pitchfork so much. maybe you guys just aren't "indie" enough for them. at least you won't have to worry about your shows being overrun with hipsters.the only other review i read was this, and its pretty good:http://www.sputnikmusic.com/album.php?albumid=38387
all i have to say is you better sell a poster to me...
Here's a review of pfork's review of you at popsense:"Paul Thompson is an intelligent, all-around lovable guy with good intentions, but in this review we see him fall victim to a somewhat debilitating case of 'talking about shit that doesn't actually have to do with the music but could help him come to a conclusion about it regardless'.Thompson describes the Loud Wars as being formulaic, which is inherently meant to hold negative weight. However, if one were to describe an album review that met a formula in which the reviewer talked more about the music recorded on the album instead of other things that aren't recorded on the album, you'd be describing a good review. In a very pitchforkian sense, then Paul Thompson's review is both formulaic and yet not formulaic at all. It's so human yet so digital. Yet at the same time-- at the VERY same time-- it is so not Merriweather Post Pavilion.Still, this may all be a result of crappy music, not lazy reviewing. We'll give you a break on this one Paul, but only because you're so goddamn lovable."for what it's worth though, I think the new album slays.
I am not even saying this because I know you guys and I am disappointed about the rating: That is one of the most off-topic, poorly written album reviews that I have ever read.
Post a Comment