What review can you point to that has the lowest rating for an album that you like, and that was generally given good ratings overall by critics (the latter criteria so that we don't have Limp Bizkit or Britney Spears mentions)? I'll start with a review from the late Stylus (may they rest in peace) who gave The New Pornographers' Mass Romantic a D+. As I think it's one of the best albums of the decade so far (although just barely since it came out all the way back in 2000), I'd have to say this review was way, way off. Here are some quotes from the review by Tyler Martin (yeah, Tyler, I'm calling you out):

quote:

Dan Bejar does not fare as well. His main piece ‘Jackie’ is a sloppy, shambling mess.

quote:

It is later songs, like ‘Execution Day’ that the Pornographers’ formula begins to grow laughable. One begins to recognize the pop patterns, which are beginning to feel more forced and less authentic. The melody is lethargic and sappy, the lyrics are dull, and the production begins to gnaw at one’s well-being. In short, songs like this are filler.

quote:

The New Pornographers seem like a good idea: put five Canadian indie rockers together and see what they come up with, what could go wrong? Plenty of things.

I wonder if he still feels this way today.

Rolling Stone's Review of Joanna Newsom's Ys. Not only did they give it a crappy two-star 55-word review:

quote:

Newsom is a classically trained harpist and singer who made a very good 2004 record, but this EP is hard to stomach: Five tracks, four of them more than nine minutes and one ("Only Skin") sixteen-plus, with meandering strings-and-things accompaniment and indulgent vocal quirks that make Bjork sound like Kelly Clarkson.

But then they actually wrote another article about how stupid Pitchfork is for liking the album, in a shockingly unprofessional tirade against Joanna Newsom and the people who like her. Since when does this shit get into magazines instead of blogs?

quote:

Pitchfork Fall On Newsom Sword
In the history of rock music few artists have benefited as much from the hipster audience’s fear of seeming stupid than Joanna Newsom. This much fawned over woodland nymph/harpist — with her track “Emily” off this year’s Ys (pronounced “ees” … what you didn’t know that?) has secured the Number 9 spot on what is an otherwise quite well-conceived list of the year’s 100 best tracks courtesy of indie zeitgeist definers Pitchfork. (Full text after the jump.)

We are taking this moment to address an issue that has been plaguing us ever since this album came out, namely, that it sucks. We are particularly strongly reminded of its suckage in this moment, when we see “Emily” in the top-ten company of genuinely awesome tracks by Clipse, Hot Chip, and TV On the Radio.

Most reviews of Newsom’s new album “Ys” follows the same thesis: Her music is dense, lacks melody, tonality, humor and listenability, is somewhat off-putting and often cloyingly pretentious, but if you work hard enough you will feel her genius radiate through you and then you will know you are cool. This woman makes the very precious (but awesome) Regina Spektor — with her quirky ingenue vibe and almost obnoxious doe-eyed coffee house sincerity — seem like AC fucking DC.

Having to read about Newsom (who makes free lyrical use of the word “thee”) being “devoid of artifice” on a list that could have been truly edgy and subversive as well as accurate, is really annoying. Especially when you consider that Pitchfork (much to many of their readers’ dismay) selected Timberlake/T.I. collaboration “My Love” as their Number 1 song of the year. Even we wouldn’t go that far, but they did, and kudos to them. Must they overcompensate by giving eager fanboy props to the preening harpist?

Dude, I think part of the issue with Rolling Stone is that when you say "they then did blah blah blah" you have to realize that they are a corporate megamagazine and the views of one reviewer need not be echoed immaculately by a columnist. "They" is a nebulous term.

Also, while I've never read that Rolling Stone article it actually resonates with me. I usually don't like when major reviewing/music journalism places start acting like they're in touch with sub-mainstream music, but the guy brings up more than a few good points.

quote:

Originally posted by DFelon204409:
Also, while I've never read that Rolling Stone article it actually resonates with me. I usually don't like when major reviewing/music journalism places start acting like they're in touch with sub-mainstream music, but the guy brings up more than a few good points.

Does he? Where are they? I count zero good points. In fact, that was hilarious. It strongly reminds me of Rolling Stone's suckage.

There will always be 2 reviews that annoy me more than any other: Pitchforks review on Elephant by The White Stripes, giving it a 6.9/10.0. And Rolling Stones review on Pornography by The Cure, giving it a 2/5.

Rolling Stone awarded both Neutral Milk Hotel's "In the Aeroplane Over the Sea" and The Magnetic Fields "69 Love Songs" a 3/5 star rating. Also, Pitchfork gave Jim O'Rourke's "Eureka" a lowsy 5.3!

Wowee Zowee 2.5/5 stars= Rolling Stone= What the Fuck?

Three that I remember reading and getting annoyed:

Pitchfork's 3.8 for Basement Jaxx's Rooty
Rolling Stone's ONE STAR for Aphex Twin's DrukQs
New Musical Express' ZERO for Stereolab's Cobra and Phases Group Play Voltage in the Milky Night


aaargh, wtf

I don't remember exactly but I am pretty sure Rolling Stone gave Weezer's Pinkerton one star out of five when it first came out. They later went back and changed it to 5/5, I believe. That's pretty bad.

That Stylus reviewer does have one good point though: Execution Day is a terrificly horrible song. It brings the whole record down.

quote:

Originally posted by BAfé:
Pitchforks review on Elephant by The White Stripes, giving it a 6.9/10.0.

That was the only one that came to mind for me. That is seriously the worst review I've ever read.

I think Manics album life blood and Mansun's Six are two that spring to mind,

Lifeblood was over produced bordering on easy listening but didn't deserve a two star rating and this comment from Q magazine "Miserable and insipid"

Six was torn apart by most of the english music press, was my favourite album of '97.

Allmusic's 2 star review of Blur's Think Tank particularly irked me. Stephen Thomas Erlewine knows little about music, and I occasionally amuse myself by emailing him to point out glaring errors in his reviews, (such as in his review of Public Enemy's latest album he states that the album title How You Sell Soul To A Soulless People Who Sold Their Soul??? is "an elliptical throwback" to the Fear of A Black Planet song "Who Sold The Soul", which would be true if such a song existed. The song is called "Who STOLE The Soul", and any resemblance to the album title is passing.) so it shouldn't annoy me, but Blur are my favourite band, and I love Think Tank, possibly more than Parklife, so it does.

He dribbles "this is the sound of Blur without the hooks, smarts, tunes, or even the sense of adventure." which suggests he hasn't heard the album, then sneers "Sure, it might be easier to accept if it was called a Damon Albarn solo album, but that's splitting hairs. A lousy album is a lousy album, no matter who gets credit." Just like an terrapin-brained musical ignoramous is a terrapin-brained musical ignoramous.

I'm all angry now.

I've disagreed with Erlewine on many albums. I'm not a die-hard Blur fan, but I'd say I too like Think Tank better than any of their other albums. To call it hookless and unadventurous is pretty silly, because to me it has more of that than any of Blur's other albums. It also really showed that there was a lot more to the band than being an above average britpop band.

quote:

Originally posted by thefanste:

quote:

Originally posted by DFelon204409:
Also, while I've never read that Rolling Stone article it actually resonates with me. I usually don't like when major reviewing/music journalism places start acting like they're in touch with sub-mainstream music, but the guy brings up more than a few good points.

Does he? Where are they? I count zero good points. In fact, that was hilarious. It strongly reminds me of Rolling Stone's suckage.

Yeah, I'd agree. Rolling Stone are pathetic, they have no credibility whatsoever. It's sad when a "music magazine" has more insightful political pieces than it does music journalism.

I often dream of joining Rolling Stone and giving it some credibility through my freaking awesome musical taste and mind-blowing writing style.

Well there's Pitchfork's review of sky blue sky and a ghost is born while sky blue sky was critiqued for not having distortion, a ghost is born was critiqued pretty much because the pitchfork reviewer wanted to I guess.

Then there's pitchfork's review of the boy with the arab strap .8/10. I mean come on wtf, even if it you consider it a bad album (which it isn't) a .8 is ridiculous.

Robert Christgau, pretty much anything he's written I just want to slap him and go pretentious douche.

Here's a few "reviews" by him.


The Bends [Capitol, 1995]
Admired by Britcrits, who can't tell whether they're "pop" or "rock," and their record company, which pushed (and shoved) this follow-up until it went gold Stateside, they try to prove "Creep" wasn't a one-shot by pretending that it wasn't a joke. Not that there's anything deeply phony about Thom Yorke's angst--it's just a social given, a mindset that comes as naturally to a '90s guy as the skilled guitar noises that frame it. Thus the words achieve precisely the same pitch of aesthetic necessity as the music, which is none at all. C

Yankee Hotel Foxtrot [Nonesuch, 2002]
purty music, but I yawn like a lawn when I hear him recite ("Jesus, Etc.," "I Am the Man Who Loves You") *

# In the Aeroplane over the Sea [Merge, 1998] (sad face)

Yes he just has a sad face for in the Aeroplane over the Sea.

I honestly think he's more pretentious then pitchfork, because pitchfork doesn't give themselves a title. Robert Christgau has the audacity to refer to himself as the Dead of American Rock Critics.

OK Computer [Capitol, 1997]
My favorite Pink Floyd album has always been Wish You Were Here, and you know why? It has soul, that's why--it's Roger Waters's lament for Syd, not my idea of a tragic hero but as long as he's Roger's that doesn't matter. Radiohead wouldn't know a tragic hero if they were cramming for their A levels, and their idea of soul is Bono, who they imitate further at the risk of looking even more ridiculous than they already do. So instead they pickle Thom Yorke's vocals in enough electronic marginal distinction to feed a coal town for a month. Their art-rock has much better sound effects than the Floyd snoozefest Dark Side of the Moon. But it's less sweeping and just as arid. B-

quote:

Originally posted by Liberalkid:

OK Computer [Capitol, 1997]
My favorite Pink Floyd album has always been Wish You Were Here, and you know why? It has soul, that's why--it's Roger Waters's lament for Syd, not my idea of a tragic hero but as long as he's Roger's that doesn't matter. Radiohead wouldn't know a tragic hero if they were cramming for their A levels, and their idea of soul is Bono, who they imitate further at the risk of looking even more ridiculous than they already do. So instead they pickle Thom Yorke's vocals in enough electronic marginal distinction to feed a coal town for a month. Their art-rock has much better sound effects than the Floyd snoozefest Dark Side of the Moon. But it's less sweeping and just as arid. B-

What the shit? His review of this masterpiece of an album was an endless rant about Pink Floyd and a stab at Bono(I still don't particularly like the connection, OK computer was a huge leap from their previous efforts)? Fucking douche.

He also gives Kid A an A- and calls it dinner music.

Does anyone else ever get the feeling that some of these albums aren't actually being listened to, and that maybe they're just writing whatever they can to get the review in before the due date passes?

Pitchfork's .4/10 review of Make Believe was pretty unjustified. I don't even like that album that much, but c'mon. The reviewer basically admits that his obsessive love for Weezer's previous work caused him to rate the album excessively low.

I'd say that's honest. I don't think a reviewer's job is to be impartial or not influenced by the past (it's music, that's essentially impossible), I think it's the reader's job to consider the source.