You guys are pretty easily amused by people not doing their jobs. Personally, if I could post a video, jerk off and get paid, I'd be laughing my ass off too.

A few AWFUL reviews come to mind:

Pitchfork's review of Daft Punk's "Discovery" (6.4), not only did they call the album a "masterpiece" in a later review for "Human After All", the review itself is utter horse shit.

Here's a review from Melody Maker of Kid A:
1.5/5
"Let's do the math: "OK Computer", until today the most overrated album ever recorded, contained a total of four actual tunes, two of which ("Karma Police" and "No Surprises") were almost identical. "Kid A" manages to squeeze on about two and three-eighths, and those struggle for breath under the avalanche of electronic mice, pointless vocoder twattery and baboon rape. Gulping down their own hype and under self-imposed pressure to make a record even more "ground-breaking" than their third, Radiohead have committed the ultimate folly. They've created a monument of effect over content, a smothering cataclysm of sound and fury signifying precisely f*** all."

I keep hoping that review is a joke.

quote:

Originally posted by Lawrence_Of_Suburbia:
A few AWFUL reviews come to mind:

Pitchfork's review of Daft Punk's "Discovery" (6.4), not only did they call the album a "masterpiece" in a later review for "Human After All", the review itself is utter horse shit.

Two different people wrote those two reviews, so why is that surprising that each had his own opinion of Discovery? The individual writers are one's giving the scores to the albums they review, not the editorial staff. For the more anticipated albums, a couple of writers are assigned to review an album, and the editorial staff picks the one they think is more accurate, so they do influence the score that way.

quote:

Originally posted by musicfanatic:

Two different people wrote those two reviews, so why is that surprising that each had his own opinion of Discovery? The individual writers are one's giving the scores to the albums they review, not the editorial staff. For the more anticipated albums, a couple of writers are assigned to review an album, and the editorial staff picks the one they think is more accurate, so they do influence the score that way.

Hmm, true. I still find the review of Discovery to be crap though. :-D

quote:

Originally posted by Lawrence_Of_Suburbia:

quote:

Originally posted by musicfanatic:

Two different people wrote those two reviews, so why is that surprising that each had his own opinion of Discovery? The individual writers are one's giving the scores to the albums they review, not the editorial staff. For the more anticipated albums, a couple of writers are assigned to review an album, and the editorial staff picks the one they think is more accurate, so they do influence the score that way.

Hmm, true. I still find the review of Discovery to be crap though. :-D

Touche

The review for Daft Punk's Homework isn't that great either; it doesn't have enough detail, and doesn't even discuss tracks individually. I know the score wasn't necessarily bad (7.6), but it's Homework...it should have gotten like at least a 9.0

quote:

Originally posted by Lawrence_Of_Suburbia:


Here's a review from Melody Maker of Kid A:
1.5/5
"Let's do the math: "OK Computer", until today the most overrated album ever recorded, contained a total of four actual tunes, two of which ("Karma Police" and "No Surprises") were almost identical. "Kid A" manages to squeeze on about two and three-eighths, and those struggle for breath under the avalanche of electronic mice, pointless vocoder twattery and baboon rape.

Baboon rape? I totally missed that. I must need nicer headphones.

You can't hear the baboon rape at the end of the second chorus of "Optimistic"?

Hmm let's compile the bad reviews for Sunset Rubdown's Random Spirit Lover (though I think anything lower then an 8 out of 10 is low!):

Tiny Mix Tapes: 2.5/5.

"Why pass up an opportunity to justify his music’s most trying attribute? I’d be more generous if Krug’s music were mounting an avant-argument, but it isn’t — it’s indie pop."
Pop? There's nothing that makes this record a pop record and to criticize an album based on genre classification is lame.

The review sucks in general and had a complete misunderstanding of the music and sticked matters based on Krug's yelping.

I liked that album a lot last year (haven't even thought about it since though) but I still think it's a pretty damn good review. The reviewer (P Funk) doesn't discount the album any more than he praises it... I believe the 2.5/5 is because P Funk seems to feel the detractors tend to even out the brilliance (which I agree with completely).

This is by no means one of the WORST REVIEWS EV3RRRRR!!!1!!!1!!

P-fork's review of NIN's "The Fragile". There's no way in hell this deserved a 2.0/10.0
Here ya go...

Although I think they are much better live than on record, Pitchfork are a bit harsh when it comes to CocoRosie. The Adventures of Ghosthorse and Stillborn and Noah's Ark were both awarded low scores. Also, the new Big Sleep record is much better than their review would entail.

I never really got into the whole "freak-folk" thing but I have no clue what CoCoRosie was trying to do on The Adventures....; that album was freaking laughable. It deserves whatever poor score they gave it imo. If I remember correctly she even tried to incorporate rap into it?

I would give CoCo Rosie's Noah's Ark a 10.0 for the Cover Art alone.

CocoRosie's much better than Pitchfork gives them credit. That said, some of their stuff still sucks.

Two that come to mind for me are RollingStone's review of Bows and Arrors with their 2/5 rating, and Pitchfork's review of Nada Surf's Let Go (3.8). I don't think either album is particularly amazing, but the're at least above average.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: musicfanatic,

quote:

Originally posted by eggtweedyegg:
Many critics have some difficulties to dig great electronic records. Not only the Air record was booed by many critics, but also Ulrich Schnauss, M83 and Port-Royal. I remember why i hate popmatters: Schnauss and Port-Royal got a 4/10. DOUCHEBAG ALERT........

Tom O'Neil is pretty got for PM. He gave Pole's Steingarten (ambient techno) and Klute's The Emperor's New Clothes (drum & bass) each 8/10. I thought Port-Royal is okay, but I am also shocked at the last of respect Schnauss' last album received.

quote:

Originally posted by krugulitis:
at least british sea power didn't get the same kind of review on pitchfork as jet...

http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/article/record_review/38853-shine-on

Both of those reviews were deserving (especially the Jet), and I love the fact P4K doesn't fall for the Kings Of Leon.

quote:

Originally posted by musicfanatic:
Two that come to mind for me are RollingStone's review of Bows and Arrors with their 2/5 rating, and Pitchfork's review of Nada Surf's Let Go (3.8). I don't think either album is particularly amazing, but their at least above average.

I haven't read the Rolling Stone review, but I would argue that Bows and Arrows is particularly amazing. it deserves at least a 3.5/5, although I would personally place it somewhere near 4.5/5.

http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/article/record_review/153...-with-the-arab-strap

From my short memory, I would say P4k's takedown of The Boy with the Arab Stap - Belle and Sebastian. I know it isn't "If you're feeling sinister, but a 0.8 is just mean.

I pretty much agree with your comments on the The Boy with the Arab Strap review. P4k seem not to value "the safe and solid album". Their (Ian Cohen's) review of Cloud Cult's Feel Good Ghosts today follows this logic too. When reading the 4.2 rating I immediately felt like tracking this guy up and force him to listen to it until he realizes that it's actually a very good album, even though they have toned down the crazy experimentation of their previous releases...