none taken

i believe they just recently revamped the site but if you access the archives, you'll see that the actual reviews are a little more substantial... a little

quote:

Originally posted by Yay!:
Looks like the writers spent about 100 seconds on each of those year-end list entries. Good God how boring. The design is lacking and the writing is mediocre.
No offense, but I will not visit that site again.

Me too. Their #1 was MIA. Pee-ew.

Popmatters had a really nice list of personal writers' favorites which didn't make it on many year end lists. I think it is the best year-end piece I've seen yet, and just confirms that they are my favorite online source for music reviews by far. Here's the link if anyone is interested

http://www.popmatters.com/music/features/060113-slippeddiscs1.shtml

I like Popmatters, and I often agree with their ratings, but some of their writers are a bit lacking.

There's this one review this week about an album by a band called 'We Are Scientists'. Essentially it says:

'This album is another garage rock revival album, and it's become unfashionable to like that genre. So, I'm not allowed to like this album. But, ehh...I guess it's kinda sorta good.'

The review said absolutely nothing about the album that wasn't vague, and the only real information it carried was that the reviewer was essentially rating the genre instead of rating the individual album.

But, the problem with Popmatters is only a few of the individual writers. It overall has a lot of really good content.

Sounds pretty descriptive to me:

"With Love and Squalor is pretty much everything you've come to expect from neo-post-punk music: disco beats, prominent basslines, and those ever-angular guitars, all playing under some clipped vocals that have a distinctly British cast to them. And yet, interspersed among the more-of-the-same is a sense of more recent rock history. Just when the new wave notes seem like they're going to be predictable, you get a big wall of '90s alt-rock guitars from leader Keith Murray, and he breaks into some sustained-note, unaffected singing. The best part is that rather than sounding schizophrenic, it all blends together into some great, hooky moments."

We Are Scientists: With Love and Squalor - PopMatters Music Review

My vow of silence is over. Pity.

quote:

Originally posted by Bobthespirit:
But, the problem with Popmatters is only a few of the individual writers. It overall has a
lot of really good content.

That's true alright. I know of at least one totally worthless human being who writes for them. The rest of the time, I totally prefer it to Pitchdork.

quote:

Originally posted by Bobthespirit:
I'm starting to notice Q Magazine hates just about everything I like, and I've never seen it give *anything* a rating higher than 70. I'm wondering what the heck Q Magazine *does* like.

Amen, Bobthespirit, amen. I doubt any other publication juxtaposes my taste in music nearly as much as Q magazine. That might be the only publication I would never go to for reviews.

There are two publications that I feel I must defend a little: Rolling Stone and Pitchforkmedia. Well, not so much as defend them, but list a merit or two that each possess.

I've only been a music fanatic since 2002 (fanatic meaning actually searching out new music, and not just what's on the radio). Before that, I would just buy CDs based on what I liked on the radio (hint: I didn't buy many cds back then), or what friends recommended to me. Back then I had no idea where to start my search. I was tired of the radio, and had given up on MTV before I was even in high school.

I would often skim through Rolling Stone magazine when I was at record/book stores, so I decided to get a subscription and go by their reviews of the current releases until I established my own taste. What I liked most about the magazine was their special issues recognizing the bands and songwriters from the sixties and seventies, of which I knew little to nothing. I bought many fascinating albums from that era based on what I read in that magazine. And that's why I would recommend it to anyone with a limited knowledge of rock who wanted to start off where rock music did.

As for Pitchforkmedia, they have two writers who are both interesting and unpretentious: Mark Richardson and Ryan Schreiber (editor). To anyone who is unfamiliar with his writings on Pitchfork, especially his Resonant Frequency column, I would highly recommend it. And his tastes in music uncannily match mine. Ryan Schreiber (I believe I'm spelling his name correctly. I'm way too lazy to look it up) has good taste as well, and his writing is clear, succinct and fun to read. Unfortunately he doesn't write many reviews anymore. I remember reading other writers on Pitchfork that I liked as well, but many do fall under the long-winded-too-ostentatious category.

Anyway, I think I'm going to stop babbling now.

quote:

Originally posted by musicfanatic:
What I liked most about [Rolling Stone] was their special issues recognizing the bands and songwriters from the sixties and seventies, of which I knew little to nothing. I bought many fascinating albums from that era based on what I read in that magazine. And that's why I would recommend it to anyone with a limited knowledge of rock who wanted to start off where rock music did.

I don't think they do that any more. Although it's expensive, Mojo and Uncut have way better oldies coverage.

God, I hate Robert Christgau. I never read any of his writings until an hour ago. I've only heard of him through other critics' writings (and in these forums). I just spent about an hour on his website, and realized that he is the most smug critic alive. He actually says his opinions are facts, and that people who disagree with him are wrong. And his syntax is too dense for my taste. Just because you know how to use a thesaurus doesn't make your opionions "more right" than anyone elses. The fact that he pans Radiohead and Wilco is what sealed the deal with me.

Hooray, my subscription to XLR8R finally started. For some reason, they stopped getting it in Vancouver. This is one of the only magazines I truly enjoy, cover to cover. Spin officially blows goats now.

quote:

Originally posted by Filmore Mescalito Holmes:
Hooray, my subscription to XLR8R finally started. For some reason, they stopped getting it in Vancouver. This is one of the only magazines I truly enjoy, cover to cover. Spin officially blows goats now.

xlr8r is prolly the best music mag going right now.always consistent, always quality.i will never give up me subscription.on the other hand i let urb go...terrible--they decide to jump on the indie rock bandwagon, stupid decision.

quote:

God, I hate Robert Christgau. I never read any of his writings until an hour ago. I've only heard of him through other critics' writings (and in these forums). I just spent about an hour on his website, and realized that he is the most smug critic alive. He actually says his opinions are facts, and that people who disagree with him are wrong. And his syntax is too dense for my taste. Just because you know how to use a thesaurus doesn't make your opionions "more right" than anyone elses. The fact that he pans Radiohead and Wilco is what sealed the deal with me.

Aha, yeah I can definitely understand the irritation/animosity. I have definitely cooled off on his criticism, but I still think he does a commendable job and definitely knows his stuff. At first I had to conquer an aversion to his form, and after that an aversion to much of the content as well, but in the end I find his takes pretty enjoyable if a little *too* based on extra-musical issues at times.

I wouldn't necessarily hate a critic because they pan some of my favorite bands. In fact, I loved Radiohead and Wilco when I started becoming acquainted with his work, and after a while I actually understood his position on those two bands and turned around and saw that they *weren't* the greatest bands ever as some people may believe. I actually have a slight hesitancy with their music now, but they're not bad by any means. But I don't think he pans them. If you go back and read his stuff on them, he essentially gives them their props for what they do well, but won't accede like many to place the crown of thorns on their heads.

So, really, I'm not really defending him or pulling for him. He just kind of does what he does.

Why is The Music Box not included here? They've been around since the early '90s, and they've grown signifcantly each year they've been publishing. This year they seem to have reached a new plateau, and they also seem to be diversifying into film and books as is evidenced by their reason posts.

Here are just a few reasons why they ought to be part of MetaCritic. I think each of these compares quite favorably to what is listed on the MetaCritic site:

Review: Neko Case - Fox Confessor Brings the Flood

Review: David Gilmour - On an Island

Review: Grandaddy - Just Like the Fambly Cat

Review: Flaming Lips - At War with the Mystics

Review: T Bone Burnett - The True False Identity

Review: Alejandro Escovedo - The Boxing Mirror

Review: Gomez - How We Operate

Movie Review: The Proposition

It's the first place I look, anyway.

Wow, you guys hit the thesaurus even harder than 'Fork.

"Turning his attention to a broader array of worldly issues, he forsakes the thematic rumination upon mortality that bound together The Soft Bulletin as well as Yoshimi Battles the Pink Robots’ science-fiction-imbued storyline about post-9/11 fear."

What language is that quote in leland?

quote:

Originally posted by Brindley:
Review: Flaming Lips - At War with the Mystics

Why are there so many links to purchase? Amazon is pretty lame.

quote:

Originally posted by Brindley:
Why is The Music Box not included here? They've been around since the early '90s, and they've grown signifcantly each year they've been publishing. This year they seem to have reached a new plateau, and they also seem to be diversifying into film and books as is evidenced by their reason posts.

It's the first place I look, anyway.

Why is the Music Box not included here? Let me offer a reason: it's lousy.

I agree with Filmore...those links are AWFUL. And leland hits the nail on the head: it's like the reviewers are desperate for everyone to know they're really, really smart.

Based on the samples provided by Brindley, I'd say The Music Box is slightly above the reviews you can read on the Amazon pages for products, or maybe what you'd find in a college newspaper.

Also, at least one review pretty much plagiarizes almost directly from a band bio:

http://www.musicbox-online.com/reviews-2006/dumbing-up.html

The reviewer writes:

"After the 1997 release of Egyptology, Karl Wallinger’s World Party collapsed. Not only had the album received minimal support from Chrysalis Records — which led Wallinger to void his contract — but the label, along with most of his backing band, also had snatched a song from the set (She’s the One) without his knowledge and used it as a platform for turning Robbie Williams into a pop star. Wallinger tried his best to persevere by putting together Dumbing Up, his fifth outing since leaving The Waterboys, but further tragedy struck when his manager and friend Steve Fargnoli succumbed to cancer and Wallinger himself suffered an aneurysm.

Having fully regained his health, Wallinger subsequently fought for and won back the rights to his complete catalogue, all of which is in the midst of being reissued. In addition, he has reformed World Party for an extensive tour and has dusted off his most recent outing Dumbing Up for a proper release. (It previously had been issued only in the U.K.). Unfortunately, although the newly reconfigured incarnation of Dumbing Up boasts two additional songs as well as a two-hour DVD containing videos for World Party’s numerous singles, the collection isn’t necessarily the best foundation upon which to construct a career resurgence."


Now go here for the band bio:

http://www.worldparty.net/worldparty.html

and click on the "About" link, and you'll see this:

"4 years ago, Karl Wallinger’s World Party fell apart. He had terminated his long deal with Chrysalis Records because of their handling of the Egyptology CD release (this CD included the hit “She’s the One”); without his knowledge, most of his band and his former label manager produced a near identical version of his song to win Robbie Williams the Brits “Single of the Year;” his manager and mentor, Steve Fargnoli, died of cancer; and then Karl had an aneurysm.

It seemed like Karl Wallinger’s 20 year old ship of fools was scuppered, taking with it one of Britain’s finest musical treasures. Now, despite feeling like his head’s been sawn in half, (which, incidentally, it has) Wallinger and World Party are back on the campaign trail. He’s regained control of his voice, his legs, his warped sense of humour and his music catalogue. He’s launched Seaview Records and is playing South By South West in Austin this year. Dumbing Up, the album that only received a partial UK release four years ago, has been remastered and repackaged with two new tracks, new graphics and a DVD of intimate World Party action. There may even be life for the bizarre comedy concept, Seaview TV."

That's pathetic "journalism" or "criticism" in my book. If a student tried that shit in my class, he'd get sent to the plagiarism committee. I'm surprised that "reviewer" didn't slip in "scuppered" just to prove that he's down with British slang...

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

quote:

Originally posted by m.leland:
Wow, you guys hit the thesaurus even harder than 'Fork.

"Turning his attention to a broader array of worldly issues, he forsakes the thematic rumination upon mortality that bound together The Soft Bulletin as well as Yoshimi Battles the Pink Robots’ science-fiction-imbued storyline about post-9/11 fear."

Sorry for the double post, but I'm gonna call bullshit on this review, too. Considering that most of Yoshimi was recorded between 2000 and April 2001, I'm not sure how the storyline is "about post-9/11 fear."

I suppose Ryan Adams' "New York, New York" was written as a tribute to the city, post 9/11, too? Even though Gold was released just two weeks later?

If you want any further evidence of the kind of musical preferences present on The Music Box, note these are four of their Top 10 of 2005: Neil Young, The Rolling Stones, Robert Plant, and Van Morrison. And five of their ten "significant reissues" of 2005 are Grateful Dead records. I never thought I'd say it out loud, but this site makes me want to read Pitchfork so I can feel clean again...

quote:

Originally posted by musicfanatic:

quote:

Originally posted by Bobthespirit:
I'm starting to notice Q Magazine hates just about everything I like, and I've never seen it give *anything* a rating higher than 70. I'm wondering what the heck Q Magazine *does* like.

Amen, Bobthespirit, amen. I doubt any other publication juxtaposes my taste in music nearly as much as Q magazine. That might be the only publication I would never go to for reviews.

Well, they did give Limp Bizkit's "Results may vary" 80 ...