quote:

Originally posted by philosopherEric:
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...

Hey now...I liked Prarie Wind...and I at least heard the Van Morisson album was pretty good. Although I must admit Neil Young was not in my top 20...

Don't get me wrong...I'm not trying to rag out people who like Neil, or Van, or the Stones. I was only pointing out that if those four records made a sites TOP TEN of 2005, they are skewing far more to the 'classic rock' crowd than I'm happy with. Just as there are folks who only rave about records that are indie, or punk, or whatever, there's a cluster of folks who want to give all of the 'classic' artists more credit than they deserve for new records. I listened to the Stones' A Bigger Bang, and i read the accolades. It's not a great record...it's an average record, at best. If a bar band from Mississippi put it out, it would sink like a stone (pun intended) but certain factions want us to accept that it's a revitalized Rolling Stones. The Stones haven't been relevant for 20 years, and if you REALLY think A Bigger Bang was one of the best records of 2005, I don't think you're listening to much outside of the classic rock comfort zone.

OK, I'll just say that I agree with pE on this one, except that the Stones have been irrelevant for at least 30 years, unless you've seen them live during that time and they impressed you.

quote:

Originally posted 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 didn't even pick that up. I was lost in the words before the end of the sentance. Not to bash anothers reviews, though, as I know I've been guilty of a little flowery from time to time, but helpful criticism should be appreciated. I only get an email about once a month telling me a suck in once sentance or less.

Being flowery might annoy me much of the time, but it's forgiveable. Being factually wrong, or plagiarizing a band's bio as part of your 'work', isn't. It's pretty obvious that the reviewer (who penned both the Flaming Lips and World Party reviews) is far from credible in my estimation.

quote:

Originally posted by Filmore Mescalito Holmes:
I didn't even pick that up. I was lost in the words before the end of the sentance. Not to bash anothers reviews, though, as I know I've been guilty of a little flowery from time to time, but helpful criticism should be appreciated. I only get an email about once a month telling me a suck in once sentance or less.

Sentence!

quote:

Originally posted by m.leland:
Sentence!

Spell check!

Popmatters had a pretty good article on Thom Yorke and The Eraser today. It's pretty long, but interesting too.

http://www.popmatters.com/music/features/060705-thom-yorke.shtml

Surprised the article didn't touch on the subtext of Yorke criticizing Blair/Bush, especially in the context of that obscure historical reference with the cover art.

Especially with lines like "I'm your lapdog" and "you are a fool for stickin' 'round" and all. A lot of "The Eraser" seems indirectly political.

I would agree with Yay, as far as no mention of the political tone of the record. Though, I must admit, I haven't heard the record, but every place I read about it touches on the political side of Mr. Yorke. I mean their last album was called "Hail to the Theif". Fairly good article/review/overview.

I have been really impressed with Stylusmagazine.com and they way this magazine has really progressed over the years. They have feature articles every week that are always a great read, and show a very wide variety of taste. And they always try to represent every genre of music (they even have a metal reviewer. That's pretty much heresay in a indie music publication)

Their music reviews are always to the point and actually talk about the music. I always respect the opinion's of stylus writers even if I may not agree with them, becuase their writing is smart and usually sheds a perspective that I haven't thought about before.

Not to mention their podcasts are great, and they post mp3's like a music blog. Stylus is hands down the best source for my music these days, and really makes the other zines look pretty amateurish in comparison. A real pitchfork killer in my book. (the only reason I go to pitchfork these days is to see what band they're over-hyping)

quote:

Originally posted by subrock:
I have been really impressed with Stylusmagazine.com and they way this magazine has really progressed over the years.

Their music reviews are always to the point and actually talk about the music.

I couldn't disagree more here. In my experience, Stylus is one of the worst publications for being to the point in reviews. And in just about every other publication, there seems to be some kind of correlation between how much I like the music and what score it is given. Not the case for Stylus. I never take their scores seriously. And what's the deal with the letter grades? Give it a freakin' number!

I never bother to vist Stylus anymore.

Here are two of my favs I haven't seen on this thread so far:

Scaruffi.com is a great resource for older, European stuff (krautrock, psych, prog, etc). Not so much for anything released in the past 7 years or so. I'm a fan of his best of lists, in particular. His rating system is a bit simplified - anything with a 7 is worth checking out, and anything above a 7 is damn near surefire. He's a grouchy old italian (sludge metal is to scaruffi as britpop to decrescenzio {sp?}), and he veers towards the artsy instead of the pop. But it's totally worth it.

dusted magazine - They're kind of unpredictable. One guy is a jazz nut, another a metal head. But they get to a lot of the lesser known stuff - even farther below the radar than pitchfork at times. And they run a top 40 style list of college radio stations, which is interesting to keep tabs on.

Interesting review of the Pipettes on TMT today. A small part of me wants you yell BULLSHIT! but really, for the most part, I'm in agreement with Mr P. It's not often that I'm in the mood for that kind of music. If I really though that album had "all the essential elements that make music FUN" I would've probably given it a higher score, but I guess he was trying to make a statement.

I think you can believe that statement and still think the music is crap. Just because it has "all the essential elements that make music FUN," doesn't necessarily mean that the music is FUN.

And even if it is FUN, and you're having fun listening to it, doesn't mean that the music deserves a good rating.

When I read that I thought there was an interesting parallel to the drugs and music thread going on. I mean, both drugs and music are used as means of escapism, but they can also serve in an opposite purpose, whatever you want to call that (often labeled as elitist, but that's not the distinguishing trait of whatever it is).

FILTER magazine! they have great reviews and the cover is always a big beatiful photo.

quote:

Originally posted by RavingLunatic:
Interesting review of the Pipettes on TMT today. A small part of me wants you yell BULLSHIT! but really, for the most part, I'm in agreement with Mr P. It's not often that I'm in the mood for that kind of music. If I really though that album had "all the essential elements that make music FUN" I would've probably given it a higher score, but I guess he was trying to make a statement.

I just got around to reading it. I think Mr. P nailed it. It's not often I find myself in total agreement with a reviewer.
Though, I just read a good review on P4K too for the new Plaid/Bob Jaroc album: "That's the risk with these big, long-form statements, with so much invested by both the artists and the audience. When you're sitting through them and they don't quite work, you become aware of how painfully short life really is."

quote:

Originally posted by Filmore Mescalito Holmes:

quote:

Originally posted by RavingLunatic:
Interesting review of the Pipettes on TMT today. A small part of me wants you yell BULLSHIT! but really, for the most part, I'm in agreement with Mr P. It's not often that I'm in the mood for that kind of music. If I really though that album had "all the essential elements that make music FUN" I would've probably given it a higher score, but I guess he was trying to make a statement.

I just got around to reading it. I think Mr. P nailed it. It's not often I find myself in total agreement with a reviewer.
Though, I just read a good review on P4K too for the new Plaid/Bob Jaroc album: "That's the risk with these big, long-form statements, with so much invested by both the artists and the audience. When you're sitting through them and they don't quite work, you become aware of how painfully short life really is."

Uch what a shitty review. I mean he barely speaks about the album or the quality of the music. Instead he decides to uses the entire review to speak about the concept of music in general. Truthfully if we're dealing in aesthetic terms, an artist has the right to deal in the style they want. They shouldn't have to be judged unfavorably simply because their supposedly "promoting political apathy and underscoring gender roles more than anything else." He then goes on to wax poetic on the effect that the music of the 50s and early 60s had on politics. Now for the punchline: WHO GIVES A FUCK! That is not the job that a reviewer is given. He is supposed to review the album for what it is. He does that for about a second in his contention that "they are only fresh in the sense that they've appropriated Spector-influenced girl-pop for a new era." Okay I can hear that. But you certainly don't see this style widespread these days, so I guess there is a bit of merit in that, updating the style a bit with touches of punk as well. To be fair, I have only heard certain songs off the album but I've found them all as he says "FUN." And if that is what the artist is going for, that's fine, I don't believe there should be any criticism based on that. Because if the quality of this "fun" is great, (and personally I can't say so because I haven't heard the whole thing) then there is no reason for it not to get a good review. It's the music that should be up for judgement in a review, not the implications that this music might have(if you're a pretentious asshole), and at this the reviewer fails spectacularly.

quote:

Originally posted by brighteyes215:
That is not the job that a reviewer is given. He is supposed to review the album for what it is.

Actually, a reviewer is supposed to review an album for what he thinks it is. If he thinks it's a 2/5 album, that's what he should give it. Some people would blame Mr P for having a genre bias, but I say, if you think "fun" music sucks, then you have no business giving any fun albums a good rating.

I remember Amir Nezar of Cokemachineglow giving Arhictecture In Helsinki's latest a pretty decent rating despite him basically admitting that he can't stand it. That's stupid. It's all about how much you like an album. Don't give me this garbage "it's really good, but I don't like it." Nonsense. All that means is that you know other critics like it, and you're caving to their opinions.


It's funny, but I remember Will Scheff (of Okkervil River) writing an article pretty similar in tone to Mr P's. I wonder if P's read it. It's called Soft Rock Is Pure Evil. I share their sentiments somewhat.

quote:

Originally posted by RavingLunatic:

quote:

Originally posted by brighteyes215:
That is not the job that a reviewer is given. He is supposed to review the album for what it is.

Actually, a reviewer is supposed to review an album for what he thinks it is. If he thinks it's a 2/5 album, that's what he should give it. Some people would blame Mr P for having a genre bias, but I say, if you think "fun" music sucks, then you have no business giving any fun albums a good rating.

I take issue with the reviewer's lack of actual reviewing the album, rather his reviewing the implications that the album has on our society. Which I find to be pretentious shit anyway. But that's why he gave the album 2/5, not because of the album itself it seems.