This is a link to the pitchforkmedia review of We Were Enchanted, the latest album from a band with a very unassuming name.

http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/...te-we-were-enchanted

As often as I defend these guys, and as steadfast as I am in maintaining that there really isn't a better place to get opinions about music, I thought this review was funny (in a bad way). It's funny because he gives the motherfucker a 4.8, without ever telling us where those 5 1/5 points went. The only real negative thing we hear about the album is that it "makes a whimper, not a bang." Really?

It's like a game - read through and try to find one real thing the reviewer says is wrong with the album. May the Lord guide you on your quest.

Kent Lambert is one of those indie rock guys who you think sounds like Jason Molina one second, then Markus Acher the next, and somebody else a moment later. The probably-nonexistent singer his voice so uncannily recalls is hard to pin down (I think he just happens to be around the mean of how a lot of dudes sing this music), but his lyrical MO isn't - fiery, evocative declarations. Short-story-of-the-month-winner images and topicality. Lambert's writing style is the equivalent of an album-long guitar solo. It's an approach that could optionally be adopted, I'm sure, by any number of more restrained, purposeful lyricists. But it hasn't been, not lately. Not by enough. And that should be pointed out. Because it really is pretty cool.

The method allows for the kind of impression a good movie trailer can make. As some of you probably know, a flashy, visually captivating/eccentric trailer often means a bad movie. But in these songs, the trailer is the movie. The elliptical nature of Lambert's writing, coupled with the dramatic and eclectic instrumentation and dead-on sense of melody, creates repeated, somewhat ambiguous emotional peaks. Romantic recriminations are coupled with glimpses of terror and paranoia. Vivid and disturbing word-pictures and unsettling suggestions follow and precede notions of love and rest. His words speed along tracks a well-versed listener could trace, but then often unexpectedly derail and explode - only to continue! Every climactic panorama, every last-chapter-last-sentence profundity that Lambert can summon is thrown into his songs. And as the listener reels at how many he comes up with, and how fast and strangely they stack up into an awesome, morbid monolith, the songwriting serum becomes heady indeed. For me, anyway. But I fuckin' love this kinda shit.

That having been said, it's easy to see why some are hatin'. Some songs you'll swear are re-tooled Junior Boys tracks. Others you'll swear are Books b-sides with a singer. And no, the Notwist probably can't sue, even for those vocals mixed with those beats and that banjo. But maybe they deserve a free meal at least. The music here aesthetically sounds a lot like a lot of stuff of a lot of us have already heard a lot of. But it would be premature to focus on that fact instead of the extremely strong melodies and generous, listener-oriented approach to songcraft. Fascinating vocal and guitar lines abound. And if you're into the kind of indulgent, go-for-broke, show-offy lyricism that guys like Will Sheff and Royce da 5'9" (the blacker guy on Eminem's Bad Meets Evil) sometimes enjoy getting into, the album is a very significant must-listen.

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

Weren't you the guy defending pitchfork not too long along ago, telling us how it was the best review site and we were just a bunch of pretentious assholes.

Shouldn't this be in indie rock or something, away from General Music?

You all keep thinking music is a noun. Go read Christopher Smalls' book "On Musicking," and you'll realize how retarded it is to bitch and complain that a reviewer did or didn't talk about "the actual music."

Liberalkid, do you come into my threads only to embarrass yourself? How old are you? For God's sake, you are in every thread I start. And every time you reply, you seem to have found an elegant new way to say "I have a lot of trouble understanding things."

EDIT - This can be moved to indie rock. I wasn't really paying attention to which subforum I was in.

I have to keep reminding myself not to be too surprised or annoyed by a lot of this stuff - mostly because, again, I have no idea how old any of you are. But crob - wh-

y-

"You all keep thinking music is a noun"??!?!? Are you fucking serious?

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

This thread turned into a trainwreck fast, even by MC standards.

In case anybody's just come in here and not really read my actual post (common) it might seem like the text is from the body of the pitchfork review. It's not, it's my own response to the album, and to a lesser extent to the linked review itself.

I don't know how many of you are actually checking the music out, but if you would do that and then post about what you agree and disagree with, the thread would probably be more interesting and less of a "trainwreck"(or more of one - those are the most fun).

I gave the album a couple spins last year. I don't remember too much about the album, but I do remember there were select things about the band's sound that I really liked, and others I did not care for.

I can't really say one way or another whether the 4.8 rating was deserved.

I agree with ES about Pitchfork being a very good (not the best imo) musical resource, but I feel like alot of the time they cant keep their musical-elitist bias out of their reviews. And sometimes I swear they just pick the worst possible critic to review certain albums. For instance, ...And You Will Know Us By The Trail Of Dead's "Source Tags and Codes" gets a perfect ten. The guy praises the shit out of that record. Then, "Worlds Apart" (which I feel is the better album) is given a 3.2 or something by a completely different critic who obviously hates the band. It is an awesome site though, Pitchfork.tv is awesome as hell.