I think the new Blood Brothers record is pretty fantastic so far. I can't believe that Pitchforkmedia's Jason Crock gave it a 6.2 making it much lower than Crimes' score. This record is so far superior to that one it isn't even remotely funny. That site is losing cred with me with every passing day. This rating from a dude who thinks the Trail of Dead cover of Guided By Voices' "Gold Heart Mountain Top" is anything but absolutely fucking terrible, giving that song a 3/5 stars. Seriously??? That new Trail of Dead in it's entirety is one of the single most worthless pieces of shit to come out this year. Giving the super boring Chin Up Chin Up a 7.3 the same day for their sophomore record???? Oh and in typical bullshit fashion, basically trying to claim that previous Pitchfork staffers were wrong for giving the previous Blood Brothers records good scores by asserting that they don't know how to write "songs." At least they don't write completely ignorable indie rock like the majority of "Best New Music" groups this year on that site (cough cough...Hold Steady...cough cough...Decemberists). Sorry for using this space to vent but I'm kinda sick of this shit.

Thoughts....anyone...

I've been listening to the new Blood Brothers and am absolutely in love with it. Interesting you mentioned Pitchfork because I noticed that they have been giving really mediocre albums hype lately too. Maybe it is because they don't have enough "indie classics" to champion this year. Personally, and maybe its because I'm still a bit new to it, i would say 2006 has been extremely successful in regards to experimental releases.

Back to the subject at hand. The new Blood Brothers is incredible...so why are the touring with Trail of Dead?

Maybe they were asked to come by Trail of Dead. I can't imagine how the new Trail of Dead stuff will go over with Blood Brothers fans. Maybe if they had toured together when Source Tags & Codes came out it would've made sense. The new Trail of Dead is monumentally bad.

I'm listening to this now, and it's really good. Just about as good as Crimes, but a lot louder.

quote:

Originally posted by jonathanbrisby:
I think the new Blood Brothers record is pretty fantastic so far. I can't believe that Pitchforkmedia's Jason Crock gave it a 6.2 making it much lower than Crimes' score. This record is so far superior to that one it isn't even remotely funny. That site is losing cred with me with every passing day. This rating from a dude who thinks the Trail of Dead cover of Guided By Voices' "Gold Heart Mountain Top" is anything but absolutely fucking terrible, giving that song a 3/5 stars. Seriously??? That new Trail of Dead in it's entirety is one of the single most worthless pieces of shit to come out this year. Giving the super boring Chin Up Chin Up a 7.3 the same day for their sophomore record???? Oh and in typical bullshit fashion, basically trying to claim that previous Pitchfork staffers were wrong for giving the previous Blood Brothers records good scores by asserting that they don't know how to write "songs." At least they don't write completely ignorable indie rock like the majority of "Best New Music" groups this year on that site (cough cough...Hold Steady...cough cough...Decemberists). Sorry for using this space to vent but I'm kinda sick of this shit.

Thoughts....anyone...

whoa whoa whoa. let's not diss the hold steady, who have released the feel-good, bar-rock-ballad album of the year. i love the blood brothers, too, and felt they deserved a much higher rating, but there's no need to go off on craig and the gang.

Hey it's cool if you like the Hold Steady, but personally I hate them and do not understand their popularity. Different strokes for different folks. I think we can agree on that.

Sure, we can agree, but it makes it hard for some of us to understand why, unless there are reasons.

quote:

Originally posted by jonathanbrisby:
Hey it's cool if you like the Hold Steady, but personally I hate them and do not understand their popularity. Different strokes for different folks. I think we can agree on that.

Yep. Personally, I can't understand why anyone would want to listen to the Blood Brothers. A 6.2 seems about 6 points too high to me. So, you're right.

It's just a matter of what you enjoy personally I think. I grew up in the mid to late 90's on indie rock and punk/hardcore. Eventually I kept wanting the punk and hardcore stuff to be faster and faster and more intense. This lead to my extreme fascination in grindcore, powerviolence, chaotic post-hardcore of the San Diego (in the early 90's) and New England (in the late 90's) styles. Typified by bands such as Angel Hair, Mohinder, Swing Kids, Uranus, and Honeywell at first and then later Orchid, Reversal of Man, Jeromes Dream, The Locust, Combat Wounded Veteran, and Charles Bronson. The Blood Brothers were among that later burst of groups. While I enjoy indie rock in its many forms and still also enjoy hardcore/punk, there are many factions of both that I do not now nor have I ever enjoyed.

When I hear a group like The Hold Steady, they remind me musically of bands like The Dropkick Murphys and many other pub/bar rock bands and I find that mid-tempo, lyrically important style to be lacking in sonic variety and errr...brutality....for lack of better terms. I understand that people who are into lyrically oriented groups might enjoy music like that, but personally I'd rather wash my ears with concrete. Not that all bands that have lyrics aren't "lyrically oriented" but generally I don't think The Hold Steady or Decemberists as I also denounced have anything even remotely sonically interesting going on in the music department aside from the usual meat and potatoes rock n' roll. Most of the time I don't enjoy it, preferring the faster, chaos of hardcore/punk or the atonality/noise of the avant-garde. When I do end up enjoying indie rock bands my reasons for liking them seem to baffle even me. Why do I hate The Hold Steady but like The Arcade Fire or Wolf Parade? Beats me. Sebadoh is the only exception because I enjoyed their perverse bursts of lo-fi noise on the early records, Lou Barlow's crooning voice, and the lyrics spoke to my high school heartbreak state of mind. I never have liked Guided By Voices, the "other" indie band from the time period that seems to garner so much love.

Sorry to go into so much detail but maybe that can help explain why I prefer the piss and vinegar style of The Blood Brothers and have professed nothing but hatred for The Hold Steady or Decemberists. Again, I chalk it up to different tastes as the best explanation. Personally I would've given their records very bad scores and I can certainly understand someone who does not enjoy The Blood Brothers wanting to see their record "trashed" per se. Mostly the Pitchfork article was infuriating because it took a band that the site had formerly only praised, on a record that I felt that was very good for the style, and trashed it for the very same reasons that other writers had professed to like the band for. I guess it could be filed under that whole thread about problems with Pitchforkmedia and its writers and their competing interests. In addition to this I'll add that even though they gave the Fiery Furnaces record that was made with their grandmother a 2. something that another writer for the site said it was one of his favorites. But what good does it do the listening audience for a person, Jason Crock, who so obviously does not like The Blood Brothers to review their new record when others obviously might've found worth in it. It's easy to get someone that dislikes a band to trash them, but if I was told by someone that actually agrees that The Blood Brothers are a good band that this new record is not very good, it would make more sense. I hope that clarifies things.

I'm sure this has been said before, but why do you care so much what Pfork rates an album? If you like an album more than they do, so what? Buy it, listen to it, enjoy it. Pitchfork be damned. Chances are, The Blood Brother's music is going to reach their intended audience anyway. It's not the most accessible stuff in the world. Don't get me wrong, I like them but their audience is never going to be huge and a high Pitchfork rating (especially on their third album) isn't going to change that.

God forbid your opinions and Pitchfork's differ.

Whoa whoa whoa there dude....
Do you think I care that Pitchfork gave the record a bad review/low score in and of itself? If you bothered to read my previous posts on the topic you'll see that my problem mainly lies in the fact that in the review of Young Machetes, Jason Crock trashes the record for the very same reasons that previous reviewers used to praise them. It just seems inconsistent. Why let someone who so obviously doesn't enjoy the Blood Brothers tell me that he thinks they made a bad record or that they are bad songwriters. If this review had come from someone that actually liked them and had given their record a bad score it would be more believable than someone who doesn't give a shit basically just saying it sucks. Does that make sense to you? I'd like to see Pitchforkmedia show a little consistency.

I also think you understate the audience for music like that. While I may enjoy the Blood Brothers and have since 1999 or so, they have a legion of fanboy "emo kids" that has been growing ever since they (The Blood Brothers) joined the hallowed ranks of shit-rags like Alternative Press' list of best bands. I'm not claiming that a better score would help the band or further their audience, I'm claiming that a different reviewer (one that can back up their claims that this is a bad record) would be more beneficial to their readers, including myself. If someone else had given the record a bad review and cited different reasons for disliking it then I would have NO PROBLEM with the low score.

Imagine the scenario like this: you have a favorite band, you also have a friend who you know dislikes your favorite band, do you want him to tell you why their new record sucks since he/she doesn't like them anyway, or do you want someone who actually enjoys music like that and can be objective to tell you whether they think its actually bad?

Try not ending your posts with some smug comment next time. I don't appreciate being condescended to and I'm sure you wouldn't either. Of all people in the world, being an editor at another online music zine, I'm fully aware that reviews are opinions and with all reviews that disagreements are bound to happen. That is the exact reason I posted here, to discuss that very disagreement.

I understand your objections the P-Fork Blood Brothers review, JB, but I'm not sure if I share your view. I mean, different people like different things in their music. What one person praises an album for, another person might criticize it for. Reviewers probably ought to reflect this reality.

If the things they are criticizing are things you like, then you can safely ignore the low score and know that the album is something you'd probably like. If a reviewer slams an album for being too depressing, I'm likely to jump on that album, 'cause I tend to like sad stuff. I don't think that every sad album should be reviewed by someone who's got a thing for depressing music though, as those type of albums would receive high scores too often, more often than more conventional albums. This would lead to a skewing of their ratings in favor of specialized genres.

Your point is well taken. While I do tend to agree with that view as well, this one particular instance just sort of "chaps my ass." Har de har har.......I just don't think that people would appreciate the opposite as well if I was to write a review for The Hold Steady or Decemberists, bands I admittedly hate, and just straight up trash em for the sake of doing it. When I look at the other records that Jason Crock had reviewed recently and favorably it leaves me with the impression that he doesn't listen to music like this and maybe I'm wrong but how can someone without context proper provide criticism for something they don't understand.

For example, while I initially found The Blood Brothers record to be quite enjoyable and better than Crimes, which I still think it is, after a while some of the songs don't hold up as well on repeat listens. That's well and good, but I don't want someone to tell me it's worthless garbage because of the style of music that it inherently is, which is how I felt Crock was presenting his side.

I definitely see what you mean though RL, and I guess my final thought on it would be that you can't win em all right? I'm just going to have to file this with the myriad of other weird problems that I have with Pitchforkmedia.

So JB, you write for Pfrk (imagine)...what rating do you give the new Blood Brothers?

I'm thinking somewhere in the 7.8-8.3 range.