BlackGenius, I was merely answering a question put forth by another member, and it turns out I was correct in thinking you disagreed with the review, even though you were clearly aiming to cover a few other immaterial points with your rather short post. I didn't "adopt your style" because that's giving yourself too much credit to say you have one. And, I lightly pointed out that, yet again, you warped the post into a pat on the back. Am I wrong here? If you did have a style, that would be how one would most easily spot it. And just to clarify something that nobody but you will likely need to have clarified. If anyone's flipping out and acting wounded right now, it would be you.

I do that shit to get under the skin of pedestrians like yourself. Obviously. And you pretty obviously DO bite my style. Son. So fall back.

I love how you, to the exclusion of everything, search to find the most annoying thing you can say... and then blare it through a crumpled megaphone. OK numb-nuts. For argument's sake, let's say I'm "biting" your style. Why should I even consider "stepping off" over something like that? Step off what? Answering other people's questions? Noting that you can't stop grabbing your crotch in front of everybody? You know, you're not the only person to employ English as a weapon of mass annoyance. What you're doing is not as novel as you think it is.

Hm... Two people fighting on the metacritic message board? Alert the press!!! And it involves BlackGravel? Surprise Surprise.

I think people find you (BG, not Goathouse) disagreeable because you write with too much authority in your posts. Everyone else just kind of says, "Hey, i like this" or "This blows" (with different variations on the phrase). Maybe people feel threatened by you (I don't, because you know, this is the INTERNET), and maybe people hate you for fighting with them on earlier posts (like i fought you over the Wrens; though i don't really care about that at this point, as I'm sure you don't particularly care either).

I didn't really see any pot-shots aimed directly at you (though i do tend to just gloss over these types of things), so let's just have everyone just PRETEND to understand someone else's point of view.

OH, almost forgot, BG, you do take direct pot-shots at others, as you just called goathouse a pedestrian, but that's not really part of my point.

And Pitchfork has always done that with bands they really like... Take the Flaming Lips for example; they gave Yoshimi an 8.4 but then decided it was the 5th best album of the year and was top 100 albums of the decade material (i think it was in the top 20 or something, don't really remember). That doesn't really sound like an album that gets an 8.4, it sounds more like a 9.4 or 9.5 by their standards (which have become increasingly rare). They gave Daft Punks "Human After All" a rating that was only about a point separated from "Discovery" (and they were both sub 7.0 scores at that) but threw Discovery up as like the 12th best album of this decade (I LIKE LISTS). And as my last (and favorite) example, let's take Clinic's scores from Pitchfork: 9.3, 7 something, 6 something, 6 something, 7.7. And that's for a band who just released an album that is damn near as good as their debut, but somehow close to 2 points away in score (Not even mentioning that "Walking With Thee" is my favorite).

That was far too long, i know.

quote:

Originally posted by CleverName84:
And Pitchfork has always done that with bands they really like...

The only part of this I disagree with is that Pitchfork has never given us any indication that they really like the National. I have always felt that they have talked about them and reviewed their music as if they were desperately waiting for them to screw up and disapear. Almost as if they can't deny the fact that there is something good in their music, but they refuse to make a big deal about it.

I'd have to say that pitchfork is fairly fond of the National.

But I mean you can't say that an artist's back catalog affects the way a reviewer reviews an album. The first thing the majority of people do when they hear a new album by an artist is they start comparing it to the stuff they've done before. Wilco's A Ghost Is Born is a perfect example of pitchfork pulling this kind of stuff. A Ghost is Born is a good album, but they felt it paled in comparison to Yankee Hotel Foxtrot thus the low score.

At any rate BlackGravel people get annoyed at you (I don't really care), because you don't leave much room for compromise. You see something a certain way and thats that, example: You declared the Wrens the best band in the world and a made a series of judgmental statements concerning what everyone else thought about them and if they didn't see it your way they were just wrong. Its w/e, I mean you can be a douche if you want to.

I did a research paper my first year of college about Pitchfork's inconsistencies in ratings etc. All the ridiculous nonsense that's gone on with the site. But like I said, it remains the best place to go for the last word.

Well I mean they do have a volunteer staff of reviewers that send in reviews...

Gave the Cherry Tree EP a listen today. Solid stuff, especially "Wasp Nest". Still, the best thing on it was the song that ended up going on Alligator.

quote:

Originally posted by Chamberk:
Gave the Cherry Tree EP a listen today. Solid stuff, especially "Wasp Nest". Still, the best thing on it was the song that ended up going on Alligator.

True. "All The Wine" is the first National song I ever heard. I was at work listening to songs I downloaded off of blogs, and when it came one I basically stopped working and put it on repeat several times.

The rest of the EP grows on you over time... of course.

In regards to the Virginia EP. I only just realized that the first two songs on it "feature" Sufjan. It wasn't until after I read this that I realized just how Sufjan sounding the end of Santa Clara is. I'm not saying he had any direct part in it, but that is just about as close to Sufjan as the National has ever sounded.

quote:

In regards to the Virginia EP. I only just realized that the first two songs on it "feature" Sufjan. It wasn't until after I read this that I realized just how Sufjan sounding the end of Santa Clara is. I'm not saying he had any direct part in it, but that is just about as close to Sufjan as the National has ever sounded.

Dear God, you're right. Let's hope they never sound that much like Sufjan again

So I finalllllllllllly picked up this EP/DVD last week.

I have to agree on Shadrach on several accounts on the DVD. What makes it sooooooo enjoyable is the great film work by Vincent Moon. Man, I love his work a lot.

The EP is pretty amazingly long...48 minutes, wow.

I loved the "Lucky You" semi-live version, and the first 5 songs on the EP are all solid listens. Songs 6-7 are pretty boring, but I can't complain as this is a 12-song EP. Live songs "Mansion on a Hill", "Fake Empire" and "About Today" are all decent.

Good stuff.
Anyone thinking they'll release an LP in 2009?

I'm glad you are enjoying the EP. I think it was sortof ignored by most because Boxer was so great, and encouraged people to hunt down all of their rare and unreleased songs. By the time this EP hit the shelves most everyone had heard them already.

I think they could possibly put out an LP in 2009. They have already been playing some new songs at concerts, so I know they are still writting music. I really think they should wait and give it some time though. Maybe later next year.