Favs:
Tinymixtapes(biased)
All Music Guide (though they give tons of high ratings)
Exclaim (so many reviews and it's free)
Adequacy.net
Chart Magazine
Least:
Pitchfork (way too long-winded)
Pop matters (they've got one of the dumbest, most bigotted writers ever)
NME (Jason Arnopp is bollocks)
Blender (tell you nothing)
Rolling Stone (completely sold-out)

I just have to say that i think pop matters has jumped up a huge amount of notches this year.There reviews are excellent as well as there features...and they are reviewing alot of stuff that no one else is.

I'll second the praise for Pop Matters. I think they are by far my favorite of the online review sites. Their features are really really good, and I find that I agree with with their reviews more than most places. Also, I thought their list of best albums of the 2000s was the best I have seen yet, but I can't find a link to it anymore. If anyone can find a link to it, please post it on here.

I'm not sure if this is what you're looking for, keylimetrev, but here's a Pop Matters Feature that documents some of the best albums since 2000. It's actually about the myth of "the death of the album," but I think it's basically a best of 2000's list.

Hmm..their inclusion of Reveal is pretty questionable, wouldn't you say?

I wouldn't really call it a list if they just include every "pretty good" album of the last 5 years. Diss Pitchfork if you want, but at least they have the balls to elevate stuff they like and lampoon stuff they don't.

Well, you read a Pitchfork review, you don't necessarily figure out whether or not they actually liked it. It's more a measure of how cool it is to say you like it, than a measure of actual quality.

quote:

Originally posted by Bobthespirit:
Hmm..their inclusion of Reveal is pretty questionable, wouldn't you say?

I don't get it, but that album does have its share of fans. I think R.E.M. has been circling the drain since Up, and I'm a longtime fan. Of the three post-Berry records, though, Reveal is by far the best.

I'll third the support for Pop Matters. I read Pitchfork for the news and ignore the reviews, and I read Pop Matters for decent reviews and thoughtful criticism.

Popmatters seems to have good reviews, though a lot of them seem to be 8's or 9's..maybe they're the kind of place where you go by what they say and ignore the number they gave.

REM has never been consistant. They seemed to stagnate completely after Document, and then bam, Automatic for the People. Up is lame, I haven't heard anything from Hi-Fi since I had bad taste...I guess I liked Imitation of Life, but I thought 'All the Way to Reno' was really bad. I suppose Reveal probably is the superior of the three, but that isn't really saying much. And I certainly wouldn't include it on a list of the best albums of the decade by a longshot.

I'll add my Yea in favor of Pop Matters as well. As I21 points out, they are strong both in their feature writing and their reviews. They also cover a wider variety of music more credibly than most of the online publications I follow (and most of the print publications for that matter). I was sorry to see Pop Matters include ratings in their reviews. I think they are consistently worth reading in their entirety and a number score tends to encouorage skimming.

I take issue, though, with the suggestion that a lot of their reviews fall into the eight and nine range. By my count only a third or fewer of recent review were in that range, which is fine by me as I'd just as soon read about music somebody likes. With the exception of dissappointing albums from widely esteemed bands or sophmore efforts from up-and-comers, pans are only briefly (and very, very occasionally) amusing and are a greater testament to the author's free time than any kind of journalistic integrity.

Now Playing: "Glory of True Love" John Prine Fair and Square (Oh Boy)

An 8 or 9 to me means "This is a really good album that is worthy of repeated listens."

With the amount of albums they review, the idea that they think that many albums are *that good*...it makes me wonder how seriously I can take their high ratings.

There are LOTS of albums worthy of repeated listens. We're not talking about MOVIES now, remember.

I think you're missing the point that...it ought to differentiate between the high end of the top tier and the low end of the top tier.

Popmatters' reviews have always seemed quite positive contrasted to other sites on the internet (Pitchfork for one). I agree with Bob...if a really great album came out Pitchfork might give it a 9.something, and people would take notice. If Popmatters gave something a 9, would anyone care or notice?

I think if it's in the "Top Tier", it's supposed to be damned good. I'm just thankful I don't waste time sweating out the various sites ratings. I don't have time if I'm actually listening to the music.

quote:

Originally posted by paxsoprano:
Popmatters' reviews have always seemed quite positive contrasted to other sites on the internet (Pitchfork for one). I agree with Bob...if a really great album came out Pitchfork might give it a 9.something, and people would take notice. If Popmatters gave something a 9, would anyone care or notice?

I dont agree...they giveout just as many 6's as 9's.Plus their reviews kill pitchfork.

quote:

Originally posted by paxsoprano:
I agree with Bob...if a really great album came out Pitchfork might give it a 9.something, and people would take notice.

People who want to sit at the cool table in the indie rock lunchroom would take notice. At lot of other people just yawn and watch the guys in the horn-rimmed glasses and dity cardigan sweaters clamor for said Pitchfork-reviewed records.

Pitchfork is just one example of one that reserves it's highest ratings for just a few albums. I'm probably going to end up buying like 6 albums a month or so this year, and most people buy far, far less. If 20 albums per month get 8s or 9s, how are we supposed to know which ones are the 'best of the best', most worthy of our attention? How do we make buying decisions if the highest tier has more albums than we plan to buy total? Not all people have the time to go and seek out mp3s.

I like to get the "best albums" each year, but I'm actually more interested in getting albums which I ENJOY. I don't find it a coincidence that every year, I have been listening to 60-70% of the albums which make many composite Top 10/20 lists. The ones from those lists I haven't been listening to may be from some genre which I don't quite enjoy as much. Each year I get some albums from new artists which are critically lauded, but it's a chore sometimes to ENJOY them.

If I stick with my own knowledge, trust a small group of my critical and friend sources, and do a little research on new artists, I find that the ones I buy, usually without ever hearing, are ones which I enjoy and would rate highly. My friends usually follow my lead. I'm certainly not as cutting edge anymore though, as I was 20-30 years ago. Then again, some of what's "cutting edge" today sounds a lot like the stuff 20-30 years ago.

quote:

Originally posted by Bobthespirit:
...how are we supposed to know which ones are the 'best of the best', most worthy of our attention?

A good question. I'm just not sure that any one review source, be it Pitchfork, Pop Matters, or any other, should be the source of what you like or what you buy.

I think Metacritic does a nince job collecting and collating reviews and coming to a critical consensus via the Metascore, but a high Metascore shouldn't be the only motivating factor for someone to buy a record.

I rely on recommendations from friends (including several on these Forums) and I try to find places to listen to new music if I'm up in the air. My friends work in record stores, and they know what I like, so I'm usually pretty much happy with the stuff they recommend for me. I certainly do use reviews to gather information about bands, but I prefer stuff that provides a fairly objective view of the band (they sound like band X or they have a guitar-heavy technopop sound) rather than the more literary attempts (that Pitchfork is known for) at being clever or interesting. I really don't care what the reviewer's recollections of high school are...I just wanna know what I can expect from the record when I play it.

Reviewing is certainly a matter of taste...I know plenty of people who like (and find informative) the Pitchfork-styled self-referential music criticism. It's not for me. I fine it neither interesting nor useful for my objectives.