|
|
Post by matt on Jul 27, 2011 16:09:47 GMT -5
Pitchfork do write decent articles, but at the end of the day, they are all pretentious wannabe hipsters. Their views on music are incredibly narrow minded and the whole anti-Oasis thing is quite immature and pathetic to be honest. Just because they don't like Oasis doesn't make their view on music incredibly narrow. Considering most people's taste here on this forum consist of Oasis, Kasabian, and Beady Eye I'd say the majority of these forums have more narrow taste in music. The way they slate Oasis is the same way the majority of this forum slate U2 or Radiohead. Say what you will about Pitchfork, but they do a lot of good in spreading the news about great new music. People that give them shit for reviews written ten years ago (ie: The Masterplan or Kid A) come off as ignorant as they proclaim Pitchfork writers to be. Hey, I'm a fan of U2 and Radiohead (forget their recent stuff though) and I love discovering new music, but the majority of small bands haven't come because I read Pitchfork. They are scared of anything that has potential to go mainstream, so it is very narrow minded. Oasis is just one example of their narrow mindedness - I mean come on, refusing to acknowledge an important album like Definitely Maybe and acting as if it doesn't exist is pathetic. They acknowledge Live Forever (albeit at a low 50 in the best songs of the 90s) but you should see some of the shite that's above it. Is Girls & Boys really a better tune (girls who are boys, who like boys to be girls, who do boys like their girls etc etc wtf?)? Don't get me wrong, I love Blur and Parklife is great but that song is one of Blur's worst. Perhaps it's only higher because Blur are intelligent well spoken arty guys... And for a band with brilliant lyrics and a great singer, I read a review of one Elbow album (the fantastic Leaders Of The Free World) and they claimed it to be dull, and 'trying to be like Radiohead' (yep, they wheel that tired excuse out for any left of field British guitar band), when it isn't anything like that at all. It all comes across as incredibly snobby. If you're in a band and you're name isn't Thom Yorke, you're really up against it with this bunch of arrogant shysters. |
|
|
|
Post by bimblylove on Jul 27, 2011 16:20:57 GMT -5
Noel is an intelligent, well spoken guy, too.
I understand Pitchfork typically don't review albums they truly dislike anymore, so if Beady Eye isn't there, it's safe to say they weren't "'avin' it".
I have a feeling they will review Noel Gallagher's new album, and it'll get a decent review.
|
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Jul 27, 2011 17:08:11 GMT -5
I honestly don't think Pitchfork honestly believes their own ratings and write-ups. I think they do it just to maintain their hipster fanbase and component. Pathetic, really. I take every bad review from them with a grain of salt.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2011 17:32:26 GMT -5
Just because they don't like Oasis doesn't make their view on music incredibly narrow. Considering most people's taste here on this forum consist of Oasis, Kasabian, and Beady Eye I'd say the majority of these forums have more narrow taste in music. The way they slate Oasis is the same way the majority of this forum slate U2 or Radiohead. Say what you will about Pitchfork, but they do a lot of good in spreading the news about great new music. People that give them shit for reviews written ten years ago (ie: The Masterplan or Kid A) come off as ignorant as they proclaim Pitchfork writers to be. Hey, I'm a fan of U2 and Radiohead (forget their recent stuff though) and I love discovering new music, but the majority of small bands haven't come because I read Pitchfork. They are scared of anything that has potential to go mainstream, so it is very narrow minded. Oasis is just one example of their narrow mindedness - I mean come on, refusing to acknowledge an important album like Definitely Maybe and acting as if it doesn't exist is pathetic. They acknowledge Live Forever (albeit at a low 50 in the best songs of the 90s) but you should see some of the shite that's above it. Is Girls & Boys really a better tune (girls who are boys, who like boys to be girls, who do boys like their girls etc etc wtf?)? Don't get me wrong, I love Blur and Parklife is great but that song is one of Blur's worst. Perhaps it's only higher because Blur are intelligent well spoken arty guys... And for a band with brilliant lyrics and a great singer, I read a review of one Elbow album (the fantastic Leaders Of The Free World) and they claimed it to be dull, and 'trying to be like Radiohead' (yep, they wheel that tired excuse out for any left of field British guitar band), when it isn't anything like that at all. It all comes across as incredibly snobby. If you're in a band and you're name isn't Thom Yorke, you're really up against it with this bunch of arrogant shysters. I never said Pitchfork was perfect. Yes, they do tend to ignore the mainstream (though the attention they give Lil' Wayne is baffling, to say the least), but they aren't as bad as most people make them out to be. I have my qualms with the site (mostly with their insistance of the anal decimal ratings they assign) and they have become pretty predictable with their "bigger" review scores, but to deem the entire site as pretentious isn't fair to some of the great writers they have there. I love The Strokes and they constantly shit on them. Is it fair? No, but like it or not their website is a lot bigger than just one review you don't like or their ignoring of one band that you like. When they can afford the brand power to have, not one, but two of their own festivals that's something. I don't see how they're any worse than magazines like Q or NME that get caught up in their own hype machines, the Rolling Stone which focuses too much on the mainstream, Consequence of Sound which usually comes across as amateurish, or any other number of music magazines/websites out there. Maybe it is a little to damning to say that everyone here only listens to Kasabian and Beady Eye, but when the biggest thread on the other music board on this forum is Kasabian and The View, what do you expect? Either people's taste in music here is too fragmented to have a lasting thread about "x" band or the majority just aren't interested. And yeah, I like U2 and Radiohead as well, but there is a lot of unwarranted hate for them here (especially Radiohead) not to mention the dismissal of most mainstream artists (namely Jay-Z). |
|
|
|
Post by matt on Jul 28, 2011 12:12:00 GMT -5
^ Pitchfork focus on Lil Wayne because they think it's hip and cool - when it's not. The majority of hip hop artists these days (like Lil Wayne) is all about 'bling' - it says nothing that anyone can relate to. They seem to think that this bag of shite is still left of field.
Classic hip hop is a completely different matter - we have to go back to the early 90s for the real stuff I think. Jay Z himself has produced the odd classic album, and even Kanye West (who I think is a complete tosser) has had his moments. But the majority of it is awful.
Elbow was just one example of why I dislike that website. What I say is that bands that seem so unfashionable never get a look in no matter how talented they are. Also, they praise U2's early work to high heaven's but their last brilliant album (in my view) All That You Can't Leave Behind is slated, but barring the odd awful track (ahem, Elevation) I think it contains some of Bono's greatest lyrics. But perhaps they slated it because Beautiful Day got to number one.
I do agree that some on this forum are a bit narrow minded when it comes to music - I get shat upon by a few folk who just can't comprehend that I think Coldplay are a far better band than lads band Kasabian (bar the odd output from Coldplay). And I got slated for liking Wild Beasts also.
|
|
|
|
Post by Headmaster on Jul 28, 2011 12:23:21 GMT -5
Pitchfork is shit, a bunch of fucking elitist hipsters doing reviews, and I'm not saying this just because of Oasis, lots of great album are slagged off on that shit.
|
|
|
|
Post by spaneli on Jul 28, 2011 12:29:44 GMT -5
Yes. It is American. It's Chicago based. Hmm makes sense. I just read the Masterplan review. "This previously- ignored garbage gets scraped from the bottom of some dumpster behind Epic records, and packaged as newly- discovered gleaming treasures" Clueless fuckers. I will say this. In the Oasis reviews since The Masterplan review, they have given props to some of the songs it. |
|
|
|
Post by Cast on Jul 28, 2011 21:15:50 GMT -5
pitchfork just doesn't like Oasis but they are hardly as bad as The Rolling Stone. They are a decent way to find new music and even good press on some smaller bands but with every review take it as a grain of salt.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2011 4:04:01 GMT -5
^ Pitchfork focus on Lil Wayne because they think it's hip and cool - when it's not. The majority of hip hop artists these days (like Lil Wayne) is all about 'bling' - it says nothing that anyone can relate to. They seem to think that this bag of shite is still left of field. Classic hip hop is a completely different matter - we have to go back to the early 90s for the real stuff I think. Jay Z himself has produced the odd classic album, and even Kanye West (who I think is a complete tosser) has had his moments. But the majority of it is awful. Elbow was just one example of why I dislike that website. What I say is that bands that seem so unfashionable never get a look in no matter how talented they are. Also, they praise U2's early work to high heaven's but their last brilliant album (in my view) All That You Can't Leave Behind is slated, but barring the odd awful track (ahem, Elevation) I think it contains some of Bono's greatest lyrics. But perhaps they slated it because Beautiful Day got to number one. I do agree that some on this forum are a bit narrow minded when it comes to music - I get shat upon by a few folk who just can't comprehend that I think Coldplay are a far better band than lads band Kasabian (bar the odd output from Coldplay). And I got slated for liking Wild Beasts also. That's the thing, I don't get why they think Lil Wayne is cool. Does anyone think he is cool any more? And I do agree that Pitchfork has some unfair reviews for British bands, but I feel like a lot of American publications do. The Q/NME hype certainly doesn't translate to Pitchfork and Rolling Stone. Though I'm surprised and horrified by NME and Pitchfork's rave reviews for WU LYF, which is one of the more shit new bands I've heard this year. |
|
|
|
Post by CFC2013 on Jul 29, 2011 4:22:50 GMT -5
When he talks about eating out women, I guess people can't help to think that he's cool.
|
|
Nov 4, 2024 5:04:30 GMT -5
Nov 4, 2024 5:04:30 GMT -5