|
Post by interstateeight on Nov 23, 2010 22:29:04 GMT -8
Pretty Hate Machine on Pitchfork in 1995: 5.6
Pretty Hate Machine reissue on Pitchfork today: 9.5
|
|
|
Post by Pea on Nov 23, 2010 22:51:13 GMT -8
hah i was waiting for someone to post that
|
|
|
Post by ComesWithASword on Nov 23, 2010 22:56:36 GMT -8
you mean:
Pretty Hate Machine on Pitchfork in 2006: 5.6
Pretty Hate Machine reissue on Pitchfork today: 9.5
|
|
|
Post by Geoff on Nov 23, 2010 23:02:46 GMT -8
I really do hate pitchfork. For many reasons.
|
|
|
Post by Horned Gramma on Nov 24, 2010 8:17:15 GMT -8
Ryan Schreiber stole my girlfriend.
|
|
|
Post by interstateeight on Nov 24, 2010 9:17:35 GMT -8
you mean: Pretty Hate Machine on Pitchfork in 2006: 5.6 Pretty Hate Machine reissue on Pitchfork today: 9.5 Sure, whenever. I was going by the release date on the page; I fully accept the 99% likelihood that I was wrong there. I think the point stands... perhaps even better now, actually.
|
|
|
Post by Geoff on Nov 25, 2010 17:41:15 GMT -8
I rarely listen to hip hop but this new Kanye album is amazing. I've listened to it about 5 times now and I think it would be awesome to hear some of the songs live. But I imagine that Kanye wouldn't want to come to Sasquatch unless he was headlining. Which I think would be bad.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 25, 2010 18:16:54 GMT -8
you mean: Pretty Hate Machine on Pitchfork in 2006: 5.6 Pretty Hate Machine reissue on Pitchfork today: 9.5 Sure, whenever. I was going by the release date on the page; I fully accept the 99% likelihood that I was wrong there. I think the point stands... perhaps even better now, actually. Yeah that's pretty fucking indefensible right there, and I'm someone who sees no problem with giving I Get Wet an 0.6 only to later put it on the best-albums-of-the-decade list.
|
|
|
Post by Pea on Nov 25, 2010 21:24:08 GMT -8
Did they really do that with I Get Wet??
wtf...
|
|
|
Post by Geoff on Nov 25, 2010 21:47:17 GMT -8
Did they really do that with I Get Wet?? wtf... Pitchfork does stuff like that all the time.
|
|
|
Post by Pea on Nov 25, 2010 22:29:02 GMT -8
Really? Show me another album that got reviewed 0.6 and then ended up on a best-of list. I know they do shady shit all the time with their reviews but this is a cut above the rest.
|
|
|
Post by Geoff on Nov 25, 2010 22:39:55 GMT -8
Really? Show me another album that got reviewed 0.6 and then ended up on a best-of list. I know they do shady shit all the time with their reviews but this is a cut above the rest. I remember a huge post on reddit awhile back where they had all sorts of examples of why pitchfork sucks and there were quite a few albums they have done that for. Can't remember which ones they were though.
|
|
|
Post by ComesWithASword on Nov 25, 2010 22:44:18 GMT -8
I'm not one to defend pitchfork, but did I Get Wet suddenly become hip in the time between when it first came out and the end of the decade? That particular instance seems more like one of the reviewers absolutely hating it, yet the majority of the staff actually liking it.
I don't really know how writing for a magazine works. Are the reviews always supposed to reflect the general consensus of the staff, or the opinion of the reviewer?
|
|
|
Post by know ID yuh on Nov 26, 2010 11:58:48 GMT -8
I like Pitchfork. Granted I don't read many of their reviews anymore, because many are written in a language I don't understand, and I hate having to look up words. It's cool to hate the big dog, or the band you used to like who got too big. Are we talking indie cred again? I don't know who is better than Pitchfork, call me old fashion. If there is a better site out there, I'm open to suggestions. I don't really know how writing for a magazine works. Are the reviews always supposed to reflect the general consensus of the staff, or the opinion of the reviewer? My opinion is the scores used to be based on the individual reviewer when their staff was small, but is now more of a collaborative, to avoid making the mistakes people are pointing out. In reading the first paragraph of the I Get Wet review (from 2002), dude obviously hates the album. Eight years later, with a different, and much larger staff, they like the album. It's not a big fucking deal. It's like the old saying, "Why you gotta be bringing up old shit?" We've all said some pretty stupid shit that we disagree with now, or would change if given the chance. If you've been on web boards for a couple years, try going back and reading your first 50 posts.
|
|
|
Post by Pea on Nov 26, 2010 14:56:41 GMT -8
If it's more of a collaboration these days I really don't understand how Mumford & Sons would have earned a 2.1 with their album. Say what you want about them, but 2.1 is a ridiculous score for that album.
|
|
doumak
Grunting Yowie
Posts: 176
|
Post by doumak on Nov 26, 2010 18:20:49 GMT -8
If it's more of a collaboration these days I really don't understand how Mumford & Sons would have earned a 2.1 with their album. Say what you want about them, but 2.1 is a ridiculous score for that album. that score blew my mind. MPP initially got a 8.# i believe, but ended up at the top of the year with a 9.6. not a huge swing, but still. as for a better site? i mean, i tell others to use stereogum for new tracks, cmj charts for albums. actually, i found inyourspeakers.com via last.fm at some point and while i don't agree with half the grades, the reviews are very helpful, decipherable, honest, and don't pander.
|
|
|
Post by Cbats on Nov 26, 2010 19:46:21 GMT -8
uh MPP always had a 9.6, it was certainly not raised to a higher score after the initial review...
|
|
|
Post by Geoff on Nov 26, 2010 19:52:06 GMT -8
I like Pitchfork. Granted I don't read many of their reviews anymore, because many are written in a language I don't understand, and I hate having to look up words. I swear pitchfork reviewers change every 5 words with a thesaurus after editing their final review. It's kind of annoying.
|
|
|
Post by Pea on Nov 26, 2010 19:56:14 GMT -8
what are you talking about? i constantly describe things as "rhythmically militaristic" in everyday life! (random phrase i picked out of one of today's pitchfork reviews)
|
|
|
Post by know ID yuh on Nov 26, 2010 22:04:46 GMT -8
Thanks for the suggestions doumak, but my question was almost rhetorical about what site is better? I know certain sites do certain things better, but why the Pitchfork hate? It most certainly has to do with their stature and how they always win awards and how they are right 90% of the time, and how other sites wanting to be like them talk shit about them, and how the new hip is talking shit about them.
As pretentious as their writing is, the overall vibe of the site is nothing of the sort. They routinely thank competing websites for news tips. And since a lot of you know I'm not a big youtube follower, I'm sure those who are dig PitchforkTV?
Regarding the Mumford & Sons review, I agree the score is a little low. In reading other reviews of the album, I'm surprised people like it so much. They are catchy as hell, sure, but there aren't many good songs on that album. I believe Pitchfork collectively decided to make a statement by claiming the album is shit, because five years from now, most of us will agree. It's the same reason they made a collective decision to give Kanye West a 10.0.
|
|