|
Post by Horned Gramma on Nov 22, 2010 11:18:11 GMT -8
I like what you did there, even if you spelled penis wrong.
|
|
|
Post by interstateeight on Nov 22, 2010 11:20:07 GMT -8
Jesus christ.
|
|
|
Post by Friendly Destroyer on Nov 22, 2010 11:21:21 GMT -8
Damn, so close to the elusive Kanye 10/10!
|
|
|
Post by Cbats on Nov 22, 2010 11:23:21 GMT -8
"In 2005, In the Aeroplane Over the Sea was re-released by Domino Records in the UK, in a sleeve featuring praise from, among others, Franz Ferdinand and Arcade Fire, bands influenced by NMH."
it was a reissue, pitchfork doesn't go back and just re-rate albums cause they feel like it (although they may stretch it by doing things like reviewing a uk reissue but they were hardly the only ones to do that). The last album to get a 10 was yankee hotel foxtrot unless you want to count the 10/0 they gave to bob pollards live album relaxation of the asshole
regardless, I don't see anything wrong with reviewing a reissue differently than you did the first time. For one thing, pitchfork is a lot of different reviewers who all have different opinions. You also have the benefit of hindsight, being able to look at the album in retrospect is going to give you a different view than you might have had when i first came out.
|
|
|
Post by Horned Gramma on Nov 22, 2010 11:28:18 GMT -8
Squatch boarders apparently will defend with their lives Pitchfork's right to revisionist history.
Dudes, whatever the circumstances are surrounding a "re-issue" of Aeroplane? SAME/SAME. Oh, but this one had a sticker with the words 'Franz Ferdinand' on it! SAME.
Same record. Less than ten years later. It's not like it gained some game-changing historical context between 1998 and 2005.
You guys read Pitchfork EXCLUSIVELY, huh.
|
|
|
Post by Friendly Destroyer on Nov 22, 2010 11:42:24 GMT -8
The high praise of Franz Ferdinand.
|
|
|
Post by Horned Gramma on Nov 22, 2010 11:44:41 GMT -8
Damn, so close to the elusive Kanye 10/10! Nah, your punctuation leaves a lot to be desired.
|
|
|
Post by Friendly Destroyer on Nov 22, 2010 11:46:31 GMT -8
post-modern: punctuation. Also my heart's in the right place.
|
|
|
Post by interstateeight on Nov 22, 2010 12:25:39 GMT -8
"In 2005, In the Aeroplane Over the Sea was re-released by Domino Records in the UK, in a sleeve featuring praise from, among others, Franz Ferdinand and Arcade Fire, bands influenced by NMH." it was a reissue, pitchfork doesn't go back and just re-rate albums cause they feel like it (although they may stretch it by doing things like reviewing a uk reissue but they were hardly the only ones to do that). The last album to get a 10 was yankee hotel foxtrot unless you want to count the 10/0 they gave to bob pollards live album relaxation of the asshole regardless, I don't see anything wrong with reviewing a reissue differently than you did the first time. For one thing, pitchfork is a lot of different reviewers who all have different opinions. You also have the benefit of hindsight, being able to look at the album in retrospect is going to give you a different view than you might have had when i first came out. Don't be a jackass. Like HG pointed out, the album didn't change from original release to reissue. The "benefit of hindsight" was this: Pitchfork's targeted demographic embraced the album for the musical genius that it is -- and was, I feel compelled to point out in an em-dashed aside -- and so they gave it the praise they deserve. Now, when stupid hipsters have drunken arguments about music, they can say "Pitchfork gave Aeroplane a 10/10, END OF DISCUSSION," because Pitchfork is, in some stupid circles, the end-all be-all arbiter of musical taste. And the site wants to get in there and make sure that they acknowledge the iconic bits, even if the first time those iconic bits came around, they were rated on par with Dan Deacon's "Spiderman of the Rings" and Lil Wayne's Tha Carter III. (It needs to be pointed out: Yes, Pitchfork employs different writers, and there is some unfairness when you go to evaluate the site's body of criticism. But if you're going to assign ratings to the precision of tenths of a point, first of all, you're an asshole, and second of all, you open yourself up to and invite the kind of criticism they receive.) And just because I found this: jonnyleather.com/blog1/2010/04/critical-differences-pitchforks-lost-archives-save-ferris-edition/Pitchfork gives a Save Ferris album a 9.5, goes on to delete the review.
|
|
|
Post by Horned Gramma on Nov 22, 2010 12:50:30 GMT -8
Golden:
|
|
|
Post by Friendly Destroyer on Nov 22, 2010 13:01:19 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Horned Gramma on Nov 22, 2010 13:05:21 GMT -8
I have that record. It's not bad, but it never made me spontaneously jizz myself.
|
|
|
Post by Friendly Destroyer on Nov 22, 2010 13:09:38 GMT -8
Try hearing "Come on Eileen" as you're searching the Live Music listings in the paper. Everytime.
|
|
|
Post by Friendly Destroyer on Nov 22, 2010 13:16:34 GMT -8
You know Gramma, your reviews have always lacked that certain climax factor that usually serves as a natural bench mark for most music fans, specifically in the DC area.
|
|
|
Post by Lump on Nov 22, 2010 13:59:41 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by interstateeight on Nov 22, 2010 14:24:14 GMT -8
I was waiting for that to show up. David Cross is so great.
|
|
|
Post by Cbats on Nov 22, 2010 14:24:16 GMT -8
"In 2005, In the Aeroplane Over the Sea was re-released by Domino Records in the UK, in a sleeve featuring praise from, among others, Franz Ferdinand and Arcade Fire, bands influenced by NMH." it was a reissue, pitchfork doesn't go back and just re-rate albums cause they feel like it (although they may stretch it by doing things like reviewing a uk reissue but they were hardly the only ones to do that). The last album to get a 10 was yankee hotel foxtrot unless you want to count the 10/0 they gave to bob pollards live album relaxation of the asshole regardless, I don't see anything wrong with reviewing a reissue differently than you did the first time. For one thing, pitchfork is a lot of different reviewers who all have different opinions. You also have the benefit of hindsight, being able to look at the album in retrospect is going to give you a different view than you might have had when i first came out. Don't be a jackass. Like HG pointed out, the album didn't change from original release to reissue. The "benefit of hindsight" was this: Pitchfork's targeted demographic embraced the album for the musical genius that it is -- and was, I feel compelled to point out in an em-dashed aside -- and so they gave it the praise they deserve. Now, when stupid hipsters have drunken arguments about music, they can say "Pitchfork gave Aeroplane a 10/10, END OF DISCUSSION," because Pitchfork is, in some stupid circles, the end-all be-all arbiter of musical taste. And the site wants to get in there and make sure that they acknowledge the iconic bits, even if the first time those iconic bits came around, they were rated on par with Dan Deacon's "Spiderman of the Rings" and Lil Wayne's Tha Carter III. (It needs to be pointed out: Yes, Pitchfork employs different writers, and there is some unfairness when you go to evaluate the site's body of criticism. But if you're going to assign ratings to the precision of tenths of a point, first of all, you're an asshole, and second of all, you open yourself up to and invite the kind of criticism they receive.) And just because I found this: jonnyleather.com/blog1/2010/04/critical-differences-pitchforks-lost-archives-save-ferris-edition/Pitchfork gives a Save Ferris album a 9.5, goes on to delete the review. really wasn't trying to be a jackass, HG's post started out with "What re-issue of 'Aeroplane' are we talking about?" so i just copied something from the wiki. I think you summed it up pretty well though by explaining that NMH was rated on the same level as dan deacon. That really doesn't make sense and I think that they used this as an excuse to fix that. on the other hand, I don't quite think that pitchfork is used by hipsters the way you think it is. Most hipsters I know read it but nearly every single one of them makes fun of it for the pretentious site it is. More often I heard pitchfork reviews referred to sarcastically than anything else.
|
|
|
Post by Horned Gramma on Nov 22, 2010 14:27:45 GMT -8
Self-denying hipsters are the only hipsters.
|
|
|
Post by know ID yuh on Nov 22, 2010 14:54:51 GMT -8
Self-denying hipsters are the only hipsters. You finally came to this realization?
|
|
|
Post by Horned Gramma on Nov 22, 2010 15:00:55 GMT -8
I get it, but in actuality I have basically none of the characteristics of a hipster. As Norm McDonald said, denial is the first sign that you have a drinking problem, but it is also the first sign that you don't have a drinking problem.
|
|