Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2010 0:27:56 GMT -5
i think THS has finally reached the point where we can have disagreements like this because they've put out enough albums... or they're starting to reach it i'm used to being a Dylan fan, where you've got whole ERAs of albums you can dislike or like or argue about
|
|
|
Post by barryjive on Apr 22, 2010 0:28:21 GMT -5
Yeah, I don't accuse your opinion of being reactionary but it seems some people have taken offense to any criticism of the new album as being such. It's all opinion-based, however you slice it, but I think it's unfair for anyone to assume someone is being reactionary because they make an opinion that differs from one's own. We're all here for the same reason. If you like the album, good for you. If you don't like the album, you're free to feel that way. Personally I fall more toward the latter side than most but I understand it can go either way. I'm a little offended by people insinuating that people who don't love the new album aren't real fans (although no one has said this in such terms, implying that such people might be overly critical is also unfair), and in the same sense it's unfair to imply that people who like this fans are sheep or drinking the kool-aid or something.
|
|
|
Post by bloodystereos on Apr 22, 2010 9:43:45 GMT -5
Theres kool-aid ? Nobody said there was kool-aid. I would like some kool-aid.
|
|
Camie
Midnight Hauler
Posts: 1,093
|
Post by Camie on Apr 22, 2010 13:06:50 GMT -5
I am all for everyone having their own opinion on the album. I myself have said that I need to listen to the album, allow it to breathe, before I make a full opinion.
That being said, I understand both sides of this argument. People have sounds that they like and people have sounds they don't like.
I like what Somuchjoy said... we should appreciate what was given to us, because when you think about it. The guys really did put a lot of work into this album. While there are things that you may not like, there is also some really really really amazing things here. Give it some time, allow it to age and breathe a bit, and come back in a few 100 listens and then form an opinion on the matter.
DoctorAcula - I do recall previous conversations where you have stated that you were not a huge fan of BaGIA. I respect your opinion. It is not my favorite album either (Separation Sunday is, but that was the first album my friend played for me) but it is a close second.
This album is a transition. Not everyone is going to like it, and others are going to think it's pure genius.
|
|
|
Post by transverberate on Apr 22, 2010 13:15:51 GMT -5
My personal rating so far (I won't rate HiW until I own it): 1)SS 2)BAGIA 3)SP 4)AKM. That said, I remember being very cool to BAGIA when I first got it. Very few songs stood out. Chillout Tent was just plain weird. I thought it was a dud. Within 6 months I had 3 or 4 faves on BAGIA, and all these years later Party Pit is one of my all-time faves (and Chillout Tent is in my Top 15!). But even so, there are plenty of songs (Hot Soft Light, Same Kooks, Southtown Girls) that I still don't get. Maybe someday, but not yet. Point is, who knows where HiW will sit in the canon 5 years from now. Streaming it I hear plenty of songs that sound promising and a few that leave me saying "Meh". But I don't think there has ever been an album in which I loved every song (admittedly, SS is close. But Cattle and the Creeping Things is keeps my statement true ) Be patient. Give it time to grow. It's going to be 12-24 months before we get another new batch. Let's not panic 12 days before release for God's sake.
|
|
|
Post by muzzleofbees on Apr 22, 2010 15:16:35 GMT -5
Be patient. Give it time to grow. It's going to be 12-24 months before we get another new batch. Let's not panic 12 days before release for God's sake. Is anyone panicking? All I've seen so far is fans being a little disappointed. People who love this band saying that they don't like HiW just as much as the previous records. That's not some kind of eternal judgement. It's a preference, or lack of thereof. It's a statement, telling how you feel about the album right here, right now. It certainly hasn't much to do with panic. And if it's okay to praise the album 12 days before it's released, it should be just as okay to say that you don't think it's top notch. A first impression is worth just as much or little regardless of it being positive or negative. I think it's great people posting about what they don't like about the album. It makes for interesting discussions.
|
|
|
Post by muzzleofbees on Apr 22, 2010 15:21:13 GMT -5
I like what Somuchjoy said... we should appreciate what was given to us, because when you think about it. The guys really did put a lot of work into this album. Yeah, like everyone releasing an album have done. People put their heart and soul into records every day, all over the world. That's sure something to respect. But it shouldn't prevent people from having a civil discussion about the music itself.
|
|
|
Post by complicatedthings on Apr 22, 2010 15:56:39 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by 99rockproblems on Apr 22, 2010 16:09:29 GMT -5
|
|
parock
Midnight Hauler
Posts: 1,000
|
Post by parock on Apr 22, 2010 16:21:05 GMT -5
Give it some time, allow it to age and breathe a bit, and come back in a few 100 listens and then form an opinion on the matter. Surely this is hyperbole to think to give an album 100 listens to form a judgement on it. I think if you don't have a pretty good idea on how you feel on an album way before that, you're just wasting your time looking for something that just ain't there.
|
|
Sunny D
Midnight Hauler
"We've gotta try a little harder..."
Posts: 1,900
|
Post by Sunny D on Apr 22, 2010 16:28:13 GMT -5
Although I love the positive press, I couldn't care less about their opinions. Pitchfork downright shat on Lifter Puller's "Fiestas + Fiascos" originally and that's one of my favorite albums of all time.
|
|
Camie
Midnight Hauler
Posts: 1,093
|
Post by Camie on Apr 22, 2010 16:38:32 GMT -5
Give it some time, allow it to age and breathe a bit, and come back in a few 100 listens and then form an opinion on the matter. Surely this is hyperbole to think to give an album 100 listens to form a judgement on it. I think if you don't have a pretty good idea on how you feel on an album way before that, you're just wasting your time looking for something that just ain't there. I was exaggerating a bit.
|
|
|
Post by howitfeels on Apr 22, 2010 17:08:12 GMT -5
That seems pretty mixed rather than positive. And it's horribly written. Can we talk about how bad music criticism is nowadays? Particularly Pitchfork and their personal essays. There's no reason a review should be over 300 words.
|
|
mick
Clever Kid
Posts: 142
|
Post by mick on Apr 22, 2010 17:17:13 GMT -5
That seems pretty mixed rather than positive. And it's horribly written. Can we talk about how bad music criticism is nowadays? Particularly Pitchfork and their personal essays. There's no reason a review should be over 300 words. Sounds like you'd be a fan of Robert Christgau.
|
|
|
Post by howitfeels on Apr 22, 2010 17:27:32 GMT -5
That seems pretty mixed rather than positive. And it's horribly written. Can we talk about how bad music criticism is nowadays? Particularly Pitchfork and their personal essays. There's no reason a review should be over 300 words. Sounds like you'd be a fan of Robert Christgau. Kinda. Mostly disagree with his opinions, like his style when he makes them readable. Pitchfork is great for news and live content--and even finding new bands, but the reviews can be so obnoxious. Christgau is a big HS fan.
|
|
bigrob
Midnight Hauler
i guess i knew it was coming
Posts: 1,352
|
Post by bigrob on Apr 22, 2010 17:31:09 GMT -5
I don't listen to critic reviews. Pitchfork gave critic reviews a 3.7.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2010 18:53:35 GMT -5
That seems pretty mixed rather than positive. And it's horribly written. Can we talk about how bad music criticism is nowadays? Particularly Pitchfork and their personal essays. There's no reason a review should be over 300 words. i'm a fan of Lester Bangs and Tim Rogers, who reviews videogames by talking about living in Japan and spinning elaborate, multi-paragraph analogies but on the other hand lots of that stuff is really self-indulgent and i can imagine some reviewer talking about how they love THS 'cause *rambling story about Pavement* with the rise of Twitter though i reckon reviews are going to get shorter and pithier and wow that Sear I'm Not Paul thing is... yeah "A first date with Heaven is Whenever is like going out with your ex's sister. She may look similar in the distance, but once you sit down for dinner and try to discover her nuances, she's in no way the same. Some mannerisms are repeated definitely, there's a saying or phrase taken from this conversation or that, but deep down, you know she's not the same." wow
|
|
|
Post by Rich Tarbell on Apr 22, 2010 21:53:24 GMT -5
i have said it before and i will say it again, i would rather stab my eyeballs out with a rusty nail than read another lame record review from just about anyone (other than r.s. and a dog's pawful of others). however, this one i did read and i thinks nails it in a very creative way. nice work whoever you are.
|
|
|
Post by 530folkmass on Apr 22, 2010 21:56:08 GMT -5
For the record I love the record and need it like crack.
|
|
|
Post by muzzleofbees on Apr 23, 2010 7:08:49 GMT -5
That seems pretty mixed rather than positive. And it's horribly written. Can we talk about how bad music criticism is nowadays? Particularly Pitchfork and their personal essays. There's no reason a review should be over 300 words. It seems like a fair amount of the Pitchfork criticism is based on what the site was like in 2003-04. Back then, the reviews were sometimes funny, sometimes pretentious, sometimes great and sometimes plain stupid "personal essays". I think that's far less the case today. Their not the toppermost of music criticism, but they sure as hell ain't the worst one around either. But, of course, they are the big indie site, and will be hated just as much as loved. I just don't think the "personal essay" criticism is valid anymore. It was, once, but the site has changed a lot in the four or five latest years. There's still a bunch of things to criticize, though. And what's wrong with long reviews in itself? It's like saying no one should write a novel with more than 200 pages. To me, what counts is what the review give me, personally. I've read some amazing 1000 words reviews, and I've read some horrible 80 words reviews. It's the content that's interesting, not the length.
|
|
|
Post by mickeymo on Apr 23, 2010 11:10:24 GMT -5
Let's guess! Pitchfork: 6.8 Uncut: 4/5 Mojo: 3/5 Mojo: 3/5You got that one correct! Just dropped through my letterbox. " A rewarding listen with a definite touch of Groundhog Day about it. Established fans will find much to adore, but Finn and co need to be cannier about their long game. Even The Boss learned to take his foot off the gas occasionally ..." (That's not the whole review by the way ;D)
|
|
|
Post by bloodystereos on Apr 23, 2010 18:26:07 GMT -5
|
|
Sunny D
Midnight Hauler
"We've gotta try a little harder..."
Posts: 1,900
|
Post by Sunny D on Apr 23, 2010 20:25:15 GMT -5
That seems pretty mixed rather than positive. And it's horribly written. Can we talk about how bad music criticism is nowadays? Particularly Pitchfork and their personal essays. There's no reason a review should be over 300 words. It seems like a fair amount of the Pitchfork criticism is based on what the site was like in 2003-04. Back then, the reviews were sometimes funny, sometimes pretentious, sometimes great and sometimes plain stupid "personal essays". I think that's far less the case today. Their not the toppermost of music criticism, but they sure as hell ain't the worst one around either. But, of course, they are the big indie site, and will be hated just as much as loved. I just don't think the "personal essay" criticism is valid anymore. It was, once, but the site has changed a lot in the four or five latest years. There's still a bunch of things to criticize, though. And what's wrong with long reviews in itself? It's like saying no one should write a novel with more than 200 pages. To me, what counts is what the review give me, personally. I've read some amazing 1000 words reviews, and I've read some horrible 80 words reviews. It's the content that's interesting, not the length. Hah, I just remembered the Pitchfork review of "21st Century Breakdown" completely bashing it and Green Day before he even heard it.
|
|
|
Post by st5801 on Apr 23, 2010 21:50:54 GMT -5
Pitchfork is good for entertainment value, but there are certainly people who hang onto its every word as gospel. One of the funniest things I've ever seen was their review of British Sea Power's "Do You Like Rock Music?": pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/11152-do-you-like-rock-music/ (take a look at the score) And of course, Jet's "Shine On": pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/9464-shine-on/Of course, these stunts also are why people hate them. But their entire review system is so arbitrary that taking their reviews with anything other than a grain of salt is a mistake. A wise man once said "everyone's a critic, but most people are DJs".
|
|
|
Post by carljarvis on Apr 24, 2010 1:54:43 GMT -5
|
|