mick
Clever Kid
Posts: 142
|
Post by mick on May 4, 2010 0:01:49 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by shadytransactor on May 4, 2010 0:15:15 GMT -5
Um, they go to get more wine, not liquor. Get it right, Pitchfork.
|
|
Sunny D
Midnight Hauler
"We've gotta try a little harder..."
Posts: 1,900
|
Post by Sunny D on May 4, 2010 0:19:57 GMT -5
Um, they go to get more wine, not liquor. Get it right, Pitchfork. Pitchfork seems to have enough w(h)ine. I guess they can't fathom how one can run out of it. |
|
|
|
Post by shadytransactor on May 4, 2010 0:21:08 GMT -5
Other than the wine-to-liquor comment, this is a surprisingly lucid and focused Pitchfork review. I don't agree with everything they say (personally, I think "A Slight Discomfort" is pulled off perfectly) and I would score the album overall a little higher (somewhere in the sevens for now, but it seems like this may be a grower), but I actually agreed with more than usual out of a P4K review. And they stayed away from stupid random anecdotes and big pretentious words.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 4, 2010 0:27:35 GMT -5
the review for the last THS album was so high that i expected a backlash
and yeah, nice review. i mean, not good, but focused and makes coherent points
|
|
|
|
Post by muzzleofbees on May 4, 2010 0:53:50 GMT -5
I think it's a OK review. A bit as expected. My only real issue with it is that it seem to underestimate the bands ability to write the same songs, the same lyrics and the same riffs they've always been writing. I don't its lack of ability who makes HiW sound the way it does, I think it s a deliberate choice.
Besides that, fair enough. I can understand why people don't dig HiW, and I think Deusner explains him self quite good.
|
|
|
|
Post by nickknuckles on May 4, 2010 2:11:19 GMT -5
Pitchfork blows. I don't think I will waste my time reading this review or anything else on that joke of a website. I rarely agree with their hipster arrogance anyways. They are everything that is wrong with the music industry.
|
|
|
|
Post by muzzleofbees on May 4, 2010 2:42:14 GMT -5
You can feel what you want about Pitchfork, but I don't think this review is either hipster-focused or arrogant. He makes some decent points, which I don't exactly agree with, but it's well written, and his criticism is fairly well grounded.
|
|
|
|
Post by hollywasahoodrat on May 4, 2010 5:26:52 GMT -5
other than the asd comment about it being bad and TSPOTC being good, i completely agree with this review. pitchfork never disappoints
|
|
|
|
Post by barryjive on May 4, 2010 7:41:55 GMT -5
Pitchfork blows. I don't think I will waste my time reading this review or anything else on that joke of a website. I rarely agree with their hipster arrogance anyways. They are everything that is wrong with the music industry. what's more arrogant than completely refusing to regard someone's opinion on something? |
|
|
|
Post by Ellie J on May 4, 2010 7:58:44 GMT -5
Eh, I think you have to really just sort of judge Pitchfork one review at a time. Then again, I feel that way with most reviews.
I'm not sure how I feel about the comment about lyrics being less involved in the lives of the songs' characters than on previous albums. I'm bouncing back and forth between agreeing, but then songs like "A Small Discomfort", "The Weekenders", and even "Hurricane J" don't have me so sure. I am having a harder time grasping characters in HiW than I have in any previous album, but I'm not sure if that's a bad thing. (If nothing else, I'll give Pitchfork credit for making me think so much about this.)
|
|
|
|
Post by brian1766 on May 4, 2010 8:37:15 GMT -5
At least they didn't mention Springsteen. I was thankful for that.
|
|
|
|
Post by holdsteadycanada on May 4, 2010 9:27:35 GMT -5
fuckin' pitchfork. *shakes head*
|
|
|
|
Post by mike on May 4, 2010 10:14:51 GMT -5
*shrugs*
he's clearly listened to the record carefully, and he's explained his opinion clearly. whether or not we agree with it, it's a fair review. and generally speaking writers from pitchfork know a buttload more about music than people on this board. there, i said it.
|
|
|
|
Post by jamesjesusangleton on May 4, 2010 10:34:52 GMT -5
As usual, Mike OTM.
|
|
|
|
Post by mikeflynn on May 4, 2010 10:38:00 GMT -5
A lot lower than I was expecting.
|
|
|
|
Post by howitfeels on May 4, 2010 10:45:07 GMT -5
I think the review is pretty well written and some thought has been put into it, it feels like a 7.5+ review from reading it but we know that Pitchfork is capable of good writing from time to time. My bet is that the rating had been decided on long before any reviewer had been picked. The bright thing to get from the majority of the reviews, even the 'bad' ones, is that none have been overtly negative or even had much bad to say. It seems the album hasn't been grasping many people the way the Stay Positives and Massive Nights had with reviewers in the past. I'll be shocked if it doesn't end up on year end best ofs after people had revisited it.
A bad Pitchfork review won't effect the band the same way it would have if BAGIA had gotten a 5.9, thankfully the boys don't need hipster tastemakers anymore.
Oh and I guessed 6.3, where do I claim my prize?
|
|
toastie
Sniffling Indie Kid
Posts: 159
|
Post by toastie on May 4, 2010 12:29:29 GMT -5
I get the feeling the reviewer is un-familiar with the concept of "band evolution" and is stuck up the arse of BaGiA. Like the reviewer, I can't take Dean's production (SS is difficult to listen to because of the excessive layers) though the band is more familiar with the studio and confident to say "no".
|
|
|
|
Post by jamesjesusangleton on May 4, 2010 12:37:20 GMT -5
I get the feeling the reviewer is un-familiar with the concept of "band evolution" and is stuck up the arse of BaGiA. Like the reviewer, I can't take Dean's production (SS is difficult to listen to because of the excessive layers) though the band is more familiar with the studio and confident to say "no". Eh? Go and listen to SS again. There aren't excessive layers at all: it's a very bare record. A lot of the time all you can hear is a guitar, a bass, drums, a voice and an organ, not multiple tracks of each. The multiple layers came with BAGIA. As Mike says, Pitchfork writers know what they're on about. I don't agree with this review's conclusion, but it is well reasoned and every major assertion is backed. And I seriously doubt Pitchfork is handing down its grades and telling reviewers to write to that grade. |
|
toastie
Sniffling Indie Kid
Posts: 159
|
Post by toastie on May 4, 2010 12:55:34 GMT -5
I get the feeling the reviewer is un-familiar with the concept of "band evolution" and is stuck up the arse of BaGiA. Like the reviewer, I can't take Dean's production (SS is difficult to listen to because of the excessive layers) though the band is more familiar with the studio and confident to say "no". Eh? Go and listen to SS again. There aren't excessive layers at all: it's a very bare record. A lot of the time all you can hear is a guitar, a bass, drums, a voice and an organ, not multiple tracks of each. The multiple layers came with BAGIA. As Mike says, Pitchfork writers know what they're on about. I don't agree with this review's conclusion, but it is well reasoned and every major assertion is backed. And I seriously doubt Pitchfork is handing down its grades and telling reviewers to write to that grade. I always thought it was multi-layers on guitars but its probably just I can't figure out what Tads doing. |
|
|
|
Post by massiveknight on May 4, 2010 13:09:01 GMT -5
I usually agree with Pitchfork and although I love HiW I do find that it lacks the narrative threads that the other albums seemed to spend more time on. It feels more like a bunch of great songs and less like a coherent story.
|
|
|
|
Post by campfirewood1980 on May 4, 2010 13:12:42 GMT -5
Don't forget- Pitchfork wasn't exactly kind to Lifter Puller waaaaay back when. I usually take their reviews as a starting point and check a few others. The review that really stings is Greg Kot's- he's been a supporter of the last couple of records, so I was bummed that he wasn't exactly thrilled with what is my favorite HS album since Boys and Girls in America.
|
|
|
|
Post by Andy on May 4, 2010 13:16:36 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by rocknhtx on May 4, 2010 13:35:07 GMT -5
The reviewer talks about this being a "transitional album" and they're striving to get to something bigger and seems to imply that these aren't good things for THS... but isn't that the point of being a band? They could have just remade 5 different versions of Separation Sunday, but what would that prove? Isn't branching out in new directions and trying to do new stuff a good thing? I like how the album is more diverse than the previous ones. Rock on THS.
|
|
bigrob
Midnight Hauler
i guess i knew it was coming
Posts: 1,352
|
Post by bigrob on May 4, 2010 15:08:52 GMT -5
I hate when critics call an album transitional before there has been anything to transition to. I would say that every THS album has sounded different than the last. The Hold Steady isn't Nickelback. They can make songs that sound different than one another (even if the lyrical content remains fairly constant).
From what I remember, Craig never came out and said "We're trying to take the band in a different direction, and Heaven is Whenever is that turning point."
Just because an album doesn't sound the exact same as the last few doesn't make it transitional. Franz is out of the picture. It's going to sound different.
Just wait, the next THS album will sound slightly more like AKM, and all the reviews will say the guys went 'back to their roots'. That, or maybe it is a transition, and I'll have to dig the next one out of the 'Adult Urban Contemporary' section.
|
|
