|
Post by muzzleofbees on Mar 24, 2014 11:46:46 GMT -5
Last time around, Pitchfork wrote "...Heaven Is Whenever sounds like a transitional album, hopefully paving the way for something stronger, more cohesive, more specific", and gave the album a 6.2.
What rating will Teeth Dreams recieve?
My guess: 7.1
Previous ratings
Almost Killed Me - 8.0 Separation Sunday - 8.7 Boys And Girls In America - 9.4 Stay Positive - 8.4 A Positive Rage - 6.0 Heaven Is Whenever - 6.2
|
|
the sea
Cityscape Skin
The artist formally known as 'the river'.
Posts: 31
|
Post by the sea on Mar 24, 2014 11:59:14 GMT -5
8.5
|
|
|
Post by dealwiththedealers on Mar 24, 2014 12:06:46 GMT -5
It'll either be like a 7.4 "return-to-form", or a 4.2 "overproduced, flat, vocal disaster, it sounds nothing like what made them great in the first place" review.
|
|
|
Post by bobstinson on Mar 24, 2014 12:20:51 GMT -5
Predictfork says 8.1
|
|
Sunny D
Midnight Hauler
"We've gotta try a little harder..."
Posts: 1,900
|
Post by Sunny D on Mar 24, 2014 13:49:32 GMT -5
7.8.
|
|
|
Post by jz on Mar 24, 2014 14:05:09 GMT -5
7.6
I think it'll be in the ballpark of 7.4 and 7.8, both of which have been guessed in previous comments, so I'm splitting the difference.
That being said, I hope it gets higher. I don't really agree with some of Pitchfork's ratings for THS (or in general, most of the time), but using their previous ratings as a comparison, I'd like to see it get an 8.5 or 8.6 (because I want it to be better than Stay Positive, which I wouldn't have given an 8.4 to in the first place).
|
|
|
Post by bobsacamano on Mar 24, 2014 14:14:48 GMT -5
It'll either be like a 7.4 "return-to-form", or a 4.2 "overproduced, flat, vocal disaster, it sounds nothing like what made them great in the first place" review. Completely agreed. Either they'll "get" the darkness of the album, and give it a fair listen, or they'll pan it for being overproduced and not bar-band-y enough. I'm hoping for the former, kind of expecting the latter. It seems silly to place so much emphasis on one websites opinion, but man, it kind of feels personal, doesn't it? Like, I feel like I'm getting my kid's report card from school.
|
|
|
Post by muzzleofbees on Mar 24, 2014 14:21:27 GMT -5
It'll either be like a 7.4 "return-to-form", or a 4.2 "overproduced, flat, vocal disaster, it sounds nothing like what made them great in the first place" review. Completely agreed. Either they'll "get" the darkness of the album, and give it a fair listen, or they'll pan it for being overproduced and not bar-band-y enough. I'm hoping for the former, kind of expecting the latter. But wouldn't be a bit weird to assume they didn't give the album a fair listen if they don't like it? I mean, it is possible to don't dig Hold Steady, even after a fair try. Regardless of the rating, I'm quite interested to find out how they hear it. I think - as someone pointed out earlier - they will go for a withdrawn "return to form, without the momentum of their glory days" kinda thing.
|
|
|
Post by bobsacamano on Mar 24, 2014 14:25:59 GMT -5
Completely agreed. Either they'll "get" the darkness of the album, and give it a fair listen, or they'll pan it for being overproduced and not bar-band-y enough. I'm hoping for the former, kind of expecting the latter. But wouldn't be a bit weird to assume they didn't give the album a fair listen if they don't like it? I mean, it is possible to don't dig Hold Steady, even after a fair Not weird at all, because I am a hopeless fanboy! But seriously, you're right, of course. I think I am a little sensitive because the first non-unified-scenester-fan take on the album I heard was "New Hold Steady leaked, listened once, sucked." I haaaate the instant-take, disposable music culture, which I fall victim to myself (new criticize an album based on how it sounds through your laptop speakers.. I do this way too much, and end up kicking myself later when I realize the album/song is great).
|
|
|
Post by muzzleofbees on Mar 24, 2014 14:30:28 GMT -5
But seriously, you're right, of course. I think I am a little sensitive because the first non-unified-scenester-fan take on the album I heard was "New Hold Steady leaked, listened once, sucked." I haaaate the instant-take, disposable music culture, which I fall victim to myself (new criticize an album based on how it sounds through your laptop speakers.. I do this way too much, and end up kicking myself later when I realize the album/song is great). I think we can agree on that I read the Pitchfork reviews of the last three albums when I read this, and even though I disagree with the HiW rating, I can kind of accept and even agree to the criticism. I'm loving it, but my reasons for not loving it even more is pretty much the same as the reviewers reasons for not loving it at all. Sometimes it can be interesting to read a less-than-praising review, that is if it's based on smart observations and is well written.
|
|
|
Post by 530folkmass on Mar 24, 2014 14:54:33 GMT -5
I think that Pitchfork has had their mind up on this one. Apart from the Massive Nights article, there has been very little lead up, excitement or publicity re: Teeth Dreams. A lot has changed in 10 years and THS are not the flavour of the month that they were back in the day. So my guess is that Pitchfork pans TD. If it gets more than a 5.3 then colour me impressed.
The review won't change how much I enjoy listening to Teeth Dreams, so I can't say that I care to much about how Pitchfork rates it.
|
|
stringer
Has Status
Seein' my duty clear.
Posts: 2,702
|
Post by stringer on Mar 24, 2014 15:12:33 GMT -5
I've never much cared for pitchfork anyway.
|
|
mcstevepants
Hoodrat
Shaky but still tryin' to shake it.
Posts: 400
|
Post by mcstevepants on Mar 24, 2014 19:02:21 GMT -5
I think it'll also be in the 6 range, because they are idiots.
|
|
|
Post by mhetrick14 on Mar 24, 2014 19:37:39 GMT -5
7.4
|
|
|
Post by mikeflynn on Mar 24, 2014 20:32:43 GMT -5
I think it'll also be in the 6 range, because they are idiots. Yeah I'm thinking like a 6.2. Deserves much higher obviously.
|
|
|
Post by dealwiththedealers on Mar 25, 2014 0:08:21 GMT -5
Welp... it's record release day and the album isn't even up on the website... pitchfork.com
|
|
Admin
Midnight Hauler
Posts: 2,434
|
Post by Admin on Mar 25, 2014 0:30:08 GMT -5
Welp... it's record release day and the album isn't even up on the website... pitchfork.comI'd expect to see it Wednesday. That Future Islands album was a pretty high-profile release and Owls released their follow up to an album that came out 12 years ago. Easy for it to have gotten lost in the shuffle.
|
|
|
Post by infinitejest on Mar 26, 2014 14:26:22 GMT -5
It's Wednesday. Still nothing. Guess they're ignoring it?
Pitchfork pulls stunts like this one all the time if they aren't sure how to weigh in.
|
|
|
Post by dealwiththedealers on Mar 26, 2014 14:51:01 GMT -5
Few people reading Pitchfork really gives a hoot about THS anymore anyway. Whatevs.
|
|
|
Post by infinitejest on Mar 26, 2014 15:15:46 GMT -5
Few people reading Pitchfork really gives a hoot about THS anymore anyway. Whatevs. People reading Pitchfork generally lack opinions of their own. If they're told to give a hoot, they will. I'm just curious. I have a perverse fascination with how Pitchfork covers different artists. Usually, they have a narrative they stick to. For example, in Pitchfork's eyes any of Springsteen's newer material is overproduced and is yet another example of how he should really just make his records sound like they used to. It doesn't matter if it's a pretty goddamn good record like Wrecking Ball or a shitty one like High Hopes or Working on a Dream. They all are deemed to show a real artist at work, but one who ruins the essential potential of his songs. But this is the new Springsteen. The 70s Springsteen is an absolute genius and never did anything wrong. Whether that's right or wrong is beside the point. I just find the narratives they invent for each artist they frequently cover amusing. The Hold Steady Pitchfork narrative was stuck at 'what will they do next?!!! The band's kinda okay now but will they be great again?!!!' I just wanna see where it goes next.
|
|
|
Post by dealwiththedealers on Mar 26, 2014 15:21:36 GMT -5
Few people reading Pitchfork really gives a hoot about THS anymore anyway. Whatevs. People reading Pitchfork generally lack opinions of their own. If they're told to give a hoot, they will. I'm just curious. I have a perverse fascination with how Pitchfork covers different artists. Usually, they have a narrative they stick to. For example, in Pitchfork's eyes any of Springsteen's newer material is overproduced and is yet another example of how he should really just make his records sound like they used to. It doesn't matter if it's a pretty goddamn good record like Wrecking Ball or a shitty one like High Hopes or Working on a Dream. They all are deemed to show a real artist at work, but one who ruins the essential potential of his songs. But this is the new Springsteen. The 70s Springsteen is an absolute genius and never did anything wrong. Whether that's right or wrong is beside the point. I just find the narratives they invent for each artist they frequently cover amusing. The Hold Steady Pitchfork narrative was stuck at 'what will they do next?!!! The band's kinda okay now but will they be great again?!!!' I just wanna see where it goes next. Totally agree. I'm interested in their rating solely to see how it fits in with their narrative for once obscure indie-rock band doing something completely different to six albums later, no Franz, big corporate rock producer onboard. That's why I think the album will get trashed.
|
|
|
Post by dealwiththedealers on Mar 26, 2014 15:22:10 GMT -5
Ironically, I thought Pitchfork's review of HiW was spot on.
|
|
|
Post by Fine Malt Lyrics on Mar 26, 2014 16:22:54 GMT -5
The review will probably just be a YouTube video of a monkey drinking its own pee.
|
|
|
Post by muzzleofbees on Mar 26, 2014 16:33:16 GMT -5
I'm by no way Pitchforks biggest fan. Nor am I hating the site. I think their reviews often are good, informative and well written. And I also feel their snotty style and tendency to build up and tear down bands just because they could, were far more visible a few years ago. When people now talk about PItchfork like everything they do is part of a "policy" or agenda, I tend to think the ones who hate everything the site publishes, is just as confused as the ones who is said to follow every Pitchfork lead like a robot (people I'm glad to say I've never ever met). But it's funny how their cultural importance (in the way people pay attention to what Pitchfork says and does, whether they love the site, hate the site or something in between) always creates hefty discussions. And therefore, a bit fun to hear peoples guesses. The sole purpose of this thread was to make a rather informal competition to decide who takes the best guess. What Pitchfork feels about this record, or about Hold Steady in general, isn't very important to me - if anyone was tricked to believe that after reading the OP
|
|
|
Post by dealwiththedealers on Mar 27, 2014 0:02:55 GMT -5
Thursday has arrived, and still no review. Lame.
|
|