The board's server will undergo upgrade maintenance tonight, Nov 5, 2014, beginning approximately around 10 PM ET. Prepare for some possible down time during this process.
likes rhythmic things that butt up against each other
Joined: Wed February 26, 2020 8:43 am Posts: 774
Jorge wrote:
Fattie_Vedder wrote:
Kevin Davis wrote:
6.4 is a reasonable score -- "reliable but not revelatory," as the reviewer says, which I think is what I would expect this album to sound like to someone that isn't highly attuned to the nuances, minor novelties, artistic baby steps, etc., that a band of PJ's vintage displays on a record like this. He goes on to express something like gratitude for the existence of the record even in its imperfections, and has a lot of nice things to say about various tracks along the way. In a couple places he sounds like a dolt, as all music critics are required to on occasion. But it's hardly a takedown piece.
Everything seems amplified through the lens of a fan -- more intense joys, more crushing disappointments, and finding inflated significance in things that to most listeners are just things. But numerically, the guy likes 64% of the record. I imagine there are many records in my collection that I like roughly 64% of, and still think, you know what, that's a pretty damn good record.
While I am not surprised with the score of this review, it is irksome to see the reviewer sound like a dolt when talking about the lyrics and meaning behind the album, because it suggests he came into it with a vague understanding of Pearl Jam being this 'political statement band' and judges the music and work through that lens.
There is 1 mention of political lyrics in the part about the song "Dark Matter," that's it.
“but the album is marred by boilerplate rockers that try to confront fascist dread with platitudes and banal expressions of resistance.“
That suggests that is his view of most or at least several of the songs on the album, not just the title track.
Last edited by Fattie_Vedder on Wed April 24, 2024 4:27 am, edited 1 time in total.
i'll be honest my biggest disagreement with that review was when they stated that that st vincent's produced sleater-kinney album was a success
I still struggle with this one and the subsequent fallout from Janet leaving...Love both St. Vincent & Sleater Kinney, and I really thought that creative partnership would bear amazing fruit, but, it just didn't pan out. I also can't really extricate my opinion of the album from my feelings about Janet's departure, so, the entire period is marred for me.
That said, I've since seen them live and they're still wonderful.
As for Pitchfork? It was a fine review...couldn't care any less. I put stock in magazine/website reviews strictly as a great source of selfish anticipation-building prior to an album's release, but, once I've heard it, the only opinions which hold any water for me are those belonging to members of the die-hard fan community for a particular band ie. places such as this.
_________________ We still make records to be listened to — not that everyone will listen to a record track one to twelve in a row or side A or Side B — but we still make 'em in case somebody does want to listen to it like that, that's how we make em…
I'm surprised they gave DM 6.4. They had given Gigaton 6.2, which I thought was generous compared to their ratings of some of PJ's best albums. They've given the Rearviewmirror Greatest Hits Compilation a 5.9, for crying out loud. The hipsters over at Pitchfork perhaps feel it beneath themselves to rate PJ highly. They fill their reviews with underhanded compliments, when they do come close to praising. I think the 7.6 rating they gave to the Vs./Vitalogy reissue is the highest one they have for PJ. Ten Deluxe edition got a 6.7. These two are the only ratings higher than DM for PJ that are up on their site.
Their dismissal of the harder rocking songs on DM is lame. Granted, I could get on board somewhat if they singled out Running which is nice, but not essential. Dark Matter itself is better and SoF is great. R/R is quirky, but damn good.
_________________ Pearl Jam is the only band I'll spend money on.
Joined: Thu December 13, 2012 6:31 pm Posts: 40078
that was a perfectly reasonable review with some insightful and complimentary moments. ive no issue with it. but pitchfork’s treatment of the band has historically been a bit smarmy. i get the suspicion
likes rhythmic things that butt up against each other
Joined: Wed February 26, 2020 8:43 am Posts: 774
stip wrote:
that was a perfectly reasonable review with some insightful and complimentary moments. ive no issue with it. but pitchfork’s treatment of the band has historically been a bit smarmy. i get the suspicion
likes rhythmic things that butt up against each other
Joined: Wed February 26, 2020 8:43 am Posts: 774
WaitingForBluey wrote:
On the snark-meter, that was one of the kindest and gentlest reviews for PJ on pitchfork ever... (psst.. he actually liked it)
I’ll give it that, it’s more positive than most pitchfork reviews of PJ stuff. But even when it’s positive it has to be delivered with a side salad of snark. Better than a word salad, but snark salad is still a little annoying.
Joined: Thu March 21, 2013 1:08 am Posts: 2613 Location: Pennsyltucky
oftheearth wrote:
Pitchfork gave Yield an 8.5 but that was back in the early days.
I recall that too... it was written by some girl that I never heard of before and never heard from again... she was excommunicated for breaking the code
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum
