My friends and I were discussing Pitchfork recently and came to the agreement that anything they rate around a 5 is pretty kick ass. Anything above that is - more often than not - no good at all.
gotta love the pretensious bastards at pitchfork. "is it from canada?" "yes" "okay, automatic 7 out of 10" "is it from the south" "yes" "gotta give it 6 or less" eff pitchfork
Pitchfork is full of the most pompous deluded "writers" who write what their reviews because they must read them out loud once completed and say, "oh, I sound so intelligent."
Typical. Most of the music mags spend too much time comparing new bands to bands from the past. But when those older bands came out, they got blasted too when compared. In 5 years, we'll be reading pitchfork saying how great KOL was and no one will ever be as good.
http://www.cokemachineglow.com/reviews/kingsofleon_becauseofthetimes2007.html The above review on Coke machine Glow represents how I feel about the album for the most part. I've had the KOL album for the better part of 3 months now and it is an album that I can't seem to untangle. By all accounts it sounds and feels weak alot, but something deep inside me tells me this is a far better album than that. The review hits on a few notes I've been thinking but unable to vocalize. Although the reviewer's reference to Blink 182 does make me question his credibilty.
All of the music here is posted with the intention of introducing people to bands and artists that they may not have otherwise heard. The mp3's here are for sampling purposes only. If you wish for us not to post your music, please email us and it will be taken down immediately. If you like what you hear, please buy the albums, go to the shows, and do whatever it takes to support these bands.
10 comments:
here, here!
damn straight!
4) http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/article/record_review/38447/Justin_Timberlake_FutureSex_LoveSounds
My friends and I were discussing Pitchfork recently and came to the agreement that anything they rate around a 5 is pretty kick ass. Anything above that is - more often than not - no good at all.
gotta love the pretensious bastards at pitchfork.
"is it from canada?"
"yes"
"okay, automatic 7 out of 10"
"is it from the south"
"yes"
"gotta give it 6 or less"
eff pitchfork
Pitchfork is full of the most pompous deluded "writers" who write what their reviews because they must read them out loud once completed and say, "oh, I sound so intelligent."
Typical. Most of the music mags spend too much time comparing new bands to bands from the past. But when those older bands came out, they got blasted too when compared. In 5 years, we'll be reading pitchfork saying how great KOL was and no one will ever be as good.
http://www.cokemachineglow.com/reviews/kingsofleon_becauseofthetimes2007.html
The above review on Coke machine Glow represents how I feel about the album for the most part. I've had the KOL album for the better part of 3 months now and it is an album that I can't seem to untangle. By all accounts it sounds and feels weak alot, but something deep inside me tells me this is a far better album than that. The review hits on a few notes I've been thinking but unable to vocalize. Although the reviewer's reference to Blink 182 does make me question his credibilty.
I could NOT agree more that pitchfork should not be taken seriously.
What a douche.
I completely agree, KOL kick major ass. I came across a real review at Mr. Mughead Review
http://www.mugheadreview.com/2007/08/dr-snagglepuss-says.html
Post a Comment