Quote:
Originally Posted by adidasss
I read the text and agree with it to a certain extent. But I'm not sure how H&LA come into it.
Apparently H&LA were reviewed by someone who "knows their shit"...\
|
I brought it up to point out how there's a huge disconnection between your average Pitchfork reader/indie fan, and members of the so-called "dance community."
To the average Pitchfork reader, them handing out a 9.1 to H&LA is outrageous, but to someone who supposedly "knows their ****," H&LA is a fantastic disco record that deserves all the praise it gets. Dance fans complain about Pitchfork overrating bad albums and underrating good ones, but it also works both ways. Philip Sherburne, being an active member of the dance community and someone with great taste, thinks H&LA is great, but the average Pitchfork reader probably can't figure out why Pitchfork thought some disco album deserved a 9.1 and a Best New Music mention.
Basically, if you really "appreciate" dance music, H&LA being given a 9.1 isn't that big a deal, but if you're not heavily involved in that scene you're probably just shaking your head wondering why they overrated H&LA so much.