Quote:
Originally Posted by Brad Stengel
And nobody mentions the Arcade Fire being overhyped?! I like them but they have recieved by far the most journalistic fellatio by pitchfork since "Funeral".
|
for the mighty good reason that they haven't. Arcade Fire receive most of their "journalistic fellatio" from elsewhere. Pitchfork saw Neon Bible as a step down and an inferior record to its predecessor (it got an 8.4).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brad Stengel
And what about Radiohead? Also overhyped a ridiculous amount by pitchfork.
|
Radiohead are overhyped across the board. Like your previous example, the Arcade Fire.
The purpose of the thread was to talk about Pitchfork's quite specific pet bands that only really have any recognition at all because of Pitchfork. Bands like Arcade Fire and Radiohead owe very little to Pitchfork and an awful lot to their wider audience.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brad Stengel
I don't think Cryptograms on the whole is an 8.9 record-the second half definitely is-but to say they are the most overhyped band on pitchfork is absurd.
|
I didn't. Read the title. "Most mediocre, awful, worst" etc... NOT the "most". Bring on one of
*their* bands (rather than bands that are the darlings of all critics), and there'll be a ground for discussing it. I'm sure you don't think Arcade Fire and Radiohead are seriously worse than a pile of steaming poo like Deerhunter.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by boo boo
Joanna Newsom, someone rip her vocal cords out please.
|
She's another for whom much of the acclaim lies outside of Pitchfork. Even some staunch prog/art rock oriented critics went mad over Ys.