Music Banter

Go Back   Music Banter > The Music Forums > General Music
Register Blogging Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Welcome to Music Banter Forum! Make sure to register - it's free and very quick! You have to register before you can post and participate in our discussions with over 70,000 other registered members. After you create your free account, you will be able to customize many options, you will have the full access to over 1,100,000 posts.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 08-11-2008, 06:02 PM   #31 (permalink)
;)
 
cardboard adolescent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: CA
Posts: 3,502
Default

Really good. Post-punk remastered for the 21st century.
cardboard adolescent is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2008, 12:27 AM   #32 (permalink)
Da Hiphopopotamus
 
sweet_nothing's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: cloud cuckoo land
Posts: 4,039
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cardboard adolescent View Post
Really good. Post-punk remastered for the 21st century.
Agreed. Also I will be seeing them in Houston in December I'm looking forward to it.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by swim View Post
America does folk, hardcore and mathrock better and that's 90% of what I give 2 shits on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chartsengrafs View Post
sweet nothing openly flaunts the fact that he is merely the empty shell of an even more unadmirable member. his loneliness and need for attention bleeds through every letter he types. edit: i would just like to add that i'm ashamed that he's from texas. surely you didn't grow up in texas, did you sweet nothing?
sweet_nothing is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2008, 12:32 AM   #33 (permalink)
Unrepentant Ass-Mod
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 3,920
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rainard Jalen View Post
I personally think Fleet Foxes are a derivative (and irritating) pile of poo. That band's a perfect example of the indie hype machine licking its own a$shole. Pitchfork's responsibility for them, again, stops at them merely singing the collective tune.
Jesus Christ man, how many bands are you going to knock off in one sitting? Do you have anything GOOD to say about bands that get generally good reviews?

There are indie artists that receive way, way, WAY too much hype for mediocre albums (Band of Horses and My Morning Jacket come to mind as of now), but when good artists like Fleet Foxes and Bon Iver come along you shouldn't automatically reject their music because of some idiotic presumptions you have about listening to what the critics have to say. Fleet Foxes were critically praised across the board, not overhyped by Pitchfork and indie mags. And their debut album was impressive by any standards. If you don't like it, that's fine, but it wasn't fuckin' overhyped by Pitchfork. They gave it a good review, but they stopped short of calling it an American classic (which The Guardian failed to do) and they certainly didn't herald it as an album of the year (which plenty of other sources chose to do).

Please, if you're going to trash these bands, find a legitimate reason -- not your hatred for Pitchfork.
__________________
first.am
lucifer_sam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2008, 07:16 PM   #34 (permalink)
This Space for Rent
 
Brad Stengel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 814
Default

Its really odd, every music site Ive been to everyone ****s all over pitchfork specifically. Maybe its because its probably the biggest indie record review site, but still, I dont get it.

If pitchfork rates an album well, and its a genre Im a big fan of, 98% of the time when I pick up the record, Im not dissapointed. When they give a record a great review and its a genre Im NOT familiar with, I download some stuff first, and then decide whether or not to actively listen to them. Using this system pitchfork rarely fails me (not that I only go to pitchfork for record reviews, mind you, although I feel it is one of the most in tune with my tastes) and I have nothing but praise for a website that introduced me to LCD Soundsystem, Deerhunter, Battles, Art Brut, No Age, and ****tons of more bands I may or may not have winded up listening to.
Brad Stengel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-15-2008, 02:38 PM   #35 (permalink)
Music Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,221
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lucifer_sam View Post
Jesus Christ man, how many bands are you going to knock off in one sitting? Do you have anything GOOD to say about bands that get generally good reviews?
Yes. All the ones that I like.

Quote:
but when good artists like Fleet Foxes and Bon Iver come along you shouldn't automatically reject their music because of some idiotic presumptions you have about listening to what the critics have to say.
Which idiotic presumptions? You probably don't have a clue who you're talking to. I'm practically a PITCHFORK FANBOY~! Get it? FANBOY! I visit the site religiously every working day of the week. I download all of their best new music recommendations. The whole f'cking lot. 90% of my favourite albums in my top 20 for this year I heard about first from Pitchfork. It is my favourite indie music news and reviews site bar none. But if I feel that either THEY or the generality of reviewers get something wrong, then I will goddamn say so.

In fact you misunderstand me to such an extent that the fact is, I'm MORE likely to like something if it DOES get good reviews and IS critically acclaimed. That might be a bad approach, admittedly, but it is how my personality works, and above all it goes to show just how poorly you've managed to judge me on the basis of a mere couple of comments.

Quote:
Fleet Foxes were critically praised across the board, not overhyped by Pitchfork and indie mags.
I know. That's what I find so abominable. If it were just Pitchfork I probably wouldn't have said anything. It's the point that they have been so widely praised that annoys me so much.

Quote:
And their debut album was impressive by any standards.
That is, by any low standards.

Quote:
If you don't like it, that's fine, but it wasn't uckin' overhyped by Pitchfork.
It was. It received a 9. 9 or above is an extremely rare occurrence on Pitchfork. I should know. I had the geekiness to follow them for so long.

Quote:
They gave it a good review, but they stopped short of calling it an American classic (which The Guardian failed to do) and they certainly didn't herald it as an album of the year (which plenty of other sources chose to do).
So others hyped it more than Pitchfork did. Whoop-te-do. What does this prove? Only that the indie hype machine's been licking its own a$shole pretty damn ferociously lately.

Quote:
Please, if you're going to trash these bands, find a legitimate reason -- not your hatred for Pitchfork.
Seeming as we've now established that your supposed premise of mine was not entirely accurate, I'll end by saying that I DO have a perfectly legitimate reason for trashing Fleet Foxes: it's just not a particularly good album. Good for a debut, maybe. Signs of promise, perhaps. But much good in and of itself? Surrrrre.
Rainard Jalen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-15-2008, 03:06 PM   #36 (permalink)
Groupie
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 41
Default

That's hard to say.
dallasrockscene is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-16-2008, 11:12 AM   #37 (permalink)
Unrepentant Ass-Mod
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 3,920
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rainard Jalen View Post
Which idiotic presumptions? You probably don't have a clue who you're talking to. I'm practically a PITCHFORK FANBOY~! Get it? FANBOY! I visit the site religiously every working day of the week. I download all of their best new music recommendations. The whole f'cking lot. 90% of my favourite albums in my top 20 for this year I heard about first from Pitchfork. It is my favourite indie music news and reviews site bar none. But if I feel that either THEY or the generality of reviewers get something wrong, then I will goddamn say so.
Although it's pretty obvious I misunderstood why you hated the Fleet Foxes' debut, that's a great way to pigeonhole your tastes in music.

Quote:
I know. That's what I find so abominable. If it were just Pitchfork I probably wouldn't have said anything. It's the point that they have been so widely praised that annoys me so much.
Hmmm... Let me get this straight: You're willing to listen to what Pitchfork says, but when an album is critically acclaimed across the board, you feel it necessary to claim that they suck? Now that's just downright illogical.

Quote:
That is, by any low standards.
That is, by YOUR low standards. You don't represent everyone.

Quote:
It was. It received a 9. 9 or above is an extremely rare occurrence on Pitchfork. I should know. I had the geekiness to follow them for so long.
Huh? I think that number is a nine.

Quote:
So others hyped it more than Pitchfork did. Whoop-te-do. What does this prove? Only that the indie hype machine's been licking its own a$shole pretty damn ferociously lately.
The indie hype machine? It was critically acclaimed across the board! Or is that what all music reviews are called now, "the indie hype machine"? I must have missed a memo.

Quote:
Seeming as we've now established that your supposed premise of mine was not entirely accurate, I'll end by saying that I DO have a perfectly legitimate reason for trashing Fleet Foxes: it's just not a particularly good album. Good for a debut, maybe. Signs of promise, perhaps. But much good in and of itself? Surrrrre.
Which is your opinion, and doesn't serve to support any derogatory comments you made.
__________________
first.am
lucifer_sam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-16-2008, 01:30 PM   #38 (permalink)
Music Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,221
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lucifer_sam View Post
Although it's pretty obvious I misunderstood why you hated the Fleet Foxes' debut, that's a great way to pigeonhole your tastes in music.
That is, my tastes in modern indie. I really cannot be arsed to go to all the sites, so if one indie-oriented site captures a fairly broad range of what is coming out, and without any shadow of a doubt Pitchfork does do at least that, then I'm happy with that site. Of course, ultimately if I don't like something then I don't like it, simple as that. But I'll at least give it a good listen.

Quote:
Hmmm... Let me get this straight: You're willing to listen to what Pitchfork says, but when an album is critically acclaimed across the board, you feel it necessary to claim that they suck? Now that's just downright illogical.
That's obviously not what I meant. What I'm saying is that if I personally think a record is unspectacular and bad from the get-go, I would not be particularly bothered by just one critic (such as Pitchfork) thinking that it is good. I would be more bewildered and riled at finding that the whole spectrum of music journalists think it's the best thing since sliced bread. And it follows perfectly logically that the wider a certain viewpoint on something, the more worthy it is of being commented on and discussed.

Quote:
That is, by YOUR low standards. You don't represent everyone.
Me claiming that it's a good album by "low" standards is no more presumptuous than your own claim that it is a good album by "any" standards.

Clap clap. Re-read what I wrote. I typed 9. If you have an issue with recognizing that a 9 followed by a period, a space and then a new sentence also beginning with "9" does not equate to 9.9, then you should brush up on your comprehension before trying to expose some error. To make it simpler: a NINE or above is a very rare grade on Pitchfork Media. It is uncommon for any more than say 5 or 6 albums to get that in any one year. It practically guarantees that the album will be in their yearly top 10.

Quote:
The indie hype machine? It was critically acclaimed across the board! Or is that what all music reviews are called now, "the indie hype machine"? I must have missed a memo.
You may or may not be all that familiar with the main body of music journalism these days (I am not judging, I don't know), but you ought to have noticed that reviewers in the main are disproportionately much kinder to indie/alternative music than they are to virtually all else. The compendium site Metacritic provides the best evidence of that. Albums with meta-averages of 80 or more are completely overwhelmingly albums of indie rock/alternative bands. Why is this? It's because the main body of widely-read music journalism these days is fairly heavily indie oriented. When albums like Sound Of Silver and Person Pitch get incredible averages, that's the indie hype machine at work.

Actually, you know what, this is quite a pointless argument. I cannot believe for one single moment that you would deny the existence of the indie hype machine. It basically refers to the collective excitement of indie mags/webzines and their readership about one particular artist or new album, that to a lot of people outside of the readership circle appears to be nothing particularly great, at least not what is being made out. Jackhammer and I, for example, and a number of other people I know, both agreed on The Field's From Here We Go Sublime being way way overhyped by the indie music journalists. Other examples that were discussed by a number of people on these boards earlier on in the year were the Arcade Fire's Neon Bible and LCD Soundsystem's Sound Of Silver, both of which were VERY widely felt to have had their value well exaggerated by the generality of journalists. I'm not sure what you are saying, Sam. Are you making out that I am saying something controversial here, because I assure you that is not the case. People have been sick and tired of the overhype that comes out of indie music journalism for years, and I say that being a person from among the readership.

Quote:
Which is your opinion, and doesn't serve to support any derogatory comments you made.
Let's settle this here and now: what I express is my opinion, and I am entitled to it. If I see fit to speak of an album in highly negative terms, then that's my right. Of course I'm not saying that everybody should agree with me - it's not for you, however, to be telling me that I am doing this, that or the other, throwing all sorts of baseless accusations, when all I'm really doing is: expressing my intense dislike for an album.
Rainard Jalen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-16-2008, 02:41 PM   #39 (permalink)
The Sexual Intellectual
 
Urban Hat€monger ?'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Somewhere cooler than you
Posts: 18,447
Default

What exactly is so great about Fleet Foxes anyway?

A folky jangly indie band , well whoopie f*cking sh*t it must be at least 3 minutes since the last one of those came along.
__________________



Urb's RYM Stuff

Most people sell their soul to the devil, but the devil sells his soul to Nick Cave.
Urban Hat€monger ? is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-16-2008, 02:45 PM   #40 (permalink)
Music Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,221
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Urban Hatemonger View Post
What exactly is so great about Fleet Foxes anyway?

A folky jangly indie band , well whoopie f*cking sh*t it must be at least 3 minutes since the last one of those came along.
Exactly, I mean, they're barely even doing anything original within the niche. Far as I'm concerned, "derivative tripe" was an understatement. Hell, I'd rather go round my dad's and listen to America.
Rainard Jalen is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Similar Threads



© 2003-2020 Advameg, Inc.