The Ultimate Hipster Playlist / Good Albums that Suck Because You Exist (lyrics, lead singer)

~~Fyrenza~~ · 10-07-2008, 04:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lucifer_sam

... b) the reaction by PF readers to the review, even considering how subjective it was.

maybe that was it

its very subjectivity made readers want the album

try to explain to someone who couldn't 'be there' but who loved the overall scene
just how FLAT OUT AWESOME a Pink Floyd concert was without getting subjective

yeah
good luck with that

**Janszoon** · 10-07-2008, 04:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lucifer_sam

I don't really even give a shit about the fact that he gave it a ten. What bothered me the most was it was
a) the FIRST and ONLY Pink Floyd album PF ever reviewed
b) the reaction by PF readers to the review, even considering how subjective it was.

I have no idea what the reaction of pitchfork readers was to that review. I wasn't reading pitchfork in 1999. Were you?

Also it's not the only Pink Floyd album they ever reviewed. See? Though maybe it was the first.

dac · 10-07-2008, 04:47 PM

i think this thread could be summed up as follows:

"i hate pitchfork and anyone that takes their over the top reviews of a select group of albums too seriously"

(list ten albums here)

(done)

joyboyo53 · 10-07-2008, 04:48 PM

this thread is sounding less and less like a ultimate hipset soundlist, and more and more like a forum for your disappointment with pitchfork. do like the rest of us and get a WIDE scope from reading many reviews from many different sources.... pitchfork is as arbitrary as the rest. the best way to get an real review is to take a group of ratings for a single album and average them. similar to how rottentomatoes.com or gamerankings.com does. if your to lazy to do that, figure it out for yourself. who cares if pitchfork called TOTBL the best album of the year? i mean you came on to bash an album you admittingly said you liked...?

Fruitonica · 10-07-2008, 08:49 PM

I don't even understand all the hate for Pitchfork. I checked it out after seeing how much hate it received here and searched through some of their reviews, and for the most part they seemed pretty fair.

Someone posted some surrealistic fantasy story review saying it was their most pretentious review ever and fair enough it was silly, but how pretentious can you be if you are obviously not taking yourself seriously.

Ehh, I probably haven't read enough of it to develop a dislike..

Brad Stengel · 10-08-2008, 11:36 AM

I much prefer websites that I feel overrate albums (pitchfork) too much than ones that underrate (allmusic) too much.

lucifer_sam · 10-08-2008, 11:54 AM

Pitchfork shits on good albums, though. Look what they did to the latest Kings of Leon album (which showcased Nathan's best vocal performance yet). They compared KOL to a fucking U2 cover band.

But again, I'm not trying to single Pitchfork out. They do suck, but no more than any other source for reviews (I think Rolling Stone has turned into a complete clusterfuck nowadays). And yes, there's some quality reviews and they do find some undiscovered bands. My point is you shouldn't guage your taste in music upon what other people say, no matter who says it.

**Janszoon** · 10-08-2008, 12:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lucifer_sam

(I think Rolling Stone has turned into a complete clusterfuck nowadays).

Ugh. Rolling Stone blows.

jackhammer · 10-08-2008, 12:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lucifer_sam

9. Pink Floyd - Animals (1977)

Prior to 1999, Animals was a great album. It has one of the strongest themes in music and represents a huge cry for the victims of industrialization and imperialism. It was released during an era in which people weren't sure when the end would come; Roger Waters' lyrics fall heavily upon politicians in England and across the world, and he used impressive symbolism to deliver the message. Although the album was primarily a work of Waters, Gilmour helped craft the iconoclastic "Dogs" and contributed some of his most expressive guitar work throughout the entire album. Overall, it was a fantastic album, and this alone could have immortalized Pink Floyd in the annals of musical history. And I love it.

But between its release and the new millennium, there wasn't much hype for Animals. Yes, it sold well. It achieved a peak position of #2 on the US Billboard charts and stayed on for quite some time. But it came during a period of transition -- between the bittersweet Wish You Were Here and the cult classic The Wall. Not to mention the preceding success of DSOTM kind of capped its presence. It was great, but not that great.* Then, come 1999, something so blatantly uncalled for and irretrievable happened.

Pitchfork reviewed it.

It was a tiny review, not even four hundred words. But the author, James P. Wisdom (irony at its best), decided to usher in a new era of mind-numbing collective consciousness: he gave it a ten. By Pitchfork standards, a ten basically means that even the silence separating songs is enough to deliver an erection for the world at large. And you know what? All those people, all those sheep, the ones that loved Dark Side of the Moon and felt ambivalent towards the 1977 album, two paragraphs beforehand -- now loved Animals. That was it. That's all that happened to make this album such an icon amongst kids everywhere who happened to skim the boldfaced ratings at the top of the page.

Today, I can hardly hear the beauty in Dark Side without having a brainless maggot quip about how "it's no Animals." I imagine on that fateful day, the author was sitting on a plush armchair laughing his head off. Yessss, he says. Let's make them trip over themselves. They thought Pink Floyd was good, but they never realized they were a ten!

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Maybe Pitchforks review awoken people up to the fact that it is a brilliant album? I have never been near pitchfork and I don't think it is as huge in Britain as the U.S. Are you bitter because more people like one of your favourite albums or the fact that people are sheep? Guess what? They have always been sheep. Even though it is my all time favourite album (and has been for 20 years), a rise in in popularity or a dip in appreciation does'nt matter a jot. I have far better things to worry about than the mainstreams fickle tastes.

**Janszoon** · 10-08-2008, 03:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jackhammer

Are you bitter because more people like one of your favourite albums or the fact that people are sheep? Guess what? They have always been sheep.

And there's even a song about it on Animals.

10-07-2008, 04:47 PM	#53 (permalink)
dac MB's Biggest Fanboy Join Date: May 2008 Location: Cloud Cuckoo Land Posts: 2,852	i think this thread could be summed up as follows: "i hate pitchfork and anyone that takes their over the top reviews of a select group of albums too seriously" (list ten albums here) (done) __________________

10-08-2008, 11:36 AM	#56 (permalink)
Brad Stengel This Space for Rent Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Boston, MA Posts: 815	I much prefer websites that I feel overrate albums (pitchfork) too much than ones that underrate (allmusic) too much. __________________ These is the musics I own: http://rateyourmusic.com/collection/BradStengel/oo

10-08-2008, 11:54 AM	#57 (permalink)
lucifer_sam Unrepentant Ass-Mod Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Pennsylvania Posts: 3,921	Pitchfork shits on good albums, though. Look what they did to the latest Kings of Leon album (which showcased Nathan's best vocal performance yet). They compared KOL to a fucking U2 cover band. But again, I'm not trying to single Pitchfork out. They do suck, but no more than any other source for reviews (I think Rolling Stone has turned into a complete clusterfuck nowadays). And yes, there's some quality reviews and they do find some undiscovered bands. My point is you shouldn't guage your taste in music upon what other people say, no matter who says it. __________________ first.am

10-07-2008, 04:48 PM	#54 (permalink)
joyboyo53 down the rabbit hole Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: the mountain called monkey Posts: 764	this thread is sounding less and less like a ultimate hipset soundlist, and more and more like a forum for your disappointment with pitchfork. do like the rest of us and get a WIDE scope from reading many reviews from many different sources.... pitchfork is as arbitrary as the rest. the best way to get an real review is to take a group of ratings for a single album and average them. similar to how rottentomatoes.com or gamerankings.com does. if your to lazy to do that, figure it out for yourself. who cares if pitchfork called TOTBL the best album of the year? i mean you came on to bash an album you admittingly said you liked...?

10-07-2008, 08:49 PM	#55 (permalink)
Fruitonica Pale and Wan Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Aus Posts: 917	I don't even understand all the hate for Pitchfork. I checked it out after seeing how much hate it received here and searched through some of their reviews, and for the most part they seemed pretty fair. Someone posted some surrealistic fantasy story review saying it was their most pretentious review ever and fair enough it was silly, but how pretentious can you be if you are obviously not taking yourself seriously. Ehh, I probably haven't read enough of it to develop a dislike..