Slater-Kinney (rock, cd, album, jimi hendrix, member)

TheBig3 · 06-03-2005, 08:21 PM

I don't even know if thats how you spell it, but I need a real review of The Woods. All I hear is that hey they went for a classic rock sound but I sampled the CD and it sounds like the same old ho-hum crap that they've put out before.

I've only heard one song (Off with her head) from the Future Sountrack of America CD, this is the only song they have that makes me like them, the rest (even "Oh") are painful after 10 seconds.

This is the review from Pitchfork: "By now you probably don't need to be told the particulars of Sleater-Kinney's new album, The Woods: about how they signed with Sub Pop, making it their first album since 1995's Call the Doctor not released by Kill Rock Stars; about how they hired Dave Fridmann to produce and recorded it in rural New York instead of Washington State; about how they wanted a heavier sound that mines classic rock like Led Zeppelin, Deep Purple, and Jimi Hendrix for inspiration; about how one song is more than 11 minutes in length."

Yeah ok I heard all that crap, and then I heard samples of the woods and I almost wrote them an e-mail on how they should never review CD's again.

Can anyone tell me their impression?

hookers with machineguns · 06-03-2005, 09:23 PM

I think they're ok. If you don't like 'Oh', you're probably not going to like a lot of their music.

Btw, I agree, Pitchfork reviews cannot be trusted.

Urban Hat€monger ? · 06-03-2005, 09:29 PM

I hate Pitchfork with a passion

I remember reading one review (I forget for who) where the reveiwer seemed to spend more time mentioning the fact he`d read a few books by Albert Camus than actually bothering to say what the album was like.
Pseudo intellectual bull**** written by university drop outs if you ask me

TheBig3 · 06-04-2005, 08:15 AM

Speaking of bad reviewers, Rolling Stone, who gets one on the rpinciple that if your an old band you get 3.5 stars no matter what, but if you want to know how inept their reviewers really are, go to the web site and look up Jane's Addiction reviews. I think it was their first CD where the guy compares it to something hendrix did then spends the rest of the review talking about Hendrix. You'd like to think that RS would bury that in the "original Zeppelin reviews" file, but I'll bet money it still up. Some poster even responded "Whats the deal with all the Hendrix here?"

06-03-2005, 08:21 PM	#1 (permalink)
TheBig3 killedmyraindog Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Boston, Massachusetts Posts: 11,172	Slater-Kinney I don't even know if thats how you spell it, but I need a real review of The Woods. All I hear is that hey they went for a classic rock sound but I sampled the CD and it sounds like the same old ho-hum crap that they've put out before. I've only heard one song (Off with her head) from the Future Sountrack of America CD, this is the only song they have that makes me like them, the rest (even "Oh") are painful after 10 seconds. This is the review from Pitchfork: "By now you probably don't need to be told the particulars of Sleater-Kinney's new album, The Woods: about how they signed with Sub Pop, making it their first album since 1995's Call the Doctor not released by Kill Rock Stars; about how they hired Dave Fridmann to produce and recorded it in rural New York instead of Washington State; about how they wanted a heavier sound that mines classic rock like Led Zeppelin, Deep Purple, and Jimi Hendrix for inspiration; about how one song is more than 11 minutes in length." Yeah ok I heard all that crap, and then I heard samples of the woods and I almost wrote them an e-mail on how they should never review CD's again. Can anyone tell me their impression? __________________ I've moved to a new address

06-03-2005, 09:23 PM	#2 (permalink)
hookers with machineguns Music Addict Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 1,753	I think they're ok. If you don't like 'Oh', you're probably not going to like a lot of their music. Btw, I agree, Pitchfork reviews cannot be trusted. __________________ LASTFM

06-03-2005, 09:29 PM	#3 (permalink)
Urban Hat€monger ? The Sexual Intellectual Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Somewhere cooler than you Posts: 18,605	I hate Pitchfork with a passion I remember reading one review (I forget for who) where the reveiwer seemed to spend more time mentioning the fact he`d read a few books by Albert Camus than actually bothering to say what the album was like. Pseudo intellectual bull** written by university drop outs if you ask me __________________ Urb's RYM Stuff Most people sell their soul to the devil, but the devil sells his soul to Nick Cave.**

06-04-2005, 08:15 AM	#4 (permalink)
TheBig3 killedmyraindog Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Boston, Massachusetts Posts: 11,172	Speaking of bad reviewers, Rolling Stone, who gets one on the rpinciple that if your an old band you get 3.5 stars no matter what, but if you want to know how inept their reviewers really are, go to the web site and look up Jane's Addiction reviews. I think it was their first CD where the guy compares it to something hendrix did then spends the rest of the review talking about Hendrix. You'd like to think that RS would bury that in the "original Zeppelin reviews" file, but I'll bet money it still up. Some poster even responded "Whats the deal with all the Hendrix here?" __________________ I've moved to a new address