Pitchfork review.. about what you'd expect

intodeep

Pearl Jam would have to go way out of left field on an album to get praise from Pitchfork. I think like most reviews by pitchfork for bandsthey spend way too much time talking about a lot of other stuff other then the album.

Pearl Jam and Smashing Pumpkins get the same treatment by those guys all the time.

I think the review has some good insight that some of us as fans may not want to admit, but i think it goes a bit too far.

I think the album would deserve about a 7. It is not great, but far from bad too.

I tend not to let those reviews bother me. Although i do wish they had a comment section on pitchfork. It woudl be great to see the nasty comments they got left by fans of bands they always pan.

violetpsyche

I've always thought it's rather pointless to get angry about reviews because it's just one person's opinion and they are perfectly entitled to that, just as we are to ours.

I really hate to admit that I think the reviewer has got a point (notice I've said 'I think' and not 'they are the authority on this and are absolutely not to be disagreed with'). I by no means think that this is a bad album or that the band aren't allowed to do whatever the hell they want, regardless of whether we like it or not, but this album just isn't grabbing me yet. It has some good, enjoyable songs on it and I'm giving it some time because I know it can take a while to fall in love with a Pearl Jam album. What worries me is a niggling feeling that this won't happen this time. I do hope I'm wrong.

NOyieldingCODE

HOW DARE SOMEONE GIVE A NEGATIVE REVIEW!!!!!!!!!! WTFOMGBBQ!!!!!!!!

TheSkyEtc

It's just a review,c'mon..I consider it as a healthy procedure of stating your opinion and
of course not all can like Pearl Jam. The only thing that bothered me is that this Pitchfork
guy seems to praise Pearl Jam when they were a big hit and now that turned introspective
and mature, seems to dislike it. That's Rolling Stone's job isn't it?
Anyway I got used to read a lot of crap about Pearl Jam and frankly my dears . .

I don't give a damn.

HeavyHands

cordurology wrote:

http://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/13480-backspacer/

Pearl Jam
Backspacer
4.6

It's an extremely odd thing to say about a band that for three or four years was the biggest rock megalith on the planet, but nowadays Pearl Jam are the very definition of anonymously workmanlike, seemingly plugging along with their heads down from one colorlessly unimaginative album to the next. ...Pearl Jam seem content to do things by the book.

"Sooner or later, however, you remember these guys wouldn't know a melody if it bit them in the ass."

— Joshua Love, September 22, 2009

It's funny. To me the first paragraph above seems completely contradictory.

About the last sentence... way to be professional in your endeavors. I completely respect your opinion now.

To the OP, thanks for copying/pasting the review here so I didn't have to direct any web traffic to that website. I genuinely mean that. I will never go there again. Not because they trashed PJ, but because none of their reviews are well written or consistent. They have absolutely no value. If anyone is interested in reading good reviews go to Antiquiet.

Mcam55

i hate pitchfork, cmon they rated the Scarlett Johansson album higher than backspacer.

HeavyHands

Those who can do. Those who can't write for PF.

That's a tee shirt waiting to happen. Dare somebody to wear it to PF festival next year.

slightofjeff

I don't really waste my time worrying about negative opinions. People are free to think what they want.

However, if you can't find a hook in Backspacer, you aren't trying very hard.

Staffan

slightofjeff wrote:

I don't really waste my time worrying about negative opinions. People are free to think what they want.

However, if you can't find a hook in Backspacer, you aren't trying very hard.

The thing is I find it full of hooks, but they are so obvious ....... it's like easy come, easy go...
the first listen I had yesterday I was like, yeah this rocks big time.....but a few listens later I tend to find that it's all surface and not so much beneath - in my opinion that is - with a few exceptions....

As I said earlier I will listen to it several times again, and I might change my mind, but at this point I doubt it
It's not a bad album, but in my opinion it's not a good Pearl Jam album.....

slightofjeff

Staffan wrote:

slightofjeff wrote:

I don't really waste my time worrying about negative opinions. People are free to think what they want.

However, if you can't find a hook in Backspacer, you aren't trying very hard.

The thing is I find it full of hooks, but they are so obvious ....... it's like easy come, easy go...
the first listen I had yesterday I was like, yeah this rocks big time.....but a few listens later I tend to find that it's all surface and not so much beneath - in my opinion that is - with a few exceptions....

As I said earlier I will listen to it several times again, and I might change my mind, but at this point I doubt it
It's not a bad album, but in my opinion it's not a good Pearl Jam album.....

That's fine. I disagree with you, but it's fine.

I was referring to the Pitchfork reviewer calling it "hookless." If you're going to hate it, at least hate it for the right reasons. Saying you don't like Backspacer because it is hookless is like saying you dislike Jessica Simpson because she is too smart.

Staffan

slightofjeff wrote:

Staffan wrote:

slightofjeff wrote:

I don't really waste my time worrying about negative opinions. People are free to think what they want.

However, if you can't find a hook in Backspacer, you aren't trying very hard.

The thing is I find it full of hooks, but they are so obvious ....... it's like easy come, easy go...
the first listen I had yesterday I was like, yeah this rocks big time.....but a few listens later I tend to find that it's all surface and not so much beneath - in my opinion that is - with a few exceptions....

As I said earlier I will listen to it several times again, and I might change my mind, but at this point I doubt it
It's not a bad album, but in my opinion it's not a good Pearl Jam album.....

That's fine. I disagree with you, but it's fine.

I was referring to the Pitchfork reviewer calling it "hookless." If you're going to hate it, at least hate it for the right reasons. Saying you don't like Backspacer because it is hookless is like saying you dislike Jessica Simpson because she is too smart.

So we can agree on disagreeing

I hope you enjoy the album more than I do

Peace

asgoodased

I read Pitchfork every day....I LOVE them for their introducing me to unknown bands, and they usually very informative reveiws on those discs.

I realized about 5 years ago, though, that they are utter crap for any mainstream band. I really think they find joy in bashing major acts (see: weezer). And the reviews they write for major acts usually show a lack of listens to the album (errors, as in this one). I honestly think they just review them because they think they have to, listen to the album once, and the write a generic bad reveiw because of it. But PJ's not special in this regard...at least they didn't give it a 0.0 (which they have in the past). It's quite frustrating to see a site do so good at one thing and then be so juvenile in others...

Flagg

http://www.theonion.com/content/news/pi ... _music_6_8

PatrickBateman

LikeAnOcean wrote:

cordurology wrote:

Too bad BS is their 9th, not 10th, studio album.

Please stop referring to Backspacer as Bull Shit, thank you.. for the love of god, out of all acronyms lazy asses had to come up with, please DO NOT use "BS" to describe Backspacer.

lol.....I read a couple of threads where I thought "bullshit?!...ohhhh BackSpacer"