his email address is a witty play on words of his last name and g-love, you can't really expect him to give Pearl Jam a decent review. Or the fact that he works for pitchfork.
I came close to making and passing out bumper stickers that said fuck pitchfork, but i thought i would be the bigger person and decided not to. [oh and I also probably would have had no friends either]
I was dreading the moment that pitchfork released their review of this album, or for that matter has any comment on Pearl Jam at all. When is the last time that PJ really gave a fuck about anyone else's opinion of anything? That is my definition of "indie" not caring what other people think. Pearl Jam represents that ideal more than a lot of other bands without even intending to hold up the flag for "Indie Nation" to see. I realize that this review is one person's opinion of the album and to be honest I don't even have a formulated opinion of Backspacer yet because I need to listen to it more, involve it in my life, be drunk with it, be hungover with it, take a roadtrip with it in my car and have nothing else to listen to before I know what role it will play. I do not it is a product of my favorite band and that I was highly anticipating it for a long time. This reviewer listened to it once or twice had a deadline and some preconceived notion of where PJ fit into his life and this drivel is what came out. I like Pitchfork because it makes me aware of music that I otherwise might not be, I sure as hell am not going to let them have any persuasion over my opinion of Pearl Jam.
10th album? Is he including Merkinball as one of the 1st "9"?
Comparing Speed of Sound to a Ramones song? Maybe he meant Supersonic?
To me, reviewers are entitled to their opinions and not everybody is going to agree with what I think about something. However, glaring technical/factual mistakes tell me the reviewer didn't research enough or didn't put much effort into their work. And that loses credibility. Then, if they have a strong opinion in one direction or another, and didn't do their research, they are abusing the responsibility they have. A publication is supposed to do what they're supposed to do. Us PJ fans can easily critique this guy's factual mistakes, 99% of the population who aren't us rabid fans wouldn't detect this and would rely on this information.
Up here so high I start to shake, Up here so high the sky I scrape, I've no fear but for falling down, So look out below I am falling now, Falling down,...not staying down, Could’ve held me up, rather tear me down, Drown in the river
10th album? Is he including Merkinball as one of the 1st "9"?
Comparing Speed of Sound to a Ramones song? Maybe he meant Supersonic?
To me, reviewers are entitled to their opinions and not everybody is going to agree with what I think about something. However, glaring technical/factual mistakes tell me the reviewer didn't research enough or didn't put much effort into their work. And that loses credibility. Then, if they have a strong opinion in one direction or another, and didn't do their research, they are abusing the responsibility they have. A publication is supposed to do what they're supposed to do. Us PJ fans can easily critique this guy's factual mistakes, 99% of the population who aren't us rabid fans wouldn't detect this and would rely on this information.
That's kind of how I viewed it...I like pitchfork but expected a terrible review score, but the factual errors and general cheeky remarks just made it very unprofessional.
10th album? Is he including Merkinball as one of the 1st "9"?
Comparing Speed of Sound to a Ramones song? Maybe he meant Supersonic?
To me, reviewers are entitled to their opinions and not everybody is going to agree with what I think about something. However, glaring technical/factual mistakes tell me the reviewer didn't research enough or didn't put much effort into their work. And that loses credibility. Then, if they have a strong opinion in one direction or another, and didn't do their research, they are abusing the responsibility they have. A publication is supposed to do what they're supposed to do. Us PJ fans can easily critique this guy's factual mistakes, 99% of the population who aren't us rabid fans wouldn't detect this and would rely on this information.
Word.
Toledo '96, Cleveland '98, Columbus '00, Cleveland '03, Toledo '04
Washington D.C. '04, London '05,Hamilton '05,Grand Rapids '06,
Cleveland '06, Detroit '06,Pittsburgh '06,Cincinnati '06,Chicago '07
NYC '08, NYC '08, Chicago '09, Chicago '09, ACL '09, Columbus 2010, Noblesville 2010, Cleveland 2010, Buffalo 2010.
A lousy review doesn't negate the fact that it contains some truth. Personally I think they were more than kind. Backspacer is their worst offering thus far.
What I'm doing is comparing previous albums that they have given 10's to vs. the ratings of the beatles albums... I really don't agree that an Arcade Fire album (i like them) is better than any of those beatles albums that didn't get 10's... I'm not suggesting that PJ should get a 10 simply b/c they're PJ...
and yeah I think writing to him would be pointless... I just think they should try a little harder to write something that is more substantial rather than write drivel like this.
People made up their mind long ago about what they feel about Pearl Jam and very few people are truly unbiased. this guy sort of claims to be unbiased but then says Pearl Jam have had not critical or musical relevance for a decade, so I'm sensing just a hint of "anti' in his point of view.
It's a shit review. But so what? I couldn't give a fuck what this guy or anyone else thinks and I agree that not all Pearl Jam records should score max points just because they are the greatest band to ever grace the planet. Maybe three of them would get 9.5 or 10 out of ten if I had reviewed them.
Actually, the worst review I've seen of this album was a 5/5 review from a magazine that the band had done a huge interview for. The review was pandering to them and totally over the top - ass-kissing is equally as bad as being some wanker who decides before he hears an album once that he's gonna hate it.
i think he would be giddy with excitement to show all the emails in his inbox to the others at pitchfork of how upset he made the pearl jam fans. I'm sure they have a competition to see who can get the most hardcore fans riled up after album reviews.
i would not worry about it. you won't change his mind you'll just make him more excited to do the next one.
Charlotte 00 Charlotte 03 Asheville 04 Atlanta 12 Greenville 16, Columbia 16 Seattle 18 Nashville 22 Ohana Festival 24 x2
Here's his email: <!-- e --><a href="mailto:joshuaglove@gmail.com">joshuaglove@gmail.com</a><!-- e --> (his email is posted on the PF site so this is not 'wrong')
...
Hmmm.. a sea of hate mail from a bunch of rabid fans...
Yup... that'll help.
...
My advice... let it be.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
who cares what they think? They can have their opinions. Like I hate Dave Matthews Band, and if I were reviewing their album I would probably give it a bad review, but that's my opinion and I realize some peopl think Dave Matthews is awesome. It's just the way it is. I mean some people hate the Beatles, Radiohead and the Rolling Stones.
1) Emailing him to complain only gives Pitchfork more satisfaction of their own worth. If I write a review and get a ton of emails complaining, then all of a sudden my head gets bigger because my opinion matters. If I write one and receive no emails, then I wonder if anyone cares what I think. This is like when that band that has that song "Sometime Around Midnight" got a bad pitchfork review and they took to the front page of their site complaining about the review and how upset they were with it. That just made them look desperate, it was really sad
2)Read the review of Jet's Shine On, on pitchfork, it's the best
you know when you watch a sports reporter or read a sports journalist and its so painfully obvious that they never played sports and its questionable whether they can catch even a beachball? that's how i feel when i read some pitchfork reviews with relation to their ability to play or write a song. they're good writers - that's for sure. they do their homework and keep their ear to the ground when it comes to new music. but they know nothing about making music
i expected a score this low, but the review is terrible. you can't say in one instance that they are doing the same thing they always do and it's boring, but then yearn for amongst the waves-type classic pearl jam. and what kind of true rock music isn't riff driven? Led Zep wasn't riff driven?
they are not objective. in rainbows by radiohead - i'm positive - was given a great score for basically how it was released (with the choose your price thing). it should have been a 5.0 at the most. they respected the aspect of what they were doing as a band and it influenced their review. how can pitchfork NOT mention how backspacer was released? has a band even constructed a deal like this before in the history of music (totally self-released, one big box, the indie store thing, the album downloads included, itunes only through target store, etc etc and still make $5 a cd)? their heads are not "down" as they mention. they are arguably the best run band on the planet.
please though, DON'T email pitchfork and give them the satisfaction. really. if this exact album was released under a different name and a totally different person was singing - atleast a 7.0, guaranteed.
Those undecided,........ Needn't have faith to be free
And those misguided, There was a plan for them to be
Now you got both sides Claiming killing in Gods name
But God is nowhere,..... To be found, conveniently
What I don't understand is why pitchfork reviews albums by bands they don't like. I mean it's obvious this guy hasn't liked or cared about pearl jam since viatology, why would anyone care what he thinks of the new record?
I also can't take anything pitchfork writes seriously after their reviews of The Fragile and Lateralus.
Though I don't necessarily agree with the writer's opinion. . . he is entitled to it. He is certainly not the first and only person to ever criticize Pearl Jam.
PJ is not for everyone and if you can't accept that and you try to launch a hate campaign against everyone who doesn't like them, you will be spending a lot of time doing so. The guy didn't like the album. . . so what? Do you like it any less because of that? I doubt it.
lively but almost utterly hookless riff-driven hard rock. Lather, rinse, repeat. And when I say "riff-driven" I really mean "almost entirely riff-dependent," because musically the riffs themselves are typically the only things worth your attention.
PJ's long-dormant punk and hardcore proclivities (ugh, "Lukin") have been rising to the surface with greater regularity in recent years, and I'll admit in short bursts this bulldozing approach can be somewhat satisfying. The opening four songs kick-start and then keep up a certain pleasing level of propulsiveness, with the goofily fast-and-loose "Gonna See My Friend" (hey, is that an actual bassline I hear?) and Thin Lizzy-ish double entendres of "Johnny Guitar" being particularly listenable. Sooner or later, however, you remember these guys wouldn't know a melody if it bit them in the ass. What's worse, this chugging blitzkrieg negates the power of the band's greatest weapon, Eddie Vedder's voice, which can display its craggy richness and masculine grace only when the band isn't trying to break land-speed records. (I know some folks hate Ed's singing, but it mostly seems like they're reacting to the fact that his voice launched a thousand Nickelbacks, which is like hating "The Simpsons" because of "Family Guy" or "American Dad".)
I loathe Pitchfork in general and think their reviews are usually way off base, but he kinda nailed this one. The album opening sounds stronger than the individual songs would lead you to believe, but in the end, the problem is the same they've had for years... an overreliance on hyperactive riff rockers with no bass, no groove, and no dynamics. Amongst the Waves is the only song on the album that really plays to the band's strengths and it shows. And he's spot on about Ed's voice... a huge weapon the band has abandoned. Rather than letting him belt it out like we call know he can (and does on Amongst the Waves), he's forced into practically rapping as he spits gibberish over 2 minute songs that make the Ramones sound like they took their time in their playing. Even the acoustic songs fall sadly short, like he put his best stuff on ITW and threw a few tired leftovers to the new PJ album. This album has 5 songs that are all Ed, that's almost half. 3 are basically ITW b-sides. You can't tell me this is the best material they had... that nobody but Ed came forward with 5 songs, and somehow his all made the album and Stone was only capable of writing music for 2 songs on this one? I don't buy it.
ha, oh well, whatever... i don't agree with most of it, but it made a few good points. i was just reading pitchfork's review of the latest Kings of Leon album (the one released last year) and I think that was pretty spot on and funny... that was a different reviewer.
pretty funny that the Backspacer reviewer got Supersonic and Speed of Sound mixed up too.
I loathe Pitchfork in general and think their reviews are usually way off base, but he kinda nailed this one. The album opening sounds stronger than the individual songs would lead you to believe, but in the end, the problem is the same they've had for years... an overreliance on hyperactive riff rockers with no bass, no groove, and no dynamics.
no groove and no dynamics? your opinion, but i couldn't disagree more. they're there and they're deep.
Those undecided,........ Needn't have faith to be free
And those misguided, There was a plan for them to be
Now you got both sides Claiming killing in Gods name
But God is nowhere,..... To be found, conveniently
...... they are abusing the responsibility they have...
..... 99% of the population who aren't us rabid fans wouldn't detect this and would rely on this information.
Let's not over-dramatize this! Abusing responsibility... it's just a piece on an rock album, not reporting some major news that has impact on society....
What difference would it make if the tiny bit of the 99% of the population that are not rabid fans read this review and, shock-horror, they read Backspacer is the 10th album? Will these all of a sudden feel let down or cheated or even worse lied to, if they find out that PJ only made 9 albums?
in rainbows by radiohead - i'm positive - was given a great score for basically how it was released (with the choose your price thing). it should have been a 5.0 at the most. they respected the aspect of what they were doing as a band and it influenced their review.
Did you read the review? They talk about the music and describe each song on the album, and it certainly deserves more than a 5.0, it's three times the album Backspacer is.
lively but almost utterly hookless riff-driven hard rock. Lather, rinse, repeat. And when I say "riff-driven" I really mean "almost entirely riff-dependent," because musically the riffs themselves are typically the only things worth your attention.
PJ's long-dormant punk and hardcore proclivities (ugh, "Lukin") have been rising to the surface with greater regularity in recent years, and I'll admit in short bursts this bulldozing approach can be somewhat satisfying. The opening four songs kick-start and then keep up a certain pleasing level of propulsiveness, with the goofily fast-and-loose "Gonna See My Friend" (hey, is that an actual bassline I hear?) and Thin Lizzy-ish double entendres of "Johnny Guitar" being particularly listenable. Sooner or later, however, you remember these guys wouldn't know a melody if it bit them in the ass. What's worse, this chugging blitzkrieg negates the power of the band's greatest weapon, Eddie Vedder's voice, which can display its craggy richness and masculine grace only when the band isn't trying to break land-speed records. (I know some folks hate Ed's singing, but it mostly seems like they're reacting to the fact that his voice launched a thousand Nickelbacks, which is like hating "The Simpsons" because of "Family Guy" or "American Dad".)
I loathe Pitchfork in general and think their reviews are usually way off base, but he kinda nailed this one. The album opening sounds stronger than the individual songs would lead you to believe, but in the end, the problem is the same they've had for years... an overreliance on hyperactive riff rockers with no bass, no groove, and no dynamics. Amongst the Waves is the only song on the album that really plays to the band's strengths and it shows. And he's spot on about Ed's voice... a huge weapon the band has abandoned. Rather than letting him belt it out like we call know he can (and does on Amongst the Waves), he's forced into practically rapping as he spits gibberish over 2 minute songs that make the Ramones sound like they took their time in their playing. Even the acoustic songs fall sadly short, like he put his best stuff on ITW and threw a few tired leftovers to the new PJ album. This album has 5 songs that are all Ed, that's almost half. 3 are basically ITW b-sides. You can't tell me this is the best material they had... that nobody but Ed came forward with 5 songs, and somehow his all made the album and Stone was only capable of writing music for 2 songs on this one? I don't buy it.
Sorry to say it, but this guy's right.
You're free to have that opinion, I have more of a problem with the factual errors and basically making fun of the band "AN ACTUAL BASS LINE?" ....crap like that.
And to say he's "right"...luckily EVERY SINGLE OTHER REVIEW (based on metacritic) disagrees strongly with him (and you). But whatever...
You're free to have that opinion, I have more of a problem with the factual errors and basically making fun of the band "AN ACTUAL BASS LINE?" ....crap like that.
And to say he's "right"...luckily EVERY SINGLE OTHER REVIEW (based on metacritic) disagrees strongly with him (and you). But whatever...
Except the "crap like that" is true... the bass has all but disappeared from this band's music. Like I said, all riffs and no rhythm. He's spot on about that, so the comment is valid. We all make fun of Scott Stapp for his histrionic singing and Jesus poses, why can we not take a crack at PJ for their own recurring shortcomings.
Have you read the Paste review? Not a whole lot kinder... and it also points out that the solo Ed acoustic songs are boringly repetitive after ITW. Every review I've seen has open and serious criticism of half the songs, the reviews seem to be very positive in spite of that, which I agree with... the albums sounds better as it plays than the sum of its parts when you look at it. But the latter is what reviewers do... which is why you see a lot of reviews saying things like there's no bass or they don't let Ed sing or the acoustic songs are unmemorable.... even though those reviews go on to say the album is still a good listen in spite of its problems. Why don't you read the articles to which metacritic links, instead of just looking at the number (which metacritic, not the reviewer, assigns) and the one sentence compliment they pull from it.
You're free to have that opinion, I have more of a problem with the factual errors and basically making fun of the band "AN ACTUAL BASS LINE?" ....crap like that.
And to say he's "right"...luckily EVERY SINGLE OTHER REVIEW (based on metacritic) disagrees strongly with him (and you). But whatever...
Except the "crap like that" is true... the bass has all but disappeared from this band's music. Like I said, all riffs and no rhythm. He's spot on about that, so the comment is valid. We all make fun of Scott Stapp for his histrionic singing and Jesus poses, why can we not take a crack at PJ for their own recurring shortcomings.
Have you read the Paste review? Not a whole lot kinder... and it also points out that the solo Ed acoustic songs are boringly repetitive after ITW. Every review I've seen has open and serious criticism of half the songs, the reviews seem to be very positive in spite of that, which I agree with... the albums sounds better as it plays than the sum of its parts when you look at it. But the latter is what reviewers do... which is why you see a lot of reviews saying things like there's no bass or they don't let Ed sing or the acoustic songs are unmemorable.... even though those reviews go on to say the album is still a good listen in spite of its problems. Why don't you read the articles to which metacritic links, instead of just looking at the number (which metacritic, not the reviewer, assigns) and the one sentence compliment they pull from it.
Ah, so since I disagree with you I'm clearly not reading the reviews or have an intelligent thought of my own. Got it.
And if you think "Just Breathe" is boringly repetitive...damn....i can't even fathom that opinion, but I guess its out there.
Feel free to continue to have your opinion, but I don't feel the need to discuss it anymore with someone who seems to assume I know nothing and have read nothing....
Ah, so since I disagree with you I'm clearly not reading the reviews or have an intelligent thought of my own. Got it.
And if you think "Just Breathe" is boringly repetitive...damn....i can't even fathom that opinion, but I guess its out there.
Feel free to continue to have your opinion, but I don't feel the need to discuss it anymore with someone who seems to assume I know nothing and have read nothing....
Hey man, you were the one using the "unverisal rave reviews" card. Your thoughts are pefectly intelligent, I'm just saying don't use metacritic to try to lend your opinions added weight, because metacritic doesn't back you up. The album is not flawless and most reviewers, even the ones that like it, admit that. I'm in that camp, this is the most natural and comfortable album they've done in a long time, and even though I have issues with the tracklisting and song choices, it's overall a pretty strong effort. That doesn't mean this guy is way off base with his review though... he makes some legit points. It's not his fault PJ fans take the band so seriously they can't even take a mild joke like the bass line comment without it causing seizures of outrage that someone dare jest about something as serious and important as an 11 song 35 minute rock album.
I think all of you who are agreeing with the pitchfork fuckers should post your emails too.
Why? You can just PM us if you feel the need to flame someone for not thinking this album is kinda underwhelming.
Gramar not your strong point?
Guess not, I must have been too focused on my spelling to pay attention to gramMar... since we're getting all petty and childish here :roll: So do you have any more comments on, you know, Pearl Jam? Or would you prefer we stick to personal digs and threats to flame/spam anyone that speaks ill of Backspacer?
Comments
I came close to making and passing out bumper stickers that said fuck pitchfork, but i thought i would be the bigger person and decided not to. [oh and I also probably would have had no friends either]
Seriously folks, let's reel it back in here.
9/22/05 - Halifax
6/19/08 - Camden
6/28/08 - Mansfield
9/07/11 - Montreal
5/05/16 - Quebec City
All hail the lucky ones....
Comparing Speed of Sound to a Ramones song? Maybe he meant Supersonic?
To me, reviewers are entitled to their opinions and not everybody is going to agree with what I think about something. However, glaring technical/factual mistakes tell me the reviewer didn't research enough or didn't put much effort into their work. And that loses credibility. Then, if they have a strong opinion in one direction or another, and didn't do their research, they are abusing the responsibility they have. A publication is supposed to do what they're supposed to do. Us PJ fans can easily critique this guy's factual mistakes, 99% of the population who aren't us rabid fans wouldn't detect this and would rely on this information.
That's kind of how I viewed it...I like pitchfork but expected a terrible review score, but the factual errors and general cheeky remarks just made it very unprofessional.
Word.
Washington D.C. '04, London '05,Hamilton '05,Grand Rapids '06,
Cleveland '06, Detroit '06,Pittsburgh '06,Cincinnati '06,Chicago '07
NYC '08, NYC '08, Chicago '09, Chicago '09, ACL '09, Columbus 2010, Noblesville 2010, Cleveland 2010, Buffalo 2010.
People made up their mind long ago about what they feel about Pearl Jam and very few people are truly unbiased. this guy sort of claims to be unbiased but then says Pearl Jam have had not critical or musical relevance for a decade, so I'm sensing just a hint of "anti' in his point of view.
It's a shit review. But so what? I couldn't give a fuck what this guy or anyone else thinks and I agree that not all Pearl Jam records should score max points just because they are the greatest band to ever grace the planet. Maybe three of them would get 9.5 or 10 out of ten if I had reviewed them.
Actually, the worst review I've seen of this album was a 5/5 review from a magazine that the band had done a huge interview for. The review was pandering to them and totally over the top - ass-kissing is equally as bad as being some wanker who decides before he hears an album once that he's gonna hate it.
Washington D.C. '04, London '05,Hamilton '05,Grand Rapids '06,
Cleveland '06, Detroit '06,Pittsburgh '06,Cincinnati '06,Chicago '07
NYC '08, NYC '08, Chicago '09, Chicago '09, ACL '09, Columbus 2010, Noblesville 2010, Cleveland 2010, Buffalo 2010.
i would not worry about it. you won't change his mind you'll just make him more excited to do the next one.
Charlotte 03
Asheville 04
Atlanta 12
Greenville 16, Columbia 16
Seattle 18
Nashville 22
Ohana Festival 24 x2
Hmmm.. a sea of hate mail from a bunch of rabid fans...
Yup... that'll help.
...
My advice... let it be.
Hail, Hail!!!
1) Emailing him to complain only gives Pitchfork more satisfaction of their own worth. If I write a review and get a ton of emails complaining, then all of a sudden my head gets bigger because my opinion matters. If I write one and receive no emails, then I wonder if anyone cares what I think. This is like when that band that has that song "Sometime Around Midnight" got a bad pitchfork review and they took to the front page of their site complaining about the review and how upset they were with it. That just made them look desperate, it was really sad
2)Read the review of Jet's Shine On, on pitchfork, it's the best
i expected a score this low, but the review is terrible. you can't say in one instance that they are doing the same thing they always do and it's boring, but then yearn for amongst the waves-type classic pearl jam. and what kind of true rock music isn't riff driven? Led Zep wasn't riff driven?
they are not objective. in rainbows by radiohead - i'm positive - was given a great score for basically how it was released (with the choose your price thing). it should have been a 5.0 at the most. they respected the aspect of what they were doing as a band and it influenced their review. how can pitchfork NOT mention how backspacer was released? has a band even constructed a deal like this before in the history of music (totally self-released, one big box, the indie store thing, the album downloads included, itunes only through target store, etc etc and still make $5 a cd)? their heads are not "down" as they mention. they are arguably the best run band on the planet.
please though, DON'T email pitchfork and give them the satisfaction. really. if this exact album was released under a different name and a totally different person was singing - atleast a 7.0, guaranteed.
And those misguided, There was a plan for them to be
Now you got both sides Claiming killing in Gods name
But God is nowhere,..... To be found, conveniently
What goes on?
I also can't take anything pitchfork writes seriously after their reviews of The Fragile and Lateralus.
PJ is not for everyone and if you can't accept that and you try to launch a hate campaign against everyone who doesn't like them, you will be spending a lot of time doing so. The guy didn't like the album. . . so what? Do you like it any less because of that? I doubt it.
Move on.
I loathe Pitchfork in general and think their reviews are usually way off base, but he kinda nailed this one. The album opening sounds stronger than the individual songs would lead you to believe, but in the end, the problem is the same they've had for years... an overreliance on hyperactive riff rockers with no bass, no groove, and no dynamics. Amongst the Waves is the only song on the album that really plays to the band's strengths and it shows. And he's spot on about Ed's voice... a huge weapon the band has abandoned. Rather than letting him belt it out like we call know he can (and does on Amongst the Waves), he's forced into practically rapping as he spits gibberish over 2 minute songs that make the Ramones sound like they took their time in their playing. Even the acoustic songs fall sadly short, like he put his best stuff on ITW and threw a few tired leftovers to the new PJ album. This album has 5 songs that are all Ed, that's almost half. 3 are basically ITW b-sides. You can't tell me this is the best material they had... that nobody but Ed came forward with 5 songs, and somehow his all made the album and Stone was only capable of writing music for 2 songs on this one? I don't buy it.
Sorry to say it, but this guy's right.
pretty funny that the Backspacer reviewer got Supersonic and Speed of Sound mixed up too.
no groove and no dynamics? your opinion, but i couldn't disagree more. they're there and they're deep.
And those misguided, There was a plan for them to be
Now you got both sides Claiming killing in Gods name
But God is nowhere,..... To be found, conveniently
What goes on?
Let's not over-dramatize this! Abusing responsibility... it's just a piece on an rock album, not reporting some major news that has impact on society....
What difference would it make if the tiny bit of the 99% of the population that are not rabid fans read this review and, shock-horror, they read Backspacer is the 10th album? Will these all of a sudden feel let down or cheated or even worse lied to, if they find out that PJ only made 9 albums?
Perspective..... It's only one person's opinion.
You're free to have that opinion, I have more of a problem with the factual errors and basically making fun of the band "AN ACTUAL BASS LINE?" ....crap like that.
And to say he's "right"...luckily EVERY SINGLE OTHER REVIEW (based on metacritic) disagrees strongly with him (and you). But whatever...
Except the "crap like that" is true... the bass has all but disappeared from this band's music. Like I said, all riffs and no rhythm. He's spot on about that, so the comment is valid. We all make fun of Scott Stapp for his histrionic singing and Jesus poses, why can we not take a crack at PJ for their own recurring shortcomings.
Have you read the Paste review? Not a whole lot kinder... and it also points out that the solo Ed acoustic songs are boringly repetitive after ITW. Every review I've seen has open and serious criticism of half the songs, the reviews seem to be very positive in spite of that, which I agree with... the albums sounds better as it plays than the sum of its parts when you look at it. But the latter is what reviewers do... which is why you see a lot of reviews saying things like there's no bass or they don't let Ed sing or the acoustic songs are unmemorable.... even though those reviews go on to say the album is still a good listen in spite of its problems. Why don't you read the articles to which metacritic links, instead of just looking at the number (which metacritic, not the reviewer, assigns) and the one sentence compliment they pull from it.
Washington D.C. '04, London '05,Hamilton '05,Grand Rapids '06,
Cleveland '06, Detroit '06,Pittsburgh '06,Cincinnati '06,Chicago '07
NYC '08, NYC '08, Chicago '09, Chicago '09, ACL '09, Columbus 2010, Noblesville 2010, Cleveland 2010, Buffalo 2010.
Why? You can just PM us if you feel the need to flame someone for not thinking this album is kinda underwhelming.
Ah, so since I disagree with you I'm clearly not reading the reviews or have an intelligent thought of my own. Got it.
And if you think "Just Breathe" is boringly repetitive...damn....i can't even fathom that opinion, but I guess its out there.
Feel free to continue to have your opinion, but I don't feel the need to discuss it anymore with someone who seems to assume I know nothing and have read nothing....
Gramar not your strong point?
Washington D.C. '04, London '05,Hamilton '05,Grand Rapids '06,
Cleveland '06, Detroit '06,Pittsburgh '06,Cincinnati '06,Chicago '07
NYC '08, NYC '08, Chicago '09, Chicago '09, ACL '09, Columbus 2010, Noblesville 2010, Cleveland 2010, Buffalo 2010.
Hey man, you were the one using the "unverisal rave reviews" card. Your thoughts are pefectly intelligent, I'm just saying don't use metacritic to try to lend your opinions added weight, because metacritic doesn't back you up. The album is not flawless and most reviewers, even the ones that like it, admit that. I'm in that camp, this is the most natural and comfortable album they've done in a long time, and even though I have issues with the tracklisting and song choices, it's overall a pretty strong effort. That doesn't mean this guy is way off base with his review though... he makes some legit points. It's not his fault PJ fans take the band so seriously they can't even take a mild joke like the bass line comment without it causing seizures of outrage that someone dare jest about something as serious and important as an 11 song 35 minute rock album.
Guess not, I must have been too focused on my spelling to pay attention to gramMar... since we're getting all petty and childish here :roll: So do you have any more comments on, you know, Pearl Jam? Or would you prefer we stick to personal digs and threats to flame/spam anyone that speaks ill of Backspacer?