Excerpt from Pitchfork's Bonnaroo Preview

PJbauer88

"Saturday finds you sharing a little space with Cat Power, Kanye West, Mastodon, Sigur Rós, Iron & Wine, Lupe Fiasco, B.B. King, Talib Kweli, Gogol Bordello, Against Me!, the Coup, Sharon Jones & the Dap-Kings, Two Gallants, Chromeo, Chali 2na, Avett Brothers, Levon Helm, Money Mark, and, of course, Pearl Jam. Though you'll probably be pretty far back for that one. Just sayin'."

every time PJ comes up on Pitchfork they have to make a dick comment.

it's also interesting that they only have reviews for Avocado, Rearview Mirror, and Riot Act. have they ever even heard Ten through Binaural?

i might be mistaken, but i thought i remembered one of them reviewing Yield and they actually loved it. that review is no longer on the site though. wonder why?

hopethatuchoke

I don't know how that is a dick comment? I interpret that as, there will be alot of people at that one and you will be far back.

pdalowsky

sadly the same was true of leeds festival in the UK in 2006, the reviews were so lame in the piece of shite people in the uk buy called the nme.....lazily labelling it dadrock or something shite like that.....whilst on the next page they were busting their nuts over Pete Prick Doherty

pdalowsky

i read it like the original poster did, like no one gives a shit....but your reading is far more realistic.

PJbauer88

no it means he assumes most people reading wont be interested in seeing pearl jam

InHiding19

pitchfork hates pearl jam I never hear them say anything good about them

Stephen Flow

Pitchfork typically reviews indie music, not mainstream... they cater to that ... and 'hip' music (stuff they consider to be cool of course)... yeah they do some more mainstream reviews nowadays but I can remember back when they rarely did that.

Pearl Jam just isn't hip in the eyes of Pitchfork, owells.

muppet

http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/article/record_review/20783-yield

That's their review for Yield. I'd say that their review for self titled is also quite accurate, even though I do like it (http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/article/record_review/20788-pearl-jam)

PJbauer88

muppet wrote:

http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/article/record_review/20783-yield

That's their review for Yield. I'd say that their review for self titled is also quite accurate, even though I do like it (http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/article/record_review/20788-pearl-jam)

oh thanks i couldnt find it. yeah its a pretty good review of Yield, but the fact that they gave it 8.5 is amazing. they are usually really harsh wish their ratings

i guess the avocado review is accurate in some ways BUT he says this...

"One thing that has returned, unfortunately: An emphasis on Eddie Vedder's voice, an acquired taste's acquired taste. That his mushmouthed mewling and moaning became the template for a slew of copycat chest-thumpers is the stuff that keeps vocal coaches up at night."

slightofjeff

pdalowsky wrote:

i read it like the original poster did, like no one gives a shit....but your reading is far more realistic.

Nah ... that means it's going to be packed and you're going to be far away from the stage.

Not a dick comment at all.

slightofjeff

PJbauer88 wrote:

no it means he assumes most people reading wont be interested in seeing pearl jam

No it doesn't.

thunderDAN

Pitchfork is just a place for 'music elitists' they only like music nobody else has heard of and once they become big they act like they don't like them. They are the people whose only identity is trying to feel better about themselves by listening to a band nobody else has heard of and claiming they are the greatest thing ever. It's the same reason they give 10/10 and 9/10 ratings to bands from other countries that they can't even understand- by giving them high ratings they are keeping their leverage as critics by making readers think to themselves 'well they see something brilliant in that and I don't- I should keep reading this' If they came out and said 'Ten is the best record ever' then it doesn't support that because anyone that picks up the album has the wherewithall to know it's good- Pitchfork just needs to tell you why the great albums suck and that the brilliant albums are infact the shitty ones.

Tombourine

PJbauer88 wrote:

no it means he assumes most people reading wont be interested in seeing pearl jam

I agree. Pitchfork have a fairly strict editorial line on some bands - if they're not cool, don't like them. They really don't like them. Just read their review of Hard Sun.