Pitchfork Review

Indifference

http://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/154 ... ele-songs/

Has some of those classic pitchfork digs like ". Considering the size and devotion of his cult, coupled with Pearl Jam's "No, you really shouldn't have" over-generosity when it comes to releases, it's remarkable he hasn't put out five by now.

"but sometimes what works best at the campfire should stay there."

PilateOfTheStorm

Ukulele Songs is so determinedly twee and relentlessly self-effacing that it can feel like watching a grown man attempting to morph into a baby koala before your eyes.

made me think of this picture
http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lkd66lsraI1qj97w4o1_500.jpg

Zidane

6.4!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

WOW!!!!! I thought they had Eddie's picture in their boardroom to throw darts at!!! Honestly, you never know with those music snobs... They're as bad as NME in England!!

Good, that's great, I guess they like music other than a remote band from Hafnarfjörður in Iceland...!

pjsteelerfan

Pitchfork, in general, is a joke.

tschav

higher than I thought they'd give it...
i mean, it's pitchfork

SVRDhand13

I feel the words of the review don't match the score.

foursymbols

tschav wrote:

higher than I thought they'd give it...
i mean, it's pitchfork

Definitely, was expecting a dismal score just because its Pitchfork... They can be quite the music snobs... :roll:

Newch91

Pitchfork :roll:

Pap

PilateOfTheStorm wrote:

Ukulele Songs is so determinedly twee and relentlessly self-effacing that it can feel like watching a grown man attempting to morph into a baby koala before your eyes.

made me think of this picture
http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lkd66lsraI1qj97w4o1_500.jpg

nocode52

http://www.theonion.com/articles/pitchf ... c-68,2278/

‎"Music used to be great, but let's be honest, it's a 6.8 now at best," said Los Angeles resident Lowell Radler, 23, who admitted that he just looked at the rating rather than reading the whole review. "I seriously might never listen to music again."

pjsteelerfan

nocode52 wrote:

http://www.theonion.com/articles/pitchfork-gives-music-68,2278/

‎"Music used to be great, but let's be honest, it's a 6.8 now at best," said Los Angeles resident Lowell Radler, 23, who admitted that he just looked at the rating rather than reading the whole review. "I seriously might never listen to music again."

This cracks me up every time. Perfect review of pitchfork.

Markiemark70

I have never read a pitchfork review in my life, but this one sounds pretty reasonable to me.

For comparison, I searched on there for one of my favourite non-PJ albums of the past couple years: Sigh No More by Mumford and Sons. They gave it a 2.1, whereas I would give it a solid 8. So yeah, let's just say Pitchfork and I are not quite seeing things the same.

6.4 from Pitchfork means it is probably a solid 9 in my books.

PilateOfTheStorm

what i don't get is how they can just put a number on there
i understand and appreciate reviews etc.etc.

but i don't get "ratings" and stars and numbers like that

like what does 6.4 even mean? how did they know to put that .4 on there?

"this album is a 6, a solid 6 --oh wait, that track, "hey fakhah" i like it. makes it .4 better"

phungi

I like the line: Alas, 34 minutes is a perilously long time for most to to spend alone with just Eddie Vedder, a ukulele, and his feelings for company.

vant0037

That's much better than I expected, given the following:

1. Pitchfork's typical snobbery toward anything not firmly nestled in the "fringes" of modern music,
2. Pearl Jam's/Ed's status as 20-year music icons with a wide following, and,
3. the ukulele thing.

I was expecting them to skewer Ed. As for some of the digs against PJ fans...come on guys...lighten up. If we get called "cultish" or "lemmings" or are mocked for our devotion to PJ, haven't we earned it? I read about a guy threatening a lawsuit over PJ20 tickets! People drop $300 or more on vinyl! People are traveling thousands of miles to see this band...almost yearly! I love being nuts about this band, but I also realize that if people take notice and in turn agree that I am nuts, I've earned it. So don't lose any sleep if Pitchfork's reviewer calls us nuts or a cult or weird; we've definitely earned those monickers.

On a side note, while I get really annoyed with the reviewers on Pitchfork, I routinely find new bands/albums through their reviews. Regardless of the score, they generally review albums and music that I like, so I will read a review and check out the band. So, Pitchfork does serve a good purpose. You just gotta take what they say with a big grain of salt.

SVRDhand13

I hate to say it.... but I usually agree with Pitchfork's number ratings :oops: .

Especially Mumford and Sons .