Lets Email the Author of the Terrible Pitchfork Review

Stephen Flow · September 2009

flyinwhole313 wrote:

asgoodased wrote:

Without knowing his other reviews I can tell you....every pitchfork writer loves indie albums and hates mainstream. It's pretty clear he was going to give this album a bad review before he even heard it...

Talk about hitting the nail on the head. This is right on. Honestly, the "unique" readers and writers on Pitchfork need to realize they are not so unique...
Would they be happiest being the only person in a bar listening to a band? Think Indie...like everyone else! Their clique is devoted to anti-mainstream music...I am confused though, it is ok to like M. Ward AND Pearl Jam, isn't it???...I love MOST bands from the Pitfork mold, AND Pearl Jam...
I had my buddy stuck in an argument...He is a straight indie, fuck mainstream guy. He has LOVED Kings of Leon for years, and I said to him a few months back "Now that KOL are on the cover of RS, SPIN and every other magazine, are they not good??? Has their music changed??? He had nothing to say.
Indie is just the latest, greatest clique to push the idea of individuality. Problem is, when they start selling checkered plaid pants at Old Navy, it ain't so unique anymore!

I feel the same way. I love indie music AND PJ... I listen to a lot of different stuff but not b/c Pitchfork tells me to.

imissyoualready · September 2009

flyinwhole313 wrote:

asgoodased wrote:

Without knowing his other reviews I can tell you....every pitchfork writer loves indie albums and hates mainstream. It's pretty clear he was going to give this album a bad review before he even heard it...

Talk about hitting the nail on the head. This is right on. Honestly, the "unique" readers and writers on Pitchfork need to realize they are not so unique...
Would they be happiest being the only person in a bar listening to a band? Think Indie...like everyone else! Their clique is devoted to anti-mainstream music...I am confused though, it is ok to like M. Ward AND Pearl Jam, isn't it???...I love MOST bands from the Pitfork mold, AND Pearl Jam...
I had my buddy stuck in an argument...He is a straight indie, fuck mainstream guy. He has LOVED Kings of Leon for years, and I said to him a few months back "Now that KOL are on the cover of RS, SPIN and every other magazine, are they not good??? Has their music changed??? He had nothing to say.
Indie is just the latest, greatest clique to push the idea of individuality. Problem is, when they start selling checkered plaid pants at Old Navy, it ain't so unique anymore!
Backspacer is amazing. I do not like the final album cut of Speed of Sound, it blows compared to the demo version. To say anything negative about this album as a whole is an opinion, but not mine.

What does "Indy" mean? Does it mean you dont have a major label distribution deal? I would think that's what it would have to mean and, *Lightbulb*, none of the bands in the "Indy" genre are really "Indy" at all. And, technically, that makes PJ an Indy band now.....in the US anyway.

Jo · September 2009

I read this.
Us PJ lovers have to learn to let bad reviews go. ( even though it makes our blood boil )
It does nothing for us.
Give them no spotlight.

asgoodased · September 2009

imissyoualready wrote:

flyinwhole313 wrote:

asgoodased wrote:

Without knowing his other reviews I can tell you....every pitchfork writer loves indie albums and hates mainstream. It's pretty clear he was going to give this album a bad review before he even heard it...

Talk about hitting the nail on the head. This is right on. Honestly, the "unique" readers and writers on Pitchfork need to realize they are not so unique...
Would they be happiest being the only person in a bar listening to a band? Think Indie...like everyone else! Their clique is devoted to anti-mainstream music...I am confused though, it is ok to like M. Ward AND Pearl Jam, isn't it???...I love MOST bands from the Pitfork mold, AND Pearl Jam...
I had my buddy stuck in an argument...He is a straight indie, fuck mainstream guy. He has LOVED Kings of Leon for years, and I said to him a few months back "Now that KOL are on the cover of RS, SPIN and every other magazine, are they not good??? Has their music changed??? He had nothing to say.
Indie is just the latest, greatest clique to push the idea of individuality. Problem is, when they start selling checkered plaid pants at Old Navy, it ain't so unique anymore!
Backspacer is amazing. I do not like the final album cut of Speed of Sound, it blows compared to the demo version. To say anything negative about this album as a whole is an opinion, but not mine.

What does "Indy" mean? Does it mean you dont have a major label distribution deal? I would think that's what it would have to mean and, *Lightbulb*, none of the bands in the "Indy" genre are really "Indy" at all. And, technically, that makes PJ an Indy band now.....in the US anyway.

Technically, yeah, "indie" means non-major...however a more appropriate term is probably non-mainstream.

Black Diamond · September 2009

Stephen Flow wrote:

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.

Funeral is a better album than Please Please Me. Regardless, Funeral is a great album regardless of Pitchfork's 10.

asgoodased · September 2009

Black Diamond wrote:

Stephen Flow wrote:

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.

Funeral is a better album than Please Please Me. Regardless, Funeral is a great album regardless of Pitchfork's 10.

And they did give a ton of Beatles albums perfect 10's. Im a huge Beatles fan, and even I was pretty shocked when they gave "Magical Mystery Tour" a perfect 10.

pdalowsky · September 2009

why email this guy? will it make you feel better?

he didnt like it, thats his opinion. The only opinion in music that counts is your own. At least they are reviewing the music, and not the policitics, or the past.....

slightofjeff · September 2009

pdalowsky wrote:

why email this guy? will it make you feel better?

he didnt like it, thats his opinion. The only opinion in music that counts is your own. At least they are reviewing the music, and not the policitics, or the past.....

I say it's OK to email this guy, so long as you are willing to email everybody who gave it a positive review and say, "Good job!"

dunkman · September 2009

emailing him will only remind him how pathetic some of PJs hardcore elite can get.

its his opinion... he's entitled to it... leave it at that

NOyieldingCODE · September 2009

dunkman wrote:

emailing him will only remind him how pathetic some of PJs hardcore elite can get.

:idea: :idea:

gobrowns19 · September 2009

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]

teflonsteve · September 2009

Oh no a dissenting opinion!!!!!! Better get the petitions started.

Seriously folks, let's reel it back in here.

LikeaFisttotheJaw · September 2009

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.

All hail the lucky ones....

Veddernarian · September 2009

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.

asgoodased · September 2009

Veddernarian wrote:

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.

imissyoualready · September 2009

Veddernarian wrote:

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.

Ron Raygun · September 2009

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.

i shit and i stink · September 2009

Stephen Flow wrote:

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.

imissyoualready · September 2009

Whatever

Spiritual_Chaos · September 2009

This is one stupid topic.

Lets Email the Author of the Terrible Pitchfork Review

Comments

Categories