Lets Email the Author of the Terrible Pitchfork Review

lukins fridge · September 2009

tcaporale wrote:

lukins fridge wrote:

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.

you really believe that? of course i read it...they did a good job on the review but i think they were off because of what they thought otherwise.

there are STRONG radiohead songs on the album but as a whole, i dont' think it's that great. and if you remember, the days leading up to it pitchfork was seriously sucking them off for the whole release thing.

regardless of my opinion of the album, i'm just commenting about their overall enfatuation with the business decisions of radiohead compared with not mentioning one thing about pearl jam's.

asgoodased · September 2009

soulsinging wrote:

Every review I've seen has open and serious criticism of half the songs

Crap, Guess I'm not done...

Please tell me the "half the songs" that have serious criticism in them in the following reviews (maybe its YOU who haven't read any of them...)

LA Times
Boston Globe
Blender
AMG
The Guardian
Billboard
Rolling Stone
Spin

Well crap, that's over half of them and I'm getting tired of re-reading them. I hardly found a single criticism in the whole lot of those...

asgoodased · September 2009

soulsinging wrote:

asgoodased wrote:

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 don't have a problem taking a joke, he just seems unprofessional and a pretty excited about throwing some cheap shots in..."Sooner or later, however, you remember these guys wouldn't know a melody if it bit them in the ass. " Nice...

Like I said, i dont have a problem with complaints, I dont think the album is perfect, and I too am not a huge fan of the tracklisting. I just get a little tired of pitchfork's holier than though ego. But I guess thats what they are and what they do....

soulsinging · September 2009

asgoodased wrote:

soulsinging wrote:

Every review I've seen has open and serious criticism of half the songs

Crap, Guess I'm not done...

Please tell me the "half the songs" that have serious criticism in them in the following reviews (maybe its YOU who haven't read any of them...)

LA Times
Boston Globe
Blender
AMG
The Guardian
Billboard
Rolling Stone
Spin

Well crap, that's over half of them and I'm getting tired of re-reading them. I hardly found a single criticism in the whole lot of those...

AMG, Billboard, and the Guardian don't mention a single song in their reviews, just the usual "PJ is back and livelier than ever" line. Since you get on Pitchfork for jounralistic integrity based on their jokes, how about the same critical lens applied to the good reviews... how do you review an album without mentioning any songs? It's due to exactly what I described... the album sounds good but the individual songs aren't that memorable. Thus, 90 ratings on metacritic that are unable to identify a single song that stands out. Some of the others do seem to love every song, but Spin has this nugget: "The band hasn’t put together a trifecta this energized and from-the-gut in a decade, and though the rest of Backspacer doesn't match that opening salvo, it has a terrific time trying."

And then you stopped, after cherry picking the best reviews and not even going into the more cautiously approving ones. Pitchfork, we've discussed.

How about Paste: "But too much of the record’s second half leans toward the introspective tunes frontman Eddie Vedder executed perfectly on the Into the Wild soundtrack. But outside of a filmic context and stamped with the name Pearl Jam, several of the songs fall flat, dragging down an otherwise upbeat and enjoyable release."

sputnik: "guitarist Mike McCready is still prone to laying down questionable guitar leads, particularly in the former."

drowned in sound: "Which is fine and all, but um, yeah... shame it’s not one of their best records." and "Though Backspacer's only actively excruciating note is the beardy folk ramble of ‘Just Breathe’, the likes of ‘Unknown Thought’ and ‘Speed Of Sound’ feel sapped by the record's lightness; it's fairly self-evident that these tracks would have sounded better if recorded at literally any other time in Pearl Jam's history. The occasional presence of an orchestra is just bewildering: this is a band that reaches their emotional highs through blood, sweat and tears, not symphonic gimmicks."

I'm not saying the reviews aren't positive, I'm saying even the positive ones seem to struggle to find reasons why other than the fact that the band sounds so much more engaged (which I agree with) and that plenty of people think the slower songs don't work or have other issues. This Pitchfork review is not an anomaly. Nothing they said is novel or off the map. Almost no one is saying "every song on here kicks ass, the album's a classic!"

Get_Right · September 2009

a lot of people agree with that review

Veddernarian · September 2009

redrock wrote:

Veddernarian wrote:

...... 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?

Perspective..... It's only one person's opinion.

I guess I'm a geezer and come from an old-school frame of mind where I give a f**k about what I do whether it is to take out the trash, get someone somewhere, do my job, live my life. No matter how menial or how important. I'm not the person to say that you came to the wrong window. I like to help someone to their resolution of whatever. That attitude means doing your job right and take pride in what you do. If you can't do something and you know it, do me a favor and don't attempt it. I have called our local news radio's traffic tip line. It is amazing to hear what they report vs. what you had told them. Makes me ask if all of the news is that distorted by mistakes or worse, manipulation. People really do read and rely on these articles. An album review is not a report on a nuclear accident. But is someone has a job to write in a periodical, and it is non-fiction, they should get things right. In an opinion, base it on facts, correct facts. That's all what I'm asking for. To do one's job with pride and accuracy. The reviewer's opinion is different from mine about Backspacer. That's fine. Just don't look like a fool and possibly mislead people by getting the facts wrong.

soulsinging · September 2009

asgoodased wrote:

I don't have a problem taking a joke, he just seems unprofessional and a pretty excited about throwing some cheap shots in..."Sooner or later, however, you remember these guys wouldn't know a melody if it bit them in the ass. " Nice...

Like I said, i dont have a problem with complaints, I dont think the album is perfect, and I too am not a huge fan of the tracklisting. I just get a little tired of pitchfork's holier than though ego. But I guess thats what they are and what they do....

I can feel that, normally I would agree. I loathe Pitchfork, most of their writers and readers, and all of their attitude. This might be the first time I've ever agreed with a PF review before. Maybe my willingness to laugh at the cheap shots has to do with the fact that they parallel my own bitterness and frustration with the band over the last few albums. They know melody, they just like to save those songs for b-sides and Lost Dogs and opt instead to load albums with tons of riffs that have no rhythm. It drives me nuts. So, much as I hate to agree with PF, it's kinda nice to see my thoughts expressed with such exasperation.

asgoodased · September 2009

AMG, Billboard, and the Guardian don't mention a single song in their reviews, just the usual "PJ is back and livelier than ever" line. Since you get on Pitchfork for jounralistic integrity based on their jokes, how about the same critical lens applied to the good reviews... how do you review an album without mentioning any songs? It's due to exactly what I described... the album sounds good but the individual songs aren't that memorable. Thus, 90 ratings on metacritic that are unable to identify a single song that stands out. Some of the others do seem to love every song, but Spin has this nugget: "The band hasn’t put together a trifecta this energized and from-the-gut in a decade, and though the rest of Backspacer doesn't match that opening salvo, it has a terrific time trying."

And then you stopped, after cherry picking the best reviews and not even going into the more cautiously approving ones. Pitchfork, we've discussed.

How about Paste: "But too much of the record’s second half leans toward the introspective tunes frontman Eddie Vedder executed perfectly on the Into the Wild soundtrack. But outside of a filmic context and stamped with the name Pearl Jam, several of the songs fall flat, dragging down an otherwise upbeat and enjoyable release."

sputnik: "guitarist Mike McCready is still prone to laying down questionable guitar leads, particularly in the former."

drowned in sound: "Which is fine and all, but um, yeah... shame it’s not one of their best records." and "Though Backspacer's only actively excruciating note is the beardy folk ramble of ‘Just Breathe’, the likes of ‘Unknown Thought’ and ‘Speed Of Sound’ feel sapped by the record's lightness; it's fairly self-evident that these tracks would have sounded better if recorded at literally any other time in Pearl Jam's history. The occasional presence of an orchestra is just bewildering: this is a band that reaches their emotional highs through blood, sweat and tears, not symphonic gimmicks."

I'm not saying the reviews aren't positive, I'm saying even the positive ones seem to struggle to find reasons why other than the fact that the band sounds so much more engaged (which I agree with) and that plenty of people think the slower songs don't work or have other issues. This Pitchfork review is not an anomaly. Nothing they said is novel or off the map. Almost no one is saying "every song on here kicks ass, the album's a classic!"

I just did the first 8. Sorry they weren't approved by you. But your quote said every review you'd read had problems with half the songs. That's just false. Or are you allowed to cherry-pick but I'm not? YOU'RE the one that made the statement not me, so don't find fault in the method I used to prove you wrong.

Veddernarian · September 2009

Get_Right wrote:

a lot of people agree with that review

Here's a list of them http://www.metacritic.com/music/artists ... backspacer

asgoodased · September 2009

soulsinging wrote:

asgoodased wrote:

I don't have a problem taking a joke, he just seems unprofessional and a pretty excited about throwing some cheap shots in..."Sooner or later, however, you remember these guys wouldn't know a melody if it bit them in the ass. " Nice...

Like I said, i dont have a problem with complaints, I dont think the album is perfect, and I too am not a huge fan of the tracklisting. I just get a little tired of pitchfork's holier than though ego. But I guess thats what they are and what they do....

I can feel that, normally I would agree. I loathe Pitchfork, most of their writers and readers, and all of their attitude. This might be the first time I've ever agreed with a PF review before. Maybe my willingness to laugh at the cheap shots has to do with the fact that they parallel my own bitterness and frustration with the band over the last few albums. They know melody, they just like to save those songs for b-sides and Lost Dogs and opt instead to load albums with tons of riffs that have no rhythm. It drives me nuts. So, much as I hate to agree with PF, it's kinda nice to see my thoughts expressed with such exasperation.

Ha, we're complete opposites. I love pitchfork, except whenever they review mainstream acts. I always tell people to go to pitchfork to find good new albums you've never heard of, but never, EVER, trust them if the artist is mainstream.

imissyoualready · September 2009

Why? You can just PM us if you feel the need to flame someone for not thinking this album is kinda underwhelming.[/quote]

Gramar not your strong point?[/quote]

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?[/quote]

*hangs head* I guess you have me here.

imissyoualready · September 2009

furthermore.....this issue of no bass lines? do any of you know what a bass line is? are you listening with earbuds or in front of a computer (bass response is bad with both those mediums). wtf? i gotta get off of this board and go to the gearheads page where at lease 20-30% of the people know what the hell they're talking about.

soulsinging · September 2009

asgoodased wrote:

I just did the first 8. Sorry they weren't approved by you. But your quote said every review you'd read had problems with half the songs. That's just false. Or are you allowed to cherry-pick but I'm not? YOU'RE the one that made the statement not me, so don't find fault in the method I used to prove you wrong.

You're right. I was a bit hyperbolic when I said that every review rips half the songs, though I think you also overstated your case when you said every review totally disagrees with PF. The criticisms they make are the same as many other criticisms, it's just that PF has them all in one review and seems bothered by them, and other reviews shrug it off as a minor quibble. But that doesn't mean PF has some vendetta against PJ or have no integrity or whatever it is people want from them. It means they didn't like the album because its negatives (most of which are identified with elsewhere) outweigh its positives. PF is not the only one saying these things, it's just that they're the only ones that seem to have a problem with it. I can see how it would be annoying if you love the album to read their snarky shots at the album, but I'm equally annoyed by the cloyingly flowery reviews by fans on here that act like every moment on this album is some sort of life-altering spiritual journey. They do it to get a reaction. Maybe PF was a bit irreverent, but that doesn't mean the criticisms they make are totally unfounded or shocking.

lukins fridge · September 2009

imissyoualready wrote:

furthermore.....this issue of no bass lines? do any of you know what a bass line is? are you listening with earbuds or in front of a computer (bass response is bad with both those mediums). wtf? i gotta get off of this board and go to the gearheads page where at lease 20-30% of the people know what the hell they're talking about.

DITT - FUCKIN - O! see my post earlier. pitchfork - and writers in general - are not musicians. jeff is absolutely off his rocker on this album. geez

soulsinging · September 2009

imissyoualready wrote:

furthermore.....this issue of no bass lines? do any of you know what a bass line is? are you listening with earbuds or in front of a computer (bass response is bad with both those mediums). wtf? i gotta get off of this board and go to the gearheads page where at lease 20-30% of the people know what the hell they're talking about.

Mostly in my car and on high end headphones and a decent stereo. But I'll admit I'm not a gearhead. What I am is a dude that loves hearing Even Flow live because I can shake my ass during that song, or pump fists during alive, or sway with my arms around my gf to some of the ballads. Tell, what body movements can you make during a song like Johnny Guitar? Maybe a little of those air guitar strums, or Ed's acid-infused hand motions?

Let's face it, they're trying to do punk now... head banging for a few seconds, then a few seconds to stand stock still and listen to the 'fuck the man' lyrics, then back to head banging with some arm wind-milling. Gone are the days of PJ writing a song that can get a whole arena on the same page for singing along or dancing or anything like that.

PJFAN_seattle · September 2009

I think we should all just enjoy the new album and tour and not care what some guy on Pitchfork thinks.

imissyoualready · September 2009

soulsinging wrote:

imissyoualready wrote:

furthermore.....this issue of no bass lines? do any of you know what a bass line is? are you listening with earbuds or in front of a computer (bass response is bad with both those mediums). wtf? i gotta get off of this board and go to the gearheads page where at lease 20-30% of the people know what the hell they're talking about.

Mostly in my car and on high end headphones and a decent stereo. But I'll admit I'm not a gearhead. What I am is a dude that loves hearing Even Flow live because I can shake my ass during that song, or pump fists during alive, or sway with my arms around my gf to some of the ballads. Tell, what body movements can you make during a song like Johnny Guitar? Maybe a little of those air guitar strums, or Ed's acid-infused hand motions? Let's face it, they're trying to do punk now... head banging for a few seconds, then a few seconds to stand stock still and listen to the 'fuck the man' lyrics, then back to head banging with some arm wind-milling. Gone are the days of PJ writing a song that can get a whole arena on the same page for singing along or dancing or anything like that.

How old are you? I'm guessing well over 30. And all the shows I've been to, most of the people are moving most of the time.

If you're listening on a good system, adjust the EQ and drop out the high end....then come back and tell me there's no bass lines.

Lastly, I think there's plenty of stuff on the new album for you to grope your girlfriend to at concerts (that's my only complaint about the album). Pearl Jam isn't supposed to be finger-fucking music and the only people i've ever know who thought it was were in fraternities and came upon the music cause dude's in their frat house liked it.

asgoodased · September 2009

soulsinging wrote:

asgoodased wrote:

I just did the first 8. Sorry they weren't approved by you. But your quote said every review you'd read had problems with half the songs. That's just false. Or are you allowed to cherry-pick but I'm not? YOU'RE the one that made the statement not me, so don't find fault in the method I used to prove you wrong.

You're right. I was a bit hyperbolic when I said that every review rips half the songs, though I think you also overstated your case when you said every review totally disagrees with PF. The criticisms they make are the same as many other criticisms, it's just that PF has them all in one review and seems bothered by them, and other reviews shrug it off as a minor quibble. But that doesn't mean PF has some vendetta against PJ or have no integrity or whatever it is people want from them. It means they didn't like the album because its negatives (most of which are identified with elsewhere) outweigh its positives. PF is not the only one saying these things, it's just that they're the only ones that seem to have a problem with it. I can see how it would be annoying if you love the album to read their snarky shots at the album, but I'm equally annoyed by the cloyingly flowery reviews by fans on here that act like every moment on this album is some sort of life-altering spiritual journey. They do it to get a reaction. Maybe PF was a bit irreverent, but that doesn't mean the criticisms they make are totally unfounded or shocking.

I dont' really have a problem with anything you say here...though i think pitchfork loses credibility for constantly bashing major acts. As I was telling my wife a couple days ago (before their review), on pitchfork, its a scale of 1-10, or 1-6 if the general public knows who you are.

I think maybe it offends me more simply because I usually like their reviews and website (i check and read it daily), but they just consistently bash anything anyone knows, and while I agree there's a lot of mainstream crap, it's not ALL nearly as bad as they think it (always) is.

soulsinging · September 2009

lukins fridge wrote:

imissyoualready wrote:

furthermore.....this issue of no bass lines? do any of you know what a bass line is? are you listening with earbuds or in front of a computer (bass response is bad with both those mediums). wtf? i gotta get off of this board and go to the gearheads page where at lease 20-30% of the people know what the hell they're talking about.

DITT - FUCKIN - O! see my post earlier. pitchfork - and writers in general - are not musicians. jeff is absolutely off his rocker on this album. geez

I'm not a musician, which is why I started saying rhythm instead of bassline. I don't know the technical terms. I guess that means I'm never allowed to have an opinion about how music sounds to me again. By the way, you had damn well never say a word about a book or tv show you like again, because you never MADE a tv show, so how can you comment on it? Oh, and don't ever talk to me about sports, because unless you play in the NBA, you have no grounds to even comment on sports.

I'm not saying PJ has to become Parliament-Funkadelic, but what set them apart from all their peers was their ability to merge punk and hard rock with Stone's love of funk and hip hop to make music that rocked but still had the ability to get people moving. They've all but pushed Stone out of the band now, so all that's left is those jagged riffing punk tunes that are cool if you're in a punk club doing that bad ass little march right before punching someone or stage diving, but fall flat in the context of a PJ show or album. Look around during a given PJ show during those songs... tell me how many people are into it and how many are just standing looking confused and wondering how they're supposed to get into a song like Supersonic. Compare that to how people respond to Alive or even tunes like Rats and Why Go and Leash.

Mr. Pink · September 2009

If you like the Album, then why worry about a bad review? Nothing worse than Sychophants.

Lets Email the Author of the Terrible Pitchfork Review

Comments

Categories