by the way, they say nyc ghost and flowers is the worst album ever? and what about that talentless, hobocore (meaning: poseurs who do an effort to look on washed and with shitty clothes just for the right amount of pathetic effect, but obviously not because that's the way they live), dual keyboard retardation that is clap your hands say yeah?

sure, that is having talent!!!!

It's not that people are "too indie" for Pitchfork, it's just that the people at Pitchfork can be total douchbags from time to time. I've read some really great reviews of good bands butI've also read some very strong reviews of shitty bands and shitty reviews of great bands. I don't understand their logic beyond the simple fact that they like what they like. It's THEIR preference. But they can be complete assholes some times.

have you ever ever evre heard of anyone who passionately loves music NOT coming off like an asshole sometimes? the collective of pitchfork do a great job. their individual reviewwers also do a great job. sometimes one can disagree. sometimes one can just laugh it off.

frankly, the 0.0 review for NYCG&F made me laugh, because when I first heard athat album, the first few times actuall, I FUCKING HATED IT and I am sonic youth fanatico NUMBER ONE, SUCKAS! I can undertsand a 0.0 review for that album. it does not bother me. it has only been in the last half a year or so, when I was given the NYCG&F album again, that I have managed to get into it, but it is still in the bottom of the caalopgue for me. it is above EJST&NS though! that album SUCKS!

rob: to me, pitchfork come off more like people who don't love music passionately; i think all they do is look at the album covers, read the press release and say "not our cup of tea" and still write a review. it's like the music they like, they like it in theory, just the aesthetic of it but not the actual sounds. to me, it seems they like everything peripheral to the music (the fashion, the scene, the kind of shows, the artwork, etc.).

case in point: THEY TRASHED THE NEW MONO ALBUM!!!!!! they rated it at like 3/10 points or something, just because post rock is not trendy anymore and because they keep comparing them with mogwai when both bands now have next to NOTHING in common; they just reasoned "these people play instrumental rock music with contrasts between soft and pretty and heavy guitars, but now they have strings, godspeed you black emperor use strings; these guys suck". had they heard the album, they would realize that, even if they didn't like the album, a 3 out of 10 was excessively low since the music comes off as original and powerful.

and then, on the other hand, they hype this crap like clap your hands say yeah who have absolutely no talent, no originality, they compare them to amazing bands (like my bloody valentine) with a straight face. and the only reason i can imagine why they would get behind this absolute horseshit is because they can be trendsetters for a certain part of the music loving public.

i don't give them that much attention, i was just shocked (and actually laughed) to read they would rank such a great album so low, but they don't like music, that's very clear to me.

again, whoever wrote that MONO review was just one dude man, not the collective of pitchfork. each reviewer writes what they feel like man.
franky I was so surprised their reviewers loved Murray Street and Sonic Nurse so much!!!

An analysis of 8468 reviews on Pitchforkmedia.com

http://www.goodhodgkins.com/2006/04/...hforkmediacom/

Cool, thanks.

Best thing ever. Thanks, moshe.

so, they give it a 5.8. and barely make one mention of mogwai.
http://pitchforkmedia.com/record-rev...re-there.shtml

its too bad that pitchfork reviews make or break any band now. BUT kudos to them for having some balls and personality. and record reviews being TOO subjective? go read billboard, you silly bitch.

my bad, so they didn't rate it as utter crap, they rated it at utter garbage.

so what if they didn't mention mogwai, i know they were thinking about it