|
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.
|