Red Mosquito

broken iris wrote:We should do a poll on what we think the pitchfork rating will be. I expect a 7.

5.3

stupidmop wrote:

harmless wrote:Who pushed for the crazy left turns before? Ed? If it was Ed before, then his need to not 'self-sabotage' their popularity by writing crazy shit will be even stronger.

Yeah, but you'd think he'd just roll with it if that's where the others are going. Can't blame him for fucking shit up then.

Unless he's operating on the assumption that at this point in their career they need the just breathes and future dayses to stay vaguely relevant.

broken iris wrote:We should do a poll on what we think the pitchfork rating will be. I expect a 7.

7? I would be shocked if it broke a 5.5. Not because of the quality of the album, but because Pitchfork has made it their mission to slam this band at every possible turn despite the fact that they are currently an independent band releasing their material by themselves - a mantra they would support if Radiohead were doing it the exact same way.

Hell, I remember in 2007 they did a huge writeup on Lollapalooza and even admitted that their positive review of the Pearl Jam set was begrudging (I believe the quote was "let them have their Pearl Jam").

Earlier this year when the Voodoo Fest lineup was announced, I am not even sure if they mentioned Pearl Jam, or if they did, it was headline: all these crappy bands are playing the second and third stages at Voodoo!!! (and pearl jam is playing too from what we hear).

I mean, Pearl Jam's not really in their wheelhouse; it's not that surprising that the critical reception is mixed. I'm surprised there are reviews at all. And Vitalogy and Yield both good pretty good reviews from them, so it's not impossible to get a good score.

liebzz wrote:

broken iris wrote:We should do a poll on what we think the pitchfork rating will be. I expect a 7.

7? I would be shocked if it broke a 5.5. Not because of the quality of the album, but because Pitchfork has made it their mission to slam this band at every possible turn despite the fact that they are currently an independent band releasing their material by themselves - a mantra they would support if Radiohead were doing it the exact same way.

Hell, I remember in 2007 they did a huge writeup on Lollapalooza and even admitted that their positive review of the Pearl Jam set was begrudging (I believe the quote was "let them have their Pearl Jam").

Earlier this year when the Voodoo Fest lineup was announced, I am not even sure if they mentioned Pearl Jam, or if they did, it was headline: all these crappy bands are playing the second and third stages at Voodoo!!! (and pearl jam is playing too from what we hear).

Exactly. This would be a great opportunity to epically troll the Faithfull.

digster wrote:I mean, Pearl Jam's not really in their wheelhouse; it's not that surprising that the critical reception is mixed. I'm surprised there are reviews at all. And Vitalogy and Yield both good pretty good reviews from them, so it's not impossible to get a good score.

I guess it gets readers, regularly writing about a really shitty band they're famous for not liking.

I see the world's on a rocking horse of time

At least nobody here is bitter about it

liebzz wrote:7? I would be shocked if it broke a 5.5. Not because of the quality of the album, but because Pitchfork has made it their mission to slam this band at every possible turn despite the fact that they are currently an independent band releasing their material by themselves - a mantra they would support if Radiohead were doing it the exact same way.

I think they would probably support them more if they made music that Pitchfork liked. Don't know how the independent thing comes into it-- some of Pitchfork's highest-rated albums are released by majors.

Do I sound bitter? I never read Pitchfork, or any music mag really, so I don't care.

harmless wrote:

digster wrote:I mean, Pearl Jam's not really in their wheelhouse; it's not that surprising that the critical reception is mixed. I'm surprised there are reviews at all. And Vitalogy and Yield both good pretty good reviews from them, so it's not impossible to get a good score.

I guess it gets readers, regularly writing about a really shitty band they're famous for not liking.

The only one of theirs I really disagree with is Riot Act. I think Vs. and Vitalogy should be a bit higher, but the Riot Act one is the only one where I think the score missed the mark.

I never thought I'd write this, but I was disappointed with an email newsletter.

nomorecrackpipes wrote:I never thought I'd write this, but I was disappointed with an email newsletter.

You didn't hear the Sirens.

harmless wrote:Do I sound bitter? I never read Pitchfork, or any music mag really, so I don't care.

No, you don't.

I used to wait until the end of the year for Pitchforks best of list, myself, because it was loaded over with shit I had heard nothing about. But now I'm just too lazy to do that kind of thing, so I tend to forget they even exist.

McParadigm wrote:

harmless wrote:Do I sound bitter? I never read Pitchfork, or any music mag really, so I don't care.

No, you don't.

I used to wait until the end of the year for Pitchforks best of list, myself, because it was loaded over with shit I had heard nothing about. But now I'm just too lazy to do that kind of thing, so I tend to forget they even exist.

This might be the first PJ album about which I can say that I don't care about critical reception. 'Return to form!' 'Grunge veterans Pearl Jam are back!' etc. etc.

If it makes everyone feel better, Rolling Stone will give it 4 stars and call it a return to form.

gremmiedotnet ‏@gremmiedotnet 1m Anyone else hear Sirens?

So gremmie has it?

Thurman Murman wrote:gremmiedotnet ‏@gremmiedotnet 1m Anyone else hear Sirens?

So gremmie has it?

I doubt it, I bet they're just asking if anyone has it because we thought we would and no one has.

These 'official' channels need to stop tweeting about rumours when they know no more than us.

harmless wrote:

stupidmop wrote:

harmless wrote:Who pushed for the crazy left turns before? Ed? If it was Ed before, then his need to not 'self-sabotage' their popularity by writing crazy shit will be even stronger.

Yeah, but you'd think he'd just roll with it if that's where the others are going. Can't blame him for fucking shit up then.

Unless he's operating on the assumption that at this point in their career they need the just breathes and future dayses to stay vaguely relevant.

He's probably right, but I wish they didn't care.

Edit to say no I don't actually know if they do it do not care, this is just bullshit time killing speculation and should not be construed as a complaint that pj are fame hungry money grabbers etc etc etc

harmless wrote: I doubt it, I bet they're just asking if anyone has it because we thought we would and no one has.

Well they're saying anyone else, insinuating that they've heard/have it.