Lightning Bolt: The Official Album Thread

[harmless]

Positive or negative, pitchfork reviews are usually pretty well written and have at least some thoughtful take on the subject. I look forward to them.

Really? You literally look forward to the next Pitchfork review even before the fact?

I look forward to reading them for albums I'm interested in. What's wrong with that?

Nothing at all, sorry; my tongue was firmly in my cheek. I just don't find myself looking forward to reviews from particular sites. But then I don't really follow review sites. I really do like good review-writing, though.

[Birds in Hell]

"Pitchfork" isn't one hivemind, guys.

I don't visit there unless I'm looking for a specific review or feature but they have different writers with a variety of views and opinions.

They guy who wrote the Lightning Bolt review is clearly a Pearl Jam fan, it's hardly a hatchet piece.

[McParadigm]

And here I almost added to platy's post that, when RM gets worked up about a pitchfork review, they do so by going about very loudly declaring how little they care about pitchfork and its review.

Boy would I have had egg on my face!

[Norah]

Positive or negative, pitchfork reviews are usually pretty well written and have at least some thoughtful take on the subject. I look forward to them.

Really? You literally look forward to the next Pitchfork review even before the fact?

I look forward to reading them for albums I'm interested in. What's wrong with that?

Nothing at all, sorry; my tongue was firmly in my cheek. I just don't find myself looking forward to reviews from particular sites. But then I don't really follow review sites. I really do like good review-writing, though.

I do the same thing with the onion's AV Club for tv shows. I really like their writing so I look forward to reading their episode reviews after watching the new episode of most shows I watch.

[Jorge]

"Pitchfork" isn't one hivemind, guys.

I don't visit there unless I'm looking for a specific review or feature but they have different writers with a variety of views and opinions.

They guy who wrote the Lightning Bolt review is clearly a Pearl Jam fan, it's hardly a hatchet piece.

They're great to follow on Twitter, too. Lots of good new music. Some crap.

[Birds in Hell]

Positive or negative, pitchfork reviews are usually pretty well written and have at least some thoughtful take on the subject. I look forward to them.

Really? You literally look forward to the next Pitchfork review even before the fact?

I look forward to reading them for albums I'm interested in. What's wrong with that?

Nothing at all, sorry; my tongue was firmly in my cheek. I just don't find myself looking forward to reviews from particular sites. But then I don't really follow review sites. I really do like good review-writing, though.

I do the same thing with the onion's AV Club for tv shows. I really like their writing so I look forward to reading their episode reviews after watching the new episode of most shows I watch.

Me too (but probably more the discussion in the comments than the actual reviews).

[McParadigm]

"Pitchfork" isn't one hivemind, guys.

Unless a lot has changed in recent years (the LB review suggests to me that it hasn't), it always struck me as being just sort of a collection of really entertaining "message board post" style joke delivery systems collated as album reviews. Very fun to read, most of the time.

[harmless]

Positive or negative, pitchfork reviews are usually pretty well written and have at least some thoughtful take on the subject. I look forward to them.

Really? You literally look forward to the next Pitchfork review even before the fact?

I look forward to reading them for albums I'm interested in. What's wrong with that?

Nothing at all, sorry; my tongue was firmly in my cheek. I just don't find myself looking forward to reviews from particular sites. But then I don't really follow review sites. I really do like good review-writing, though.

I do the same thing with the onion's AV Club for tv shows. I really like their writing so I look forward to reading their episode reviews after watching the new episode of most shows I watch.

The last time I actively sought TV reviews, it was for X-Files episodes. But I can't remember the last time I watched TV... we switched it off at some point this year and then just stopped bothering to turn it on again. Good decision.

[Tuolumne]

Positive or negative, pitchfork reviews are usually pretty well written and have at least some thoughtful take on the subject. I look forward to them.

There's no way I could ever agree with this. Pitchfork's writing is just awful. I can barely get through half of any of them. So much is just nonsensical gibberish that can't hold my attention at all. On top of that, there's so much fluff in the form of like 3 intro paragraph's of "context" before they even go into the album.

[Birds in Hell]

Positive or negative, pitchfork reviews are usually pretty well written and have at least some thoughtful take on the subject. I look forward to them.

Really? You literally look forward to the next Pitchfork review even before the fact?

I look forward to reading them for albums I'm interested in. What's wrong with that?

Nothing at all, sorry; my tongue was firmly in my cheek. I just don't find myself looking forward to reviews from particular sites. But then I don't really follow review sites. I really do like good review-writing, though.

I do the same thing with the onion's AV Club for tv shows. I really like their writing so I look forward to reading their episode reviews after watching the new episode of most shows I watch.

The last time I actively sought TV reviews, it was for X-Files episodes. But I can't remember the last time I watched TV... we switched it off at some point this year and then just stopped bothering to turn it on again. Good decision.

Oh, I never watch TV shows I like when they're actually on TV; I wouldn't even know when they're on.

[stip]

he's implying that the 5 is a generous score for the album, because he doesn't think it's good.

No, I'm not.

Haven't I been pretty complimentary to the album generally? I think it's an improvement on Backspacer at least.

okay, my comment is withdrawn. I apologize

[Jorge]

On music reviews, and art critics in general
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/19/magaz ... .html?_r=0

[McParadigm]

So are RMer sloooooow readers? Or are they all sitting around waiting for someone else to comment on that piece in a way that tells them what it said without having to read it themselves?

[pnjguy]

"mama said pitchfork is the DEVIL!"

[harmless]

Positive or negative, pitchfork reviews are usually pretty well written and have at least some thoughtful take on the subject. I look forward to them.

There's no way I could ever agree with this. Pitchfork's writing is just awful. I can barely get through half of any of them. So much is just nonsensical gibberish that can't hold my attention at all. On top of that, there's so much fluff in the form of like 3 intro paragraph's of "context" before they even go into the album.

It just sounds like you have a short attention span. Three paragraphs is not many paragraphs.

[super nintendo chalmers]

Dusted has great reviews, as do the blogs Yellow Green Red and Still-Single.

All I really need at least.

[Tuolumne]

Positive or negative, pitchfork reviews are usually pretty well written and have at least some thoughtful take on the subject. I look forward to them.

There's no way I could ever agree with this. Pitchfork's writing is just awful. I can barely get through half of any of them. So much is just nonsensical gibberish that can't hold my attention at all. On top of that, there's so much fluff in the form of like 3 intro paragraph's of "context" before they even go into the album.

It just sounds like you have a short attention span. Three paragraphs is not many paragraphs.

Not when it's three paragraphs of crap-ola. It is alot of paragraphs when it's bias dressed up as "context". I want to know what images and feelings the music evokes from the listener. I don't like to read "context" injected snarkily into the actual analysis of the songs themselves, much less in such an uneloquent and sloppy way. The hate Pitchfork gets is well deserved.

[delanoche]

I generally don't care for Pitchfork's reviews, as their writers often seem awfully interested in making sure we know that either a) they are better than the music they are reviewing, or b) anyone who does not like this 9.3 album is objectively an idiot.

That said, while I think their 5.0 is a bit low for Lightning Bolt (compared to what they've given other albums they've seemingly liked less), I thought it was probably the best actual review I've read on there in a long time.

[harmless]

Positive or negative, pitchfork reviews are usually pretty well written and have at least some thoughtful take on the subject. I look forward to them.

There's no way I could ever agree with this. Pitchfork's writing is just awful. I can barely get through half of any of them. So much is just nonsensical gibberish that can't hold my attention at all. On top of that, there's so much fluff in the form of like 3 intro paragraph's of "context" before they even go into the album.

It just sounds like you have a short attention span. Three paragraphs is not many paragraphs.

Not when it's three paragraphs of crap-ola. It is alot of paragraphs when it's bias dressed up as "context". I want to know what images and feelings the music evokes from the listener. I don't like to read "context" injected snarkily into the actual analysis of the songs themselves, much less in such an uneloquent and sloppy way. The hate Pitchfork gets is well deserved.

Images and feelings again? We've already done that. Name me a single writer of any review who doesn't write with a bias. Everything has a bias. You'd be OK with a writer who has the same biases as you, I'm guessing. In the context of Pearl Jam, they don't. But it's your own bias preventing you from being OK with that.

[harmless]

The only people I've ever read spew hatred about Pitchfork were Pearl Jam fans.