 |
|
You are not logged in! F.A.Q Log in Register |
 |
|
 |
 Now online (1)big ...and 377 guests Last 5 registered Oplandisks nothingstar N_loop yipe foxtrotromeo Browse members... |
 |
Members 8025Messages 2614130 Today 2 Topics 127542 |
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Does anyone here read online music reviews from sites like allusic.com, pitchforkmedia, almostcool.org etc.? I know themilkfactory and absorb are pretty decent. I just finished reading allmusic's review of Confield, and here is my synopsis: "Ewwey, the music is nasty, makes my ears feel bad, has no beat, doesn't sound orthodox...wah wah wah. If I don't like it in 5 minutes it sucks...wah..wah....wah" Anyone agree that there are those that shouldn't be qualified to give reviews? Rolling Stone doesn't even take the time to understand electronica never mind give it judgement. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
go read rolling stones review of Drukqs, then read the reviews regular people made. Then go to amazon.com and look up the book the reviewer wrote and read the reviews of it, it's hilarious. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I think the reviews on almostcool.org are very good... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i agree with AMG 75% of the time so that's the one i trust the most. pitchfork is really, really off the mark most of the times. they are obsessed with fitting into or bucking trends; nothing else, like music, matters to them. the milk factory and absorb are great. brainwashed is also great. the only music magazine i actually read and trust for reviews is urb. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
most reviewers suck because it isnt your opinion. its as simple as that. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
it is |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Everytime I read reviews all the good songs are the bad songs and all the bad songs are the good songs! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
That WAS funny. Thanks for cheering me up. Pat Blashill really is a dumbass reviewer with a job that he doesn't deserve. :) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I laughed at that hard enough a year ago that I still remember today. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
to say that pitchfork is the worst out of that bunch is a little bewildering... sure, i've disagreed with them on a lot of electronic reviews lately, and they have a bit of a silly double standard when it comes to electronic music... but they still host some of the finest music reviewers i have read anywhere... Mark Richardson is one of the few reviewers i have ever read anywhere that has a strong enough knowledge of avant-electronic to understand how to begin to review it... the dude from almostcool seems like an amateur fanboy... allmusic is a great resource but the reviews are hit and miss... review sites i visit on a regular basis are: absorb.org fakejazz.com (if you want obscure rock, this is THE place) popmatters.com dustedmagazine.com themilkfactory and metacritic.com, a very cool site which compiles reviews from multiple sources and gives an album a net score... it may not deal with the most obscure fare... but it is an interesting cultural barometer... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I like absorb. their review of Cassetteboy's "The Parker Tapes" was great. normally I hate how journalists write reviews - endless metaphores. JUST WRITE WHAT YOU THINK! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i think some of the finest reviews i've ever read say very little about the album itself (check out pitchfork's review of St. Anger, or the Marshall Mathers LP)... to simply say "it's good" or "it's bad"... doesn't help the listener synthesize what they are listening to the way long narrative lines inspired by the music do... i like the idea of the review being an artistic response or echo to the music itself... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
it's the worst out of the sites i actually check. the fact that i'll still READ pitchfork, even if rarely, is a compliment. i'm critical of them, because they really deserve harsh criticism, but it comes down to their being just fair enough that i'll still read some of the reviews that most interest/pertain to me. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
some of their reviewers are completely off their rocker... but i can still appreciate that they approach reviewing music from a different angle than the run-of-the-mill reviewer.... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
it's not that avant garde, they just make a big fuss about it cos they think they're being original. and sure they do cover a lot of great music, but they never seem to "get it" and spend too much time pretending they do, and slobbering all over it, or not bothering, and just think of the cleverest way to put it down for being too different from what they wanted, expected, and can process. basically the pitchfork reviewers, with few exceptions, are complete and utter assholes who can't be bothered to understand music as it interferes with their campaign to appear cool and "in the scene." just about every album i've loved over the last 4 years has been bagged on by their reviewers, and those that haven't i often wonder if they are being for real or not. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
oh I don't mean just say "it's good" or "it sucks" - I mean actually saying what you mean. NOT trying to turn your review into short fiction. it always feels like the reviewer is trying to hide something - style over substance. I'm not a moron - they don't have to artificially sweeten their reviews for me, they don't have to convince me they think they're smart guys. btw, I really dislike pitchfork too. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i'll take those few exceptions every time: mark martelli mark richardson andy beta paul cooper dominique leone (actually i really dislike her... but she has an understanding of japanese noise music that goes beyond what anyone else can claim) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I'll do reviews for xltronic the same way I do reviews for the tracks on the board if people are keen on that... I think I'd do a hell of a lot better job than most of the reviews I've read |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Yes Sanguine. I'm confident you could do a better job. As an xltronic member, you obviously have great taste in music. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i don't trust reviews of anything that often. if you notice, most musicians are far more understanding of musical works than most critics. i think it's honestly something to do with mental wavelengths. most IDM artists are on a particular wavelength, and it takes a particular type of critic to understand where they're coming from. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i think part of is, some magazines have so many cds they review each month that they don't have to sort through them and pick out who should listen to what. So often, the cd will land on the desk of a guy who grew up on 70s punk and maybe some metal - they listen to it, and obviously despise it, and obviously write a poor review. I think that's the case with some publications, I would think... but pat blashill is a dumbass, indeed. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
that's exactly it... when Dominique Leone explains in the Draft 7:30 review that she didn't really understand what was going on on Confield... it kind of makes you raise your eyebrow... and lose interest in anything she has to say that follows... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Messageboard index
|
|||||||||
