pitchfork gives SBS a 5.2

[Synthesizer Patel]

After having finally pulled it together enough to actually read this review, I can't say I find a whole lot of fault with his analysis, despite the fact that I clearly like the album more than the reviewer does. I would have substituted "Handshake Drugs" for "At Least That's What You Said" for the soft-rock-plus-solos comparison, and he's probably projecting his expectations a little, but overall I thought it was pretty accurate.

 

yeah, same here.

[bjorn_skurj]

well, i for one, am encouraged by this. see, i've always wanted to be a rock writer, but i assumed i would have to know something about music. turns out, that's not true.

The key to becoming a rock writer is to be friends with whoever is in charge of giving out rock writing assignments. I cannot state this emphatically enough.

[caliber66]

I love the foaming at the mouth that goes on when the Eagles arePitchfork is mentioned. The bandwebsite everyone loves to hate.

[WaronWar]

Why does Rob Mitchum hate Wilco?

 

Seriously; his review of "Ghost is Born" was terrible, and now this.

 

As made clear in AGIB reivew and this one, he wants another YHF or experimental record. I think Glenn and Nels are fantastic in SBS because they are being actual musicans. They are usually the skills needed to serve the song rather than doing as they please.

[tongue-tied]

WORST 5 RATINGS OF ABOVE LIST (EXLUDING ZAIREEKA):

Sky Blue Sky - 5.2

Mermaid Ave. Two - 6.3

A Ghost is Born - 6.6

At War With the Mystics - 6.7

(tie) Being There & You In Reverse & This is Long Drive - 6.8

 

why exlude Zaireeka? The idea that an album deserves some sort of numerical assignment is baloney, but Being There and Ghost seem shortchanged to me, but not as much as Zaireeka! I don't know about Sky Blue Sky, I could tell you tomorrow maybe. It seems that some people who look down on Pitchfork's credibility are awfully invested emotionally in their ratings.

[mathew]

I read pitchfork for news and they usualy have great albums in there best new music section but what i find discouraging is the trend of

unknown artist getting great reviews that they might deserve while established artist like Wilco, Bjork, Ryan Adams w.e can be so easily bashed and i dont mean

not geting the review that i think they deserve but instead i am talking about the 5 or 6 ratings that seem to be almost random in there relevence to the review or the music.

 

My conspirency theory is that one pitchfork loves taking credit in making bands succesful i.e arcade fire, clap your hands sya yeah , and also make money off these artist

as they recive a percentage of the profits that insound makes which is a link under evrey pitchfork review. Pitchfork will not make money from wilco by giivng them a great review

wilcos fans have acces to wilcos albums. I do not realy understand there process of handing out certain albums to certain writers i mean do a bunch of writers review an album and

then they strategicaly pick the one they will post Rob Mitchums review of a ghost is born was a joke as he did not review the songs but instead the direction of the band and showed his feelings in a tantrum like manner and the sky blue sky review is the same. I am not dissapointed with the review because I couldnt care less( probaly could) but I am

dissapointed that the review was wasted because reviews can allow people to look deep into an album when they dont hear something there, people are patient with albums that get good reviews and eventualy find something great i just hope pithcfork readers are patient with Sky blue SKy because they will be missing out.

 

P.S glen and nels work on the album is intensly great the band chemistry is the best its ever been, Jeff is still a legitimate modern poet and jorgenson and johnny are jaming in the background listen for it. or dont w.e. oh yea and pat im sure he did something to.

[Elixir Sue]

which is fine, but Mitchum and others like him seem to indicate that the problem they have w/ the album is Wilco's fault, not their own preconceived notions/expectations

 

It's Wilco's fault that the album sounds the way it does.

 

Plenty of people seem to enjoy it; I'm just not one of them.

[jakobnicholas]

why exlude Zaireeka? The idea that an album deserves some sort of numerical assignment is baloney, but Being There and Ghost seem shortchanged to me, but not as much as Zaireeka! I don't know about Sky Blue Sky, I could tell you tomorrow maybe. It seems that some people who look down on Pitchfork's credibility are awfully invested emotionally in their ratings.

 

 

I left off Zaireeka because giving an album a 0.0 is silly and ridiculous....Pitchfork at its cutest.

 

I love Pitchfork. Seriously. I love the news and they often point me in the direction of interesting bands.

 

I just find it interesting that Wilco, one of the best bands going in America, gets some of the poorest ratings from a website that prides itself on sorting out for us dumb-folk what good music is.

 

Sky Blue Sky may not deserve a 10 or 9 or 8....

 

But a 5.2?

 

Yeah.....OK.

[uncle wilco]

Why, you wanna tell me how to live my life?

Who, are you to tell me if it

[JazzCat]

I don't understand why they assign a guy to review a Wilco album who doesn't appear to like Wilco at all. Even their review of Yankee Hotel Foxtrot was so full of hipster attitude that it almost made me forget why I liked it in the first plaace. Pitchfork seems to be more obsessed with whats current and ground breaking (or at least what they tell us is current and groundbreaking), that they have lost all sense of the things that really make music great. The people the write these reviews come across as such losers to me. Every rewiew turns into a contest in who can make the obscure reference of the day.

 

By the way, the average rating is a 6.7.

 

Pitchfork deserves credit for being a great source of music news and for getting the word out about great bands like the Arcade Fire, but a lot of there reviews (especially of more well known artist) are often more concerned with a bands history and image then what music they are making.

[Beltmann]

I always see Pitchfork reviews as well-written personal opinions by people who know a lot about music, not as objective reviews.

Knowledge, background, and taste are all key to worthwhile criticism, of course, but objectivity in criticism of the arts is, in my view, neither possible nor desirable. If the arts are a record of the human condition -- and I think they are -- then critics, when they deny their personality, experiences, and biases, are denying the very things that qualify them to discuss the arts. I'm reminded of Pauline Kael, who regularly chastised her colleagues for their "saphead objectivity." For me, all of the most interesting critics have a POV, an agenda, a philosophy--it's that personal, subjective framework that, at least partially, allows them to offer interesting perceptions about a work. (It's also what forces us to seek critics who share our general sensibility.)

 

"Objectivity" implies that there's a single correct way to interact with a specific work, and that's a notion that strikes me as plain wrong.

[Sir Stewart]

I was worried they'd give it a 5.1

[Saint Genevieve]

After having finally pulled it together enough to actually read this review, I can't say I find a whole lot of fault with his analysis, despite the fact that I clearly like the album more than the reviewer does. I would have substituted "Handshake Drugs" for "At Least That's What You Said" for the soft-rock-plus-solos comparison, and he's probably projecting his expectations a little, but overall I thought it was pretty accurate.

 

Yeah, for once I actually agree with a Pitchfork review - I even agree about the (very few) stand-out tracks.

 

Funny, 'cos I didn't agree with his assessment of AGIB at all.

[echo]

excellent post Beltmann...very well stated.

[caliber66]

"Objectivity" implies that there's a single correct way to interact with a specific work, and that's a notion that strikes me as plain wrong.

[Atticus]

the way I hoped I would listen to and review music as a music critic (back when I was young and actually thought that might be an available and lucrative career for me ), was to ask myself:

 

"even if this genre, band, artist is not my cup of tea, can I suspend favoritism in order to ask whether I get what this band/artist was trying to accomplish, and did they (i) accomplish it, (ii) just dial it in, or (iii) flat never had a chance to begin with?"

 

or something like that.

[mastershake]

pitchfork is irrelevant these days, who cares. they give certain ratings to certain albums just to boost the number of hits to their site so they can get more advertising money. a bad review gets more hits than a good review.

[radiokills]

the score is accurate, the actual review is mislead.

[brettac1]

If you're pissed about the review (I sort of am, even though I expected it), just send an e-mail to Mitchum. Chances are he'll get back to you and probably explain in further depth what he didn't like about the album. I have e-mailed back and forth with a few Pitchfork writers with good results in the past.

 

In all, though, I don't see what the big deal is. Music is a subjective thing, some people like SBS (I'm in this group), some people don't. There aren't very many things that are universally lauded - there are people that hate the Beatles and Dylan.

[uncle wilco]

pitchfork rates a 0.291 with me anyway. if it wasn't for VC, i wouldn't even be aware of it's existence.

 

that's how un-hip i am.

 

it's interesting to see what clever things people come up with to one-up the last review.

 

it's a pissing contest. and a weather channel mention in rolling stone AND pitchfork is a bit curious. someone may have been cheating on their homework. i'll bet it was the slacker from pitchfork, although his line was funnier. and even though rolling stone has been irrelevent for decades, i did enjoy their take on sbs.

[Analogman]

pitchfork rates a 0.291 with me anyway. if it wasn't for VC, i wouldn't even be aware of it's existence.

 

that's how un-hip i am.

 

it's interesting to see what clever things people come up with to one-up the last review.

 

it's a pissing contest. and a weather channel mention in rolling stone AND pitchfork is a bit curious. someone may have been cheating on their homework. i'll bet it was the slacker from pitchfork, although his line was funnier. and even though rolling stone has been irrelevent for decades, i did enjoy their take on sbs.

 

Hey now, hey now

 

don't dream it'$ over

[uncle wilco]

Hey now, hey now

 

don't dream it'$ over

 

neil finn could kick don henley's fat bloated warbling ass.

[Analogman]

neil finn could kick don henley's fat bloated warbling ass.

 

 

Faded Celebrity Death Match?

[bobbob1313]

Guys, I am seriously so mad at Pitchfork. I can't believe this.

[uncle wilco]

Faded Celebrity Death Match?

if the music still speaks to you, does it really matter what state the ole' career is in? that shit doesn't matter to me.

 

i like a well crafted pop song and i was never able to see neil in the last go-round. i'm sure they aren't gonna be charging eagle price-gouging tickets either. plus, the uptown in k.c. is a terrific venue.