brianjeremy Posted May 15, 2007 Share Posted May 15, 2007 I agree with PF's review. I thought the eagles comment was golden. C'mon it's funny, you know it is. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Analogman Posted May 15, 2007 Share Posted May 15, 2007 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. I know. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Sir Stewart Posted May 15, 2007 Share Posted May 15, 2007 I agree with PF's review. I thought the eagles comment was golden. C'mon it's funny, you know it is.What Eagles comment? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Chendizzle Posted May 15, 2007 Share Posted May 15, 2007 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. Dude, not all of the reviews were written by the same person, Pfork doesn't do the CMG thing and do a collective rating or anything. 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.qft. 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.Umm... It is so fucking fun to read people react to unflattering Wilco reviews. Someone get me some popcorn. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
brianjeremy Posted May 15, 2007 Share Posted May 15, 2007 What Eagles comment? Sorry, it wasn't from PF it was from Entertainment Weekly: This may be the best Eagles album the Eagles never made. "God, I hate the fucking Eagles" - The Dude. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TCP Posted May 15, 2007 Share Posted May 15, 2007 I feel torn between my favorite band and my home page. It's like when you're a kid and your parents get seperted. I don't know who to side with! Oh wait, yes I do; Wilco. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
noyes Posted May 15, 2007 Share Posted May 15, 2007 for those that love the album, as i do, and think the review is bullshit,what can you do?pitchfork should not be taken seriously.they're not the be-all and end-all. that's what keeps them going,peoples general hatred/love for them.people taking them way too seriously then they probably should. i personally think that if a website that reviews music is getting most of its acclaim by its outrageous and unfair ratings,then it's doing both a good job, in the business, money money money sense, and a bad job, in the only sense that should matter. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
solace Posted May 15, 2007 Share Posted May 15, 2007 fwiw, the reviewer doesn't give out the score, or if he/she does, Schreiber has the final say lastly, whether you agree or disagree w/ their review/score of SBS, it's been pointed out plenty in this thread, and we can all agree, that Pfork has often missed the mark w/ Wilco in the past (Being There for one) Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Dude Posted May 15, 2007 Share Posted May 15, 2007 Sorry, it wasn't from PF it was from Entertainment Weekly:"God, I hate the fucking Eagles" - The Dude.The Eagles suck, man. The fact that Wilco's gone from being compared to the White Album / Velvet Underground / The Band / Beach Boys / Dylan to being compared to the EAGLES... Wow, what a fall from grace that is. Why is everyone so happy to settle for something less? This is arguably the most important rock lyricist of the past 10 years and he's gone from writing beautiful poetry like "Are there really ones like these? / The ones I dream / Float like leaves / And freeze to spread skeleton wings / I passed through before I knew you" to writing songs about doing his laundry and changing his sheets. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
solace Posted May 15, 2007 Share Posted May 15, 2007 [quote name='Đ Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Dude Posted May 15, 2007 Share Posted May 15, 2007 ah yes, Wilco had absolutely zero fun/goofy songs in those early days... none whatsoever...Sure they did, but they (thankfully) matured beyond Casino Queen to making some really great musically adventurous albums that won over the vast majority of their current fan base and now they're getting compared to the Eagles and everyone seems okay with that. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
solace Posted May 15, 2007 Share Posted May 15, 2007 [quote name='Đ Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MrRain422 Posted May 15, 2007 Share Posted May 15, 2007 5.2 sounds about right to me. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Reni Posted May 15, 2007 Share Posted May 15, 2007 it's a mistake - they meant to make it 2.5 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TCP Posted May 15, 2007 Share Posted May 15, 2007 [quote name='Đ Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Saint Genevieve Posted May 15, 2007 Share Posted May 15, 2007 [quote name='Đ Quote Link to post Share on other sites
aricandover Posted May 15, 2007 Share Posted May 15, 2007 [quote name='Đ Quote Link to post Share on other sites
froggie Posted May 15, 2007 Share Posted May 15, 2007 > Sure they did, but they (thankfully) matured beyond Casino Queen aint nothing wrong with that song Quote Link to post Share on other sites
You Can Be The Stone Posted May 15, 2007 Share Posted May 15, 2007 [quote name='Đ Quote Link to post Share on other sites
cryptique Posted May 15, 2007 Share Posted May 15, 2007 Wait, so we're judging artists now based on the other artists some dickhead in Entertainment Weekly decides to compare them to? Entertainment Weekly?!?? Fuck, man. I could compare the Beatles to James Blunt if I wanted, but that doesn't make the Beatles any less great or Blunt suck any less, nor is it automatically a valid comparison. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Calexico Posted May 15, 2007 Share Posted May 15, 2007 but post-YHF people have this preconceived notion of Wilco as some "weird/experimental pop" band. Which they never were and never will be. Every fucking review you read has some reference to this and you begin to wonder, has the reviewer ever even hear experimental music? Lock them in a room with something by LaMonte Young or Metal Machin Music and then ask them again how experimental Wilco are. Fucking dolts. And as for the maturing beyond Casino Queen....that is a great song from a great album. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
caliber66 Posted May 15, 2007 Share Posted May 15, 2007 And as for the maturing beyond Casino Queen....that is a great song from a great album."Casino Queen," while it's a lot of fun and a pretty damn good song, is a valid comparison point, I think, when you're talking about lyrical evolution/devolution. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MattZ Posted May 15, 2007 Share Posted May 15, 2007 I don't understand how folks can simultaneously claim that Pitchfork is irrelevant while having a cow over this 5.2 rating. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Starry Eyed Squirrel Posted May 15, 2007 Share Posted May 15, 2007 Casino Queen is awesome. There's nothing wrong with light-hearted, fun music, and Casino Queen nails it. Hey, but enough about Bitchfork.... if you haven't already read it, tinymixtapes wrote a fantastic, meaningful review of Sky Blue Sky, that should be read by all. I don't understand how folks can simultaneously claim that Pitchfork is irrelevant while having a cow over this 5.2 rating. Having a cow? No. Illustrating their irrelevancy by showing how their scoring system is severely flawed? Yes. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
caliber66 Posted May 15, 2007 Share Posted May 15, 2007 I don't understand how folks can simultaneously claim that Pitchfork is irrelevant while having a cow over this 5.2 rating. Having a cow? No. Illustrating their irrelevancy by showing how their scoring system is severely flawed? Yes.Yeah, you guys are having a cow. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.