guitman Posted July 10, 2007 Share Posted July 10, 2007 Eh, my topic title and description say exactly what I mean. I feel like Rob Mitchum has done his research. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
street spirit Posted July 10, 2007 Share Posted July 10, 2007 yeah, i sort of agreed as well. Not with everything, but about the general sentiments. Mitchum tends to be one of the more enjoyable scribes over at PFork... and I'm not just saying that because we're on the same page about this one. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
sidewiththeseeds Posted July 10, 2007 Share Posted July 10, 2007 i agree with everything except for the score Quote Link to post Share on other sites
quarter23cd Posted July 10, 2007 Share Posted July 10, 2007 i agree with everything except for the scoreC'mon, that was a pretty decent record... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
you ever seen a ghost? Posted July 10, 2007 Share Posted July 10, 2007 whatever. i agree with this one: http://www.popmatters.com/pm/music/reviews...o-sky-blue-sky/ -justin Quote Link to post Share on other sites
endlessly Posted July 10, 2007 Share Posted July 10, 2007 Loved Popmatters' review. Here's another good one, though not nearly as detailed... more like a raving fan defending Wilco, haha. http://www.transformonline.com/music/reviews/006448.php Quote Link to post Share on other sites
random painted highway Posted July 10, 2007 Share Posted July 10, 2007 According to Rob Mitchum: Apparently, SBS is weak because the titles are simplistic? A Ghost is born is bad because it doesn't remind him of Chicago enough. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TCP Posted July 11, 2007 Share Posted July 11, 2007 Rob Mitchum is also the person that gave Chicago by Sufjan Stevens three stars because it mentioned New York. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
street spirit Posted July 11, 2007 Share Posted July 11, 2007 According to Rob Mitchum: Apparently, SBS is weak because the titles are simplistic? A Ghost is born is bad because it doesn't remind him of Chicago enough. Way to read the interview and then pull something out of context..."The lackluster spirit even pervades the song titles" Feel free to disagree with him, but taking that sentence and distilling the entire interview down to "SBS is weak because the song titles are simplistic" is far more disingenuous then the actual review. Similar thing for the AGiB review. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
augurus Posted July 11, 2007 Share Posted July 11, 2007 I personally feel SBS is weak because it's physical: anyone could easily break a CD/vinyl in half and destroy it.I place all fault on Jeff Tweedy and no one else for pressing music into a fragile medium.Even mp3s are weak, man. They're like, so vulnerable to the delete button. -> Quote Link to post Share on other sites
welch79 Posted July 12, 2007 Share Posted July 12, 2007 just read the pitchfork review for spoon's new one and while i was over there i re-read this one b/c of this thread. yeah, i still can't say i like this review. it's just damn derogatory in tone, it seems, too much so. i mean, if i would have read that review solely and was new to wilco, i probably would not have bought the album, and i don't like that. now, i know that one critic's take on something shouldn't sway your opinion, inevitably, it does happen. overall, it's inordinately negative. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
street spirit Posted July 12, 2007 Share Posted July 12, 2007 if i would have read that review solely and was new to wilco, i probably would not have bought the album, and i don't like that. the job of a reviewer is to give you his/her opinion of it. it's not free advertising. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
kissingthelipless Posted July 12, 2007 Share Posted July 12, 2007 i would give the pitchfork review more credit if it didn't seem as if any other band other than wilco had made sky blue sky they would have given it at least 7.0 he just seems to be so prejudice in what he thinks should be coming from the album Quote Link to post Share on other sites
quarter23cd Posted July 12, 2007 Share Posted July 12, 2007 if i would have read that review solely and was new to wilco, i probably would not have bought the album, and i don't like that. now, i know that one critic's take on something shouldn't sway your opinion, inevitably, it does happen. overall, it's inordinately negative.For better or for worse, part of Pfork's shtick is that they seem to assume the reader possesses a certain level of familiarity with a lot of the bands they write about, so they can write stuff with sort of a knowing smirk. I think they assume that very few people are coming to their website that don't know anything about Wilco, because if you've been following the indie-rock press at all this decade, Wilco has been almost universally fawned upon. So, I frequently get the feeling that Pf gets a kick out of being kind of contrarian about it. I dunno. Doesn't really bother me. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
radiokills Posted July 12, 2007 Share Posted July 12, 2007 just because somebody reviewed SBS well doesnt automatically make it a good review. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Sir Stewart Posted July 12, 2007 Share Posted July 12, 2007 just because somebody reviewed SBS well doesnt automatically make it a good review.You make less sense every single time you post. I love it. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
radiokills Posted July 12, 2007 Share Posted July 12, 2007 actually that makes perfect sense. lots of people were posting links to reviews of Sky Blue Sky that said it was a good album. just because the review liked the album doesnt make the review overall GOOD, or well written. stop trying to insult me or whatever and just go away. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Sir Stewart Posted July 12, 2007 Share Posted July 12, 2007 actually that makes perfect sense. lots of people were posting links to reviews of Sky Blue Sky that said it was a good album. just because the review liked the album doesnt make the review overall GOOD, or well written.THAT makes sense. Which makes me disappointed. You had a legendary streak going! Okay, I'm done. No more personal attacks. I'm sorry. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Jules Posted July 12, 2007 Share Posted July 12, 2007 yea but nobody loves you Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Sir Stewart Posted July 12, 2007 Share Posted July 12, 2007 Did I really say sorry to 65days? WTF? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Atticus Posted July 12, 2007 Share Posted July 12, 2007 just because somebody reviewed SBS well doesnt automatically make it a good review. unless I am misinterpreting you used the term "well," which in this context is an adverb, describing the manner in which "somebody" reviewed SBS. If this somebody reviewed the album well, then logic follows that it is a good review. However, if somebody merely indicated through his or her review that SBS is good, which is an adjective, it does not necessarily follow that it is a good review. and wilco doesn't care for the eskimos either Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Jules Posted July 12, 2007 Share Posted July 12, 2007 Did I really say sorry to 65days? WTF?Yes, yes you did. Don't worry, though, Rafael Nadal still looks like Trogdor the Burninator. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Sir Stewart Posted July 12, 2007 Share Posted July 12, 2007 Don't worry, though, Rafael Nadal still looks like Trogdor the Burninator.That will haunt me to the end of the web. 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.