froggie Posted May 11, 2009 Share Posted May 11, 2009 First CD I bought with my own money - Wilson Phillips (s/t) you mean the one with Hold On?. Brians kids with Chynna Phillips?.... great album! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
jff Posted May 11, 2009 Share Posted May 11, 2009 Among my first purchases as a kid: Europe, Mister Mister, Pseudo Echo, and, um, Bruce Willis. My first albums I owned were a K-tel Beach Boys LP, the Eagle's "The Long Run" and several Kiss albums. All gifts from adults, and all LPs. The first music I bought with my own money (cassettes) were Van Halen 1984 and the first David Lee Roth release. Then I got Van Halen 1 and didn't buy any other music for three or four years. Those years were spent being shuttled around by my dad listening to the Big Chill soundtrack, and a little bit odf Neil Diamond. Eventually, I got a casette with Dead Kennedy's "Fresh Fruit for Rotting Vegetables" on one side and Circle Jerks "Wonderful" on the other. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ih8music Posted May 11, 2009 Share Posted May 11, 2009 I think the first albums I bought myself were Prince's 1999 and Bruuuce's Born in the USA. Haven't listened to either one in 20+ ys, but I actually wouldn't mind right now... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
mfwahl Posted May 11, 2009 Share Posted May 11, 2009 My early music catalog (5 yrs old) included Grateful Dead - In The Dark, Vanilla Ice - To The Extreme, The Big Chill OST, Michael Jackson - Bad, and some MC Hammer, Fat Boyz, and Kool Moe Dee. WTF? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
mpolak21 Posted June 5, 2009 Share Posted June 5, 2009 Wilcoarchive guru Owl got his hands on an advanced copy of pitchfork's review, read all about it here: Breaking: Pitchfork to Give Wilco’s New Album a 5.8 --Mike Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ih8music Posted June 5, 2009 Share Posted June 5, 2009 Wilcoarchive guru Owl got his hands on an advanced copy of pitchfork's review, read all about it here: Breaking: Pitchfork to Give Wilco’s New Album a 5.8 --Mike The Onion couldn't have written it any better. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
jlb1705 Posted June 5, 2009 Share Posted June 5, 2009 My early music catalog (5 yrs old) included Grateful Dead - In The Dark, Vanilla Ice - To The Extreme, The Big Chill OST, Michael Jackson - Bad, and some MC Hammer, Fat Boyz, and Kool Moe Dee. WTF? That stuff was dope when you listened to it on a Teddy Ruxpin like I did. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
byrd9999 Posted June 5, 2009 Share Posted June 5, 2009 I like Pitchfork. Try reading the articles section. They're usually interesting and well-written. I also like Dandy Warhols, which Pitchfork take delight in bashing, but that doesn't stop me liking either of them. Don't take it so personally. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Theremin Posted June 6, 2009 Share Posted June 6, 2009 Wilcoarchive guru Owl got his hands on an advanced copy of pitchfork's review, read all about it here: Breaking: Pitchfork to Give Wilco’s New Album a 5.8 --MikeGreat, just because of that they'll give it an even lower rating. Same thing happened to Mogwai last year. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Shakespeare In The Alley Posted June 6, 2009 Share Posted June 6, 2009 Why do people take reviews so seriously? Curiosity leads me to read Pitchfork reviews of albums I like, but doing so never affects my enjoyment of the album. Especially since Pitchfork doesn't seem to know how to actually review albums, instead of merely discussing band images and blog hype. If you disagree with the review, then ignore it. It's so simple. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Al.Ducts Posted June 6, 2009 Share Posted June 6, 2009 "Wilco challenge the establishment to an existential gunfight of the weltanschauung, fought with paper bullets that have been cried on by a clown." Hilarious. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
mpolak21 Posted June 29, 2009 Share Posted June 29, 2009 And Pitchfork gives it a.... 7.3. --Mike Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Shakespeare In The Alley Posted June 29, 2009 Share Posted June 29, 2009 That was actually a pretty well-written review, except for that fact that they seem to be ignoring the fact that they were the ones calling SBS "dad-rock." Considering how the bashed SBS, it was strange to see it mentioned in a positive light, but all told, it was a rather fair review. I probably would give it about a 7.3 myself. I'm shocked, really. I expected them to give it a 3.something, and write a review that had nothing to do with the actual music, instead focusing on the band's image. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bleedorange Posted June 29, 2009 Share Posted June 29, 2009 I actually thought they hit the nail on the head with that review. I personally like the album better than that, but the review echoes my sentiments about the album exactly. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
So Long Posted June 29, 2009 Share Posted June 29, 2009 I'm happy with the album. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
mpolak21 Posted June 29, 2009 Share Posted June 29, 2009 The album isn't better than A Ghost is Born and shouldn't have gotten a higher rating, but Pitchfork was way off on it's review of AGIB, so I guess 7.3 is about right. --Mike Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Tanner Posted June 29, 2009 Share Posted June 29, 2009 "but the record is more comfortable than exciting or interesting" "Being a chilled-out grown-up may not always be exciting, but it's certainly something to admire and respect." I've never really gotten this complaint at all. To me, exciting is when I find 5 bucks in my pocket. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
DAngerer09 Posted June 29, 2009 Share Posted June 29, 2009 That review was spot on, to me. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Jesusetc84 Posted June 29, 2009 Share Posted June 29, 2009 "Miraculously, the disparate strains within the group's catalog have somehow flowed together into a unifying aesthetic, largely due to Jeff Tweedy's distinctive singing voice and remarkable consistency as a songwriter." This is basically what I've been saying for a long time. The Wilco sound is all based around Tweedy's voice and melodic style. Other than that, there really isn't one. I'm kind of disappointed with the score, but I knew it wasn't going to do that well. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
solace Posted June 29, 2009 Share Posted June 29, 2009 honestly that's about what i'd give it myself.not usually a big fan of Matthew's writing, but not a bad review. i definitely agree that it's a very pleasant and enjoyable record, but with little fanfare/excitement either. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
jlb1705 Posted June 29, 2009 Share Posted June 29, 2009 That was actually a pretty well-written review, except for that fact that they seem to be ignoring the fact that they were the ones calling SBS "dad-rock." Considering how the bashed SBS, it was strange to see it mentioned in a positive light, but all told, it was a rather fair review. I probably would give it about a 7.3 myself. I'm shocked, really. I expected them to give it a 3.something, and write a review that had nothing to do with the actual music, instead focusing on the band's image. I think the SBS review was just a bad one. This one was reviewed by a different critic - and while he did exactly what some people have complained about by carrying on a bit of a dialogue with the previous critic, I think most of us will let it slide in this case. On the whole, Pitchfork is pretty good to Wilco. "Miraculously, the disparate strains within the group's catalog have somehow flowed together into a unifying aesthetic, largely due to Jeff Tweedy's distinctive singing voice and remarkable consistency as a songwriter." This is basically what I've been saying for a long time. The Wilco sound is all based around Tweedy's voice and melodic style. Other than that, there really isn't one. I'm kind of disappointed with the score, but I knew it wasn't going to do that well. I think 7.3 is about right. Like another poster said, I don't think it would've been right for this one to get a higher score than AGIB. 7.3 is a good solid score for an album on Pitchfork. They use their entire scale (and then some), unlike publications like Rolling Stone who give pretty much every album 3-1/2 stars. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
random painted highway Posted June 29, 2009 Share Posted June 29, 2009 I also concur that this review was spot-on. The AGiB review's central thesis was "This isn't YHF!" and SBS's was "This is Dad Rock, and Dad Rock is very bad." Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Jesusetc84 Posted June 29, 2009 Share Posted June 29, 2009 meh. To me, SBS is like a 7.0, and this is definitely a far stronger album than SBS. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
JerseyMike Posted June 29, 2009 Share Posted June 29, 2009 Why do people take reviews so seriously? I always wonder the same thing. You don't need specialized training to be a rock critic, they do the same thing we all do: sit a home and give a record a listen a few times and then they write about it. Their opinion is no more or less qualified than anybody else. On the other hand, I have been on the other side of that and when my first record came outmy very first review, which was quite favorable, had suggested that I resorted to a few "melodramatic cliches" and I nearly cried! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Gobias Industries Posted June 29, 2009 Share Posted June 29, 2009 The reviewer seems pretty sure that Tweedy used to consciously write to "challenge the listener." I'm not really sure that is what Tweeedy thought when he sat down to write any of those records: "Hey, let's challenge these folks, sweet. And how can I do that?" Hm...doubtful. Writers just write, there's no "pandering" or "subversion" to it, at least as far as I know. But overall it's actually the most level-headed review I've seen from Pitchfork in a long-ass time. 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.