Author Topic: Arcade Fire/Augie March  (Read 6525 times)

Re: Arcade Fire/Augie March
« Reply #15 on: September 20, 2004, 05:07:00 pm »
I would agree with what you say.
 
 They just seem to deliberately go out of their way to review albums that a vast majority of music fans could care less about. Deliberately choosing obscure albums and giving them rave reviews. Ooooh, aren't we cool?
 
 I just find popmatters a much more interesting read, mixing popular stuff with the obscure and covering a much wider variety.
 
 
   
Quote
Originally posted by redsock:
   
Quote
Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
  I can't believe people actually take Pitchfork seriously.
 
     
Quote
Originally posted by redsock:
     
Quote
Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
  Pitchfork gave it 9.7. Say no more.
Well BigYawn hasn't reviewed it yet, so the true test is yet to be told.
 
 Oh, and Rhett, stop being a prick. Just cause No Depression won't review it, don't be a baby. [/b]
[/b]
I think there are very few people on this board who would take what any site, Pitchfork or BigYawn, said about a CD literally. It is merely a suggestion. If you like the bands they are compared to, heard a strong sound clip whatever, I think most folks focus more o nwhat they know than what they read. But I for one have found many a good CD from reading a review about it, both in Pitchfork and other places.
 
 For example this thread was started when someone was curious what other folks think of a aprticular disc. He or she obviously was looking to get some mroe information before he or she made a purchase. What's wrong with that? [/b]

redsock

  • Member
  • Posts: 1893
Re: Arcade Fire/Augie March
« Reply #16 on: September 20, 2004, 05:14:00 pm »
Quote
Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
  I would agree with what you say.
 
 They just seem to deliberately go out of their way to review albums that a vast majority of music fans could care less about.
 
Well, they reviewed the Cd this person was asking about. They serve a niche. It may be a bigger niche in their mind than it really is, but a niche nonetheless. Sure they are highbrow and snarky. But would you rather they review some pop-punk band currently playing on KRoq or some avant garde noise band from Brooklyn you've never heard of? It seems to me you pick the better of two evils. Besides, I'd rather read a review about a band I don't know anything about than a band I know I don't like. I personally don't wanna read reviews built for the lowest common denominator, ie folks who only read Entertainment Weekly for their music purchases. Make me think a little if nothing else.

ggw

  • Member
  • Posts: 14237
Re: Arcade Fire/Augie March
« Reply #17 on: September 20, 2004, 05:15:00 pm »
Popmatters shouldn't be considered anything more than an information source.  99 and 44/100 of their reviews are glowingly positive.
 
 
Quote
Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
 I just find popmatters a much more interesting read, mixing popular stuff with the obscure and covering a much wider variety.
 

redsock

  • Member
  • Posts: 1893
Re: Arcade Fire/Augie March
« Reply #18 on: September 20, 2004, 05:19:00 pm »
Personally, I like meta-critic, as it compiles reviews from all over the place and gives it one final score. And they include lots of more obscure stuff too, along with the fluff.

Taster

  • Member
  • Posts: 197
Re: Arcade Fire/Augie March
« Reply #19 on: September 20, 2004, 05:21:00 pm »
Pitchfork has given glowing reviews to some albums which I bought and loved and others which I bought and hated.  I don't really have the benefit of having friends who seek out good music. So I rely on Pitchfork, Big Yawn, and this board to a great extent and buy most of my music without having heard the album first. They serve a purpose, IMO.

Re: Arcade Fire/Augie March
« Reply #20 on: September 20, 2004, 05:23:00 pm »
That's fine by me. If the information sounds interesting, I'll go and research the band and make my own judgment. The key is the variety. Pitchfork does a good job covering indie-obscure, but barely touches anything beyond their own little niche.
 
 
 
Quote
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
  Popmatters shouldn't be considered anything more than an information source.  99 and 44/100 of their reviews are glowingly positive.
 
   
Quote
Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
 I just find popmatters a much more interesting read, mixing popular stuff with the obscure and covering a much wider variety.
 
[/b]

redsock

  • Member
  • Posts: 1893
Re: Arcade Fire/Augie March
« Reply #21 on: September 20, 2004, 05:26:00 pm »
Quote
Originally posted by Taster:
  So I rely on Pitchfork,   Big Yawn , and this board to a great extent and buy most of my music without having heard the album first. They serve a purpose, IMO.
Nice one there buddy....
 
 Keep in mind that on BigYawn, Insound, Splendid Amazon and others actually let you listen to full songs or sound clips. No need to go in completely blind. Save yourself some bucks.

Re: Arcade Fire/Augie March
« Reply #22 on: September 20, 2004, 05:26:00 pm »
That sounds interesting, but I just looked up two of my favorite albums of the year, by Bobby Bare Jr. and BR549, and they're not even listed. And it's not like these albums are obscure, they've certainly been reviewed in numerous publications.
 
 
Quote
Originally posted by redsock:
  Personally, I like meta-critic, as it compiles reviews from all over the place and gives it one final score. And they include lots of more obscure stuff too, along with the fluff.

ratioci nation

  • Member
  • Posts: 4463
Re: Arcade Fire/Augie March
« Reply #23 on: September 20, 2004, 05:27:00 pm »
all from pitchfork, this took about 30 seconds to find
 
 (63%) Drive-By Truckers: The Dirty South
 [New West; 2004] Rating: 8.4 - Review by: Stephen M. Deusner
 
 (63%) Drive-By Truckers: Decoration Day
 [New West; 2003] Rating: 8.0 - Review by: Stephen Haag
 
 (27%) Patterson Hood: Killers and Stars
 [New West; 2004] Rating: 7.4 - Review by: Stephen M. Deusner
 
 (63%) Old 97's: Fight Songs
 [Elektra] Rating: 4.0 - Review by: Neil Lieberman
 
 (63%) Old 97's: Drag It Up
 [New West; 2004] Rating: 7.0 - Review by: Stephen M. Deusner
 
 (63%) Wilco: Being There
 [Reprise; 1996] Rating: 6.8 - Review by: Ryan Schreiber
 
 (63%) Billy Bragg & Wilco: Mermaid Avenue
 [Elektra; 1998] Rating: 7.8 - Review by: Aparna Mohan
 
 (63%) Wilco: Summer Teeth
 [Reprise; 1999] Rating: 9.4 - Review by: Neil Lieberman
 
 (63%) Billy Bragg & Wilco: Mermaid Avenue, Vol. II
 [Elektra; 2000] Rating: 6.3 - Review by: Ryan Kearney
 
 (63%) Wilco: Yankee Hotel Foxtrot
 [Nonesuch; 2002] Rating: 10.0 - Review by: Brent S. Sirota
 
 (63%) Wilco: A Ghost Is Born
 [Nonesuch; 2004] Rating: 6.6 - Review by: Rob Mitchum
 
 (63%) The Minus 5: Down with Wilco
 [Yep Roc; 2003] Rating: 7.3 - Review by: Rob Mitchum
 
 (27%) Uncle Tupelo: 'No Depression', 'Still Feel Gone' and 'March 16-20, 1992'
 [Rockville; 1990; 1991; 1992; r: Columbia Legacy; 2003] Rating: 6.7 / 7.0 / 8.4 - Review by: William Bowers
 
 (27%) Uncle Tupelo: 89/93: An Anthology
 [Columbia/Legacy; 2002] Rating: 7.8 - Review by: Jason Nickey
 
 (27%) Jeff Tweedy: Chelsea Walls
 [Ryko; 2002] Rating: 6.3 - Review by: Joe Tangari
 
 (27%) Jay Bennett & Edward Burch: The Palace at 4am (Part I)
 [Undertow; 2002] Rating: 5.6 - Review by: Rob Mitchum
 
 (27%) Loose Fur: Loose Fur
 [Drag City; 2003] Rating: 7.2 - Review by: Will Bryant
 
 (27%) The Autumn Defense: The Green Hour
 [Broadmoor] Rating: 5.7 - Review by: Joe Tangari
 
 (27%) The Autumn Defense: Circles
 [Arena Rock; 2003] Rating: 6.9 - Review by: Amanda Petrusich
 
 (100%) Wilco: More Like the Moon EP
 [Wilcoworld.net; 2003] Rating: 7.0 - Review by: Rob Mitchum
 
 (63%) Rhett Miller: The Instigator
 [Elektra; 2002] Rating: 6.9 - Review by: Joe Tangari

Re: Arcade Fire/Augie March
« Reply #24 on: September 20, 2004, 05:30:00 pm »
What is your point? QUOTE]Originally posted by pollard:
  all from pitchfork, this took about 30 seconds to find
 
 (63%) Drive-By Truckers: The Dirty South
 [New West; 2004] Rating: 8.4 - Review by: Stephen M. Deusner
 
 (63%) Drive-By Truckers: Decoration Day
 [New West; 2003] Rating: 8.0 - Review by: Stephen Haag
 
 (27%) Patterson Hood: Killers and Stars
 [New West; 2004] Rating: 7.4 - Review by: Stephen M. Deusner
 
 (63%) Old 97's: Fight Songs
 [Elektra] Rating: 4.0 - Review by: Neil Lieberman
 
 (63%) Old 97's: Drag It Up
 [New West; 2004] Rating: 7.0 - Review by: Stephen M. Deusner
 
 (63%) Wilco: Being There
 [Reprise; 1996] Rating: 6.8 - Review by: Ryan Schreiber
 
 (63%) Billy Bragg & Wilco: Mermaid Avenue
 [Elektra; 1998] Rating: 7.8 - Review by: Aparna Mohan
 
 (63%) Wilco: Summer Teeth
 [Reprise; 1999] Rating: 9.4 - Review by: Neil Lieberman
 
 (63%) Billy Bragg & Wilco: Mermaid Avenue, Vol. II
 [Elektra; 2000] Rating: 6.3 - Review by: Ryan Kearney
 
 (63%) Wilco: Yankee Hotel Foxtrot
 [Nonesuch; 2002] Rating: 10.0 - Review by: Brent S. Sirota
 
 (63%) Wilco: A Ghost Is Born
 [Nonesuch; 2004] Rating: 6.6 - Review by: Rob Mitchum
 
 (63%) The Minus 5: Down with Wilco
 [Yep Roc; 2003] Rating: 7.3 - Review by: Rob Mitchum
 
 (27%) Uncle Tupelo: 'No Depression', 'Still Feel Gone' and 'March 16-20, 1992'
 [Rockville; 1990; 1991; 1992; r: Columbia Legacy; 2003] Rating: 6.7 / 7.0 / 8.4 - Review by: William Bowers
 
 (27%) Uncle Tupelo: 89/93: An Anthology
 [Columbia/Legacy; 2002] Rating: 7.8 - Review by: Jason Nickey
 
 (27%) Jeff Tweedy: Chelsea Walls
 [Ryko; 2002] Rating: 6.3 - Review by: Joe Tangari
 
 (27%) Jay Bennett & Edward Burch: The Palace at 4am (Part I)
 [Undertow; 2002] Rating: 5.6 - Review by: Rob Mitchum
 
 (27%) Loose Fur: Loose Fur
 [Drag City; 2003] Rating: 7.2 - Review by: Will Bryant
 
 (27%) The Autumn Defense: The Green Hour
 [Broadmoor] Rating: 5.7 - Review by: Joe Tangari
 
 (27%) The Autumn Defense: Circles
 [Arena Rock; 2003] Rating: 6.9 - Review by: Amanda Petrusich
 
 (100%) Wilco: More Like the Moon EP
 [Wilcoworld.net; 2003] Rating: 7.0 - Review by: Rob Mitchum
 
 (63%) Rhett Miller: The Instigator
 [Elektra; 2002] Rating: 6.9 - Review by: Joe Tangari
[/QUOTE]

ggw

  • Member
  • Posts: 14237
Re: Arcade Fire/Augie March
« Reply #25 on: September 20, 2004, 05:33:00 pm »
Which would be the niche that most people on this board listen to.
 
 
Quote
Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
 Pitchfork does a good job covering indie-obscure, but barely touches anything beyond their own little niche.
 

ratioci nation

  • Member
  • Posts: 4463
Re: Arcade Fire/Augie March
« Reply #26 on: September 20, 2004, 05:33:00 pm »
Quote
Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
  The key is the variety. Pitchfork does a good job covering indie-obscure, but barely touches anything beyond their own little niche.
 
my point is that what you are saying here is not entirely true
 
 basically, you want a site that covers everything you like
 
 if pitchfork starts covering more of a variety, nobody covers as much obscure stuff, and there are people who want to read that

redsock

  • Member
  • Posts: 1893
Re: Arcade Fire/Augie March
« Reply #27 on: September 20, 2004, 05:35:00 pm »
Quote
Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
  That sounds interesting, but I just looked up two of my favorite albums of the year, by Bobby Bare Jr. and BR549, and they're not even listed. And it's not like these albums are obscure, they've certainly been reviewed in numerous publications.
 
   
Quote
Originally posted by redsock:
  Personally, I like meta-critic, as it compiles reviews from all over the place and gives it one final score. And they include lots of more obscure stuff too, along with the fluff.
[/b]
All right, put them to the test:
 
 "A: We try to include as many new releases as possible, in a variety of genres. Our music editor is a music fan and former DJ, and generally uses this test: if he has heard or read about the artist, the CD will be included in our site. Generally, virtually all major pop, rock, rap and alternative releases will be included. We also try to include many indie and electronic artists, as well as major releases in other categories (country, etc.). Occasionally, we will also include import-only items (generally, UK releases) if it appears that they will not be released in the United States in the foreseeable future (otherwise, we will typically wait for the U.S. release). Remember, if an album does not show up in at least 3 of the publications we use, it probably will not be included on the site.
 
 The sheer number of music releases each year (over 30,000 unique titles per year in the U.S. alone--and that's not counting reissues, compilations, etc.), compared to films and video games, makes it virtually impossible to cover every release; thus, our music section is much more selective than our games and movie sections."
 
 Check out there list of magazines/sites... and see if they were reviewed...c'mon you enjoy proving your points. Put your money where your mouth usually is. And no, I don't mean your wife's ass  :)
 http://www.metacritic.com/about/scoring.shtml#music

godsshoeshine

  • Member
  • Posts: 4826
Re: Arcade Fire/Augie March
« Reply #28 on: September 20, 2004, 06:28:00 pm »
i like pitchfork more for the news, i really don't take their reviews all that seriously.
 
 i like the arcade fire, haven't hear the augie march. i have the arcade fire ep too. i wouldn't call them all that obscure, they are on merge, afterall
o/\o

Random Citizen

  • Guest
Re: Arcade Fire/Augie March
« Reply #29 on: September 20, 2004, 07:04:00 pm »
Quote
Originally posted by god's shoeshine:
  i like pitchfork more for the news, i really don't take their reviews all that seriously.
 
In that case, you're better off reading sites like Stereogum, Billboard and other news-sites that are updated throughout the day. Many times, I'll know about items a day or so in advance of Pitchfork's publishing because they only post updates once a day in the early AM.