Reviews themselves are pretty much redundant these days.

I just look at the score, then download it it and listen for myself. If I like it, I buy it.

music journalists actually try to be creative, subjective, personal, honest, intelligent instead of spouting out the same tired cliches. HOW DARE THEY ACTUALLY TRY TO USE THEIR INTELLECT TO ANALYSE MUSIC INSTEAD OF SAYING SOMETHING SOUNDS LIKE GRIZZLY BEAR REMIXED BY THE KNIFE!?!?!!

SERIOUSLY.

FUCK
OFF

far too gentle. They should have done the wanking monkey again.

i actually quite like the style, it's pretty readable and fun. good to have a break from the "LIKE OASIS BEATING UP NIRVANA ON SPEED!" reviews, anyway.

one is the worst. Infuriating.

ive ever got pissed off with, is their review for the boy with the arab strap.
because they gave it something utterly moronic like 0.8, i cant remember what rating exactly.

other than that. i cant fault them

Pitchfork reviews have improved in the past two years or so - you don't get anything near as bad as that ROC review cropping up. Certain writers have different styles (although I don't thing there's one Pitchfork staffer who actually does track-by-track reviews).

What annoys me about PF is that their scores never seem to match up with what is written. Take the recent review for Narrow Stairs - they give it a 6, but the review is not overly critical, unlike other reviews where the score is higher. I don't know how they work out the scores, but they need to standardize them or something.

The Stones and Led Zeppelin did basically steal a whole bunch of American music and then made it commercially palatable so I fail to see your point there. That ATD-I one is refreshing, given that everyone was sucked in by the OMGZ THEY'RE THE BEST THING EVER hype. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that Muse review.

The only one I would criticise is the Songs In A&E one, if only because Jason's said that most of the record was written before he went into hospital.

Nobody cares about reviews.

don't ever read CokeMachineGlow. You'll burst with anger.

http://stylusmagazine.com/reviews/okkervil-river/the-stage-names.htm

http://www.dustedmagazine.com/reviews/4276

I don't want to read a 500 word essay on a record, i don't have the time. Just tell me a) if it's good or not & b) who it sounds a bit like. There's no need to talk downright shite about yourself, bands of the same genre from ninety years ago or any other twaddle. They should never be creative personal intellectual essays but short and to the point. Most music writers are idiots and use the only platform they have in life to make themselves look bigger at other people expense. Fuck 'em.

because they pan it and are completely wrong. and, in the other diection, they gave an Iran album 9.something. so i listened to it and it was one of the worst pieces of tune-todging bollocks that i have ever heard. a load of talentless cunts making noise for people who misguidedly think they are cleverer than i am.

when people cuss a website for disagreeing with their tastes. Don't take it as a personal affront to you just because that writer has an outlet and you don't (this isn't aimed so much at the thread started, obv).

But then again, a writer has to work hard to get their stuff onto a site like Pfuck; there's a good chance that one of their writers will have a substantially more interesting and persuasive opinion than some random person off of a messageboard or the street.

The question isn't do you like it: do you still go back and read it every now and then?

hands up who gave up after the first paragraph?

http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/article/record_review/19856-st-anger

but I remember the Ted Leo Shake the Sheets review being a bit naff

"You find yourself strangely aggravated by Leo's characteristic punk-scat; especially unforgivable is a Jacko-like "shebooyah" in "Walking to Do"."

Characteristic punk-scat.

Plus Shibuya is a place you dumbarse reviewer type. Like all the other places he mentions around that time in the song.

the wanking monkey or this one:

http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/article/record_review/18954-get-born

friends opinions tend to be more reliable.

but OMM's review of Sigur Ros' new album was infuriating, a too much hyperbolic waffle about the Icelandic, and very little about the album.

first few records got trashed because the band themselves are wannabe hipsters...which shouldn't have detracted from being really good records.

Then the Dandys had the bad form to go and put out a couple stinkers which justified PF's position.....

still haven't got around to new one yet.

I think they're pretty bang on with their At The Drive-In and Muse reviews, though.

The recent National EP got 4.3. The Portishead album got 8.8. They're fucking dullards who give things scores to make a point. No-one in their right mind could give that EP a score like that, fuck the records before it.

But the review of Do You Like Rock Music pissed me off. Well, mainly the 'U2' rating. It seemed overly dismissive rather than clever.

pisses me off. I'm sure Relationship of Command ended up in the upper reaches of on of their best of lists. Someone reviews something then it becomes clear that they boobed and all the rest of the writers try to undo it without having the balls to go back and change it. I'm not saying reviewers have to fully tow the party line of the site but you can't have total black/white disagreements.