Nitpick
Head-Fier
- Joined
- Nov 23, 2006
- Posts
- 77
- Likes
- 0
Both of these lists are ass, at least Bob Dylan showed up on CMG, but neither of them included 10,000 days from Tool. That was a pretty damn good album for 2006
Pitchfork's and Cokemachineglow's Top 50 Albums of 2006
- Thread starter MadDog5145
- Start date
Nitpick
Head-Fier
- Joined
- Nov 23, 2006
- Posts
- 77
- Likes
- 0
Quote:
What?! De-loused was volta's best album
and Lateralus what a joke even the pkging alone was worth a perfect score
and that was nothing compared to the music
| Originally Posted by meme /img/forum/go_quote.gif Pitchfork, Those comedians gave De-loused in the Comatorium 4.9 and Lateralus 1.9. I hate Pitchfork. |
What?! De-loused was volta's best album
and Lateralus what a joke even the pkging alone was worth a perfect score
and that was nothing compared to the music
jjhatfield
Frank
- Joined
- May 15, 2006
- Posts
- 1,222
- Likes
- 11
Quote:
Quote:
And I don't blame you! I would be remiss if I didn't say I am certainly not an avid CMG reader, I just check out the site from time to time and occasionally find a real gem in their reviews, something that either makes me laugh out loud or grin with pleasure at its accuracy. Same with Pitchfork.
Honestly for album reviews I prefer the much more terse and factual commentary provided by the various critics who write for allmusic.com (AMG). I don't agree with every review they have, but they hit damn close to the (my) mark.
Anyway I probably don't belong in this discussion because I am not familiar with 90% of the albums on either list.
| Originally Posted by jjhatfield /img/forum/go_quote.gif ...and I love them for it... |
Quote:
| Originally Posted by adhoc /img/forum/go_quote.gif Unfortunately, I can't agree with this. 
|
And I don't blame you! I would be remiss if I didn't say I am certainly not an avid CMG reader, I just check out the site from time to time and occasionally find a real gem in their reviews, something that either makes me laugh out loud or grin with pleasure at its accuracy. Same with Pitchfork.
Honestly for album reviews I prefer the much more terse and factual commentary provided by the various critics who write for allmusic.com (AMG). I don't agree with every review they have, but they hit damn close to the (my) mark.
Anyway I probably don't belong in this discussion because I am not familiar with 90% of the albums on either list.
DLeeWebb
Headphoneus Supremus
I certainly have my differences with all such lists; Pitchfork, Cokemachineglow, Rolling Stone, as well as, those that I read here at Head-Fi [who doesn't???...]. I usually find that these "Best Of..." lists provide interesting descriptions of music that otherwise I might not know even exists. These lists, though greatly criticized whenever they emerge, give me, a music aficionado, a heads-up on music that I should know about, and maybe give a listen to. I checked out Cokemachineglow's top pick "Subtle - For Hero: For Fool" online and it sounds very interesting. I have come to the conclusion that I'm never going to agree with anybody's "Top *** Picks For ****." However, I get a lot of good leads on new music and for that I am grateful to them all...
Floodedstatue
100+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2005
- Posts
- 230
- Likes
- 2
Quote:
Seconded.
| Originally Posted by jjhatfield /img/forum/go_quote.gif Honestly for album reviews I prefer the much more terse and factual commentary provided by the various critics who write for allmusic.com (AMG). I don't agree with every review they have, but they hit damn close to the (my) mark. |
Seconded.
Daryn Alexander
100+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2005
- Posts
- 368
- Likes
- 10
The Pitchfork Media Drinking Game (from cracked.com):
If all but one of the reviews of the day are of bands you've never heard of, take a drink. If you've heard of none of them, take two.
If the reviewer begins the review you're reading with a story that has essentially nothing to do with the record he or she is reviewing, take a drink.
If the review starts with a question about whether the band in question can ever acheive popular success or implies that they've abandoned their fan base by acheiving popular success, take a drink.
If the amount of time between the current album and the band's last album is mentioned within the first two paragraphs, take a drink.
If the entire review is framed as some grand historical study of significance on the same level as a formal research paper on the Cold War, take a drink.
If a re-release of an album that would have gotten a 6 twenty years ago gets a 9 or higher, take a drink.
If the picture that goes along with the main interview on the site features a band standing around and looking vaguely uncomfortable, take a drink.
For every instance of the phrases "looms large," "return to form," "eponymous effort," and "crucial record," take a drink.
Whenever the reviewer seemingly goes against the grain and gives a mainstream pop album a good review, take a drink.
If the reviewer combines two separate words to make one word, take two drinks.
If one of the songs on the album is described as playing up a contrast or being "scathing," take a drink.
If the review ends with either: 1) a badly executed pun or joke, 2) a fancily rephrased cliche or 3) a really horribly forced metaphor, finish the bottle.
If all but one of the reviews of the day are of bands you've never heard of, take a drink. If you've heard of none of them, take two.
If the reviewer begins the review you're reading with a story that has essentially nothing to do with the record he or she is reviewing, take a drink.
If the review starts with a question about whether the band in question can ever acheive popular success or implies that they've abandoned their fan base by acheiving popular success, take a drink.
If the amount of time between the current album and the band's last album is mentioned within the first two paragraphs, take a drink.
If the entire review is framed as some grand historical study of significance on the same level as a formal research paper on the Cold War, take a drink.
If a re-release of an album that would have gotten a 6 twenty years ago gets a 9 or higher, take a drink.
If the picture that goes along with the main interview on the site features a band standing around and looking vaguely uncomfortable, take a drink.
For every instance of the phrases "looms large," "return to form," "eponymous effort," and "crucial record," take a drink.
Whenever the reviewer seemingly goes against the grain and gives a mainstream pop album a good review, take a drink.
If the reviewer combines two separate words to make one word, take two drinks.
If one of the songs on the album is described as playing up a contrast or being "scathing," take a drink.
If the review ends with either: 1) a badly executed pun or joke, 2) a fancily rephrased cliche or 3) a really horribly forced metaphor, finish the bottle.
Floodedstatue
100+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2005
- Posts
- 230
- Likes
- 2
Quote:
Surely this can only lead to getting wasted in about 2 minutes flat....??
Oh wait, I get it!
| Originally Posted by Daryn Alexander /img/forum/go_quote.gif The Pitchfork Media Drinking Game (from cracked.com): If all but one of the reviews of the day are of bands you've never heard of, take a drink. If you've heard of none of them, take two. If the reviewer begins the review you're reading with a story that has essentially nothing to do with the record he or she is reviewing, take a drink. If the review starts with a question about whether the band in question can ever acheive popular success or implies that they've abandoned their fan base by acheiving popular success, take a drink. If the amount of time between the current album and the band's last album is mentioned within the first two paragraphs, take a drink. If the entire review is framed as some grand historical study of significance on the same level as a formal research paper on the Cold War, take a drink. |
Surely this can only lead to getting wasted in about 2 minutes flat....??
Oh wait, I get it!
jjhatfield
Frank
- Joined
- May 15, 2006
- Posts
- 1,222
- Likes
- 11
Quote:
This is what drives me crazy about certain loooooong CMG reviews (and I suppose Pitchfork as well, but CMG seems to carry on for much, much longer). Reviews that go on for paragraph after paragraph before even mentioning the album. Unless I am very, very interested in the album being reviewed, I usually scan to the bottom for the "final word". Or if the album received a particularly poor rating, I enjoy reading the whole review for the eloquent monologue on how poor the album is.
| Originally Posted by Daryn Alexander /img/forum/go_quote.gif If the reviewer begins the review you're reading with a story that has essentially nothing to do with the record he or she is reviewing, take a drink. |
This is what drives me crazy about certain loooooong CMG reviews (and I suppose Pitchfork as well, but CMG seems to carry on for much, much longer). Reviews that go on for paragraph after paragraph before even mentioning the album. Unless I am very, very interested in the album being reviewed, I usually scan to the bottom for the "final word". Or if the album received a particularly poor rating, I enjoy reading the whole review for the eloquent monologue on how poor the album is.
Nerull
100+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2005
- Posts
- 344
- Likes
- 11
Glad to see I'm not the only person to hate pitchfork media (for most of the above said reasons).
~Tom
~Tom
Jahn
Headphoneus Supremus Prolificus
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2004
- Posts
- 21,333
- Likes
- 40
pitchfork put justin timberlake's latest at #25. 'nuff said.
DLeeWebb
Headphoneus Supremus
Quote:
You have a point there!
| Originally Posted by Jahn /img/forum/go_quote.gif pitchfork put justin timberlake's latest at #25. 'nuff said.
|
You have a point there!
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2006
- Posts
- 224
- Likes
- 719
i like the fact that cmg has links to the music in each review so you can judge for yourself. for me, both lists contained more than a few of the discs i have been playing this year so taste wise we are on the same page.
Zanth
SHAman who knew of Head-Fi ten years prior to its existence
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2001
- Posts
- 9,570
- Likes
- 44
Sean.Perrin
100+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2006
- Posts
- 233
- Likes
- 0
Quote:
Funny that you mention this... I always respected Pitchforks reviews (even thought they are VERY different from mine, but when they rated Deloused in the Comatorium 4.9 I lost all respect. I would give that album a 9.
They also have rated a lot of Tortoise's stuff very poorly (<5) and these albums have changed the face of music (ie. Millions Now Living Will Never Die).
They even dislike radiohead on some accounts... i believe Kid A was an 8, I would give it an 11.
| Originally Posted by meme /img/forum/go_quote.gif Pitchfork, Those comedians gave De-loused in the Comatorium 4.9 and Lateralus 1.9. I hate Pitchfork. |
Funny that you mention this... I always respected Pitchforks reviews (even thought they are VERY different from mine, but when they rated Deloused in the Comatorium 4.9 I lost all respect. I would give that album a 9.
They also have rated a lot of Tortoise's stuff very poorly (<5) and these albums have changed the face of music (ie. Millions Now Living Will Never Die).
They even dislike radiohead on some accounts... i believe Kid A was an 8, I would give it an 11.
Zanth
SHAman who knew of Head-Fi ten years prior to its existence
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2001
- Posts
- 9,570
- Likes
- 44
Quote:
Kid A was 10 as was Ok Computer. Pitchfork sadly hires second year english majors with a hard on for the thesaurus. Most of the reviews are nothing but a whole lotta fluff. Too bad they don't hire people who actually know something about music. Though subjectivism is the nature of the reviewing beast. The more obscure the better I read in this thread and how true that is! That does not mean that obscure automatically means great, or not so great, as this also applies to mainstream. I don't agree with their ratings most of the time but the good thing is that I am introduced to bands I have never heard of. If only for this fact, that site is a gem.
| Originally Posted by Sean.Perrin /img/forum/go_quote.gif Funny that you mention this... I always respected Pitchforks reviews (even thought they are VERY different from mine, but when they rated Deloused in the Comatorium 4.9 I lost all respect. I would give that album a 9. They also have rated a lot of Tortoise's stuff very poorly (<5) and these albums have changed the face of music (ie. Millions Now Living Will Never Die). They even dislike radiohead on some accounts... i believe Kid A was an 8, I would give it an 11. |
Kid A was 10 as was Ok Computer. Pitchfork sadly hires second year english majors with a hard on for the thesaurus. Most of the reviews are nothing but a whole lotta fluff. Too bad they don't hire people who actually know something about music. Though subjectivism is the nature of the reviewing beast. The more obscure the better I read in this thread and how true that is! That does not mean that obscure automatically means great, or not so great, as this also applies to mainstream. I don't agree with their ratings most of the time but the good thing is that I am introduced to bands I have never heard of. If only for this fact, that site is a gem.
Users who are viewing this thread
