[Ducks_own]

Jus' Wonderin'.

I had one listen to "Frances the Mute", and was floored. Then to read these guys absolutely panned it (they gave it a 2/10). The best score they've ever given a Mars Volta album is a 6/10, then they're all downhill from there.

My question is, why?

 

[HipHopScribe]

Simple, their reviewers don't like them, the reasons for which I'd guess the reviews themselves should explain (though that's not always a given with Pitchfork reviews, which sometimes have little to do with the music). They're people with opinions and personal tastes like anyone else, and they're not one of those everyone gets a 3 or 4 out of five places, so they're willing to completely s**t on stuff they don't like. It's something I like about them, actually.

I have to say, I don't like Mars Volta at all either.

 

[reorx]

heh I didnt like France the Mute either, much preferred De-Loused in the Comatorium.

As for Pitchfork hatin' on Mars Volta, they hate on pretty much any mainstream rockband (see: Tool, Audioslave, Coldplay). Radiohead and Flaming Lips are exempted of course.

And yes, Mars Volta is mainstream. At least compared to Bats for Lashes.

 

[priest]

I'm sure they find it too "mannered."

 

[Gberg]

just look up their reviews for 'Jet'

 

[Uncle Erik]

Eh, Pitchfork reviews are schizophrenic. I think they're mostly interested in experimental art noise. They occasionally reward a few favorites or some rapper.

I don't know. I only read Pitchfork to find out what's new. I don't take their scores seriously.

 

[KevDo]

Personally I like the Pitchfork reviews. Their reviewers seem to have roughly the same taste in music, as well as personal "pet hates" and dislikes etc as I do.

They're the complete opposite to Rolling Stone - generally when they say an album is good, I don't like it

Haven't read much of Mars Volta to be honest.

(side note: over here in the UK I'd bet Bat for Lashes are more mainstream than Mars Volta, for sure.)

 

[VicAjax]

it's Pitchfork. nuff said.

 

[Aslan123]

All I can say about Pitchfork is that they have their loves and hates, and their reviews tend to reflect that. If they had given an artist a review of 8.5 on one album, there is a good chance that the same artist's next album will be around that barometer.
On occasion they have given a shining review to a band they hated previously, but this is quite rare from what I have seen.

I used to pay more credence to Pitchfork's reviews, but not so much any more. I think it's more due to my own tastes changing, although I still check their website on occasion.

 

[Gberg]

well.. Pitchfork reviews to a very wide variety of tastes.
So if something gets above an 8.0 and you don't like it.. chances are that type of music just isn't for you.
Now, there have been some ratings that are just flat-out not right. But pitchfork is an amazing website to check for new bands, see watch them play new music (off of pitchfork TV) and check for upcoming tour dates.

I recommend pitchfork to any music lover.

 

[Laokid18]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gberg /img/forum/go_quote.gif well.. Pitchfork reviews to a very wide variety of tastes. So if something gets above an 8.0 and you don't like it.. chances are that type of music just isn't for you. Now, there have been some ratings that are just flat-out not right. But pitchfork is an amazing website to check for new bands, see watch them play new music (off of pitchfork TV) and check for upcoming tour dates. I recommend pitchfork to any music lover.

agreed.