NIN rip...terrible lie - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Lemonade Stand > Lemonade Stand Archive
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 01-14-2006, 02:10 AM   #1
dudeman's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,013
Local Time: 12:02 PM
NIN rip...terrible lie

now i'm totally one to allow for the fact that opinions are what they are. but this review may disprove this. it's completely WRONG. i'm not the biggest fan of nine inch nails, or even the biggest fan of 'pretty hate machine', but i would never deny it's brilliance, ingenuity, or fantastic songwriting. modern rock owes so much to this album...the reviewer continually refers to the dated sound of the record...who cares? there's a dated sound to 'satisfaction' by the stones...and 'rio' by duran duran. that 'dated sound' can be the sound of an artist capturing the era, preserving it forever. like nirvana's 'nevermind' did. i suppose that sounds dated now, also.
at any rate, if he was pissed that no extras were included, well he still missed the point. he didn't listen to any of the songs on the record. 'PHM' contains some of the most vital and original songs and sounds EVER...
nobody will ever create a song that is as simultaneously original and difficult as 'down in it'. never. what a fuckhead...
read the review at this link if you feel the need to be incredibly annoyed.
pitchfork doesn't have a space to post annoyances, so i'm leaving mine here. thanks for bearing with me. 'pretty hate machine' kicks fucking ass.
link to shit review:

dudeman is offline  
Old 01-14-2006, 02:30 AM   #2
Rock n' Roll Doggie
lmjhitman's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: tbtf
Posts: 4,317
Local Time: 11:02 AM
wow, this guy sounds like he's just pissed because it wasn't remastered or released with a bunch of extras like 'the downward spiral' was a couple years ago. what a dumbass.

did that guy even listen to 'head like a hole'?! that song is just as magnificent today as it was 17 years ago (jesus, i'm so old).

there's no denying that phm was a seminal release for the ebm/industrial genre as it brought it out of the clubs and onto mtv and to a wider audience in general.

and i just saw nin a few months ago and the phm material was more than able to hold its own alongside the newer stuff.

i guess the reviewer failed to consider the album's influence as well. i remember reading that this was the stuff that the edge was listening to during the writing and recording of achtung baby. i mean, HELLO???! it's a fucking classic - i don't care what pitchfork says.

lmjhitman is offline  
Old 01-14-2006, 06:57 PM   #3
Rock n' Roll Doggie
david's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: southern california
Posts: 8,850
Local Time: 10:02 AM


david is offline  
Old 01-15-2006, 06:29 AM   #4
Rock n' Roll Doggie
gareth brown's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: England
Posts: 6,047
Local Time: 06:02 PM
that place is a dump.
gareth brown is offline  
Old 01-16-2006, 08:22 AM   #5
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Kieran McConville's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Auto Dafoe
Posts: 8,800
Local Time: 03:02 AM
Pitchfork actually liked How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb, which kind of says it all for their understanding of anything.
Kieran McConville is offline  
Old 01-16-2006, 02:22 PM   #6
love, blood, life
GibsonGirl's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 13,270
Local Time: 01:02 PM
Pitchfork sucks. So do all the lame rip-off sites. Have you seen them? They're ridiculous. I thought I was AT Pitchfork one day, but it turns out it was just another shitty imitation that almost looked identical. And when you do a shit imitation of something that was shit to begin with, well, then there's really no hope for you.
GibsonGirl is offline  
Old 01-16-2006, 02:56 PM   #7
War Child
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: PA, USA
Posts: 672
Local Time: 05:02 PM
We should remember that the reviewer is commenting on a re-release. Basically, what he's saying is that if you already have the original, there's no reason to purchase this product. Here's a fan review I pulled off the web from someone who made the mistake of buying this (twice) and should have read this review before doing so.
Rykodisc Blows It
"Why bother putting out the disc again if your not going to improve the sound. Sure it is a great album but it has always been the worst in terms of sound and the mastering job in the Nine Inch Nails canon. I understand not wanting to add a bunch of extra tracks but don't bother putting something out that sound even worse the orginal TVT version of the album. In side by side comparsion it is not as good so save the money if you already own and don't make the same mistake I did. If you don't own it already, do buy it though Nine Inch Nails have changed a lot over the years it is well worth hear this first steps. The album also contains some of the Trents best singles. Though it lacks the scope of latter albums, you can't beat songs like Head Like a Hole and Down In It (though it is a blantant steal of Skinny Puppys Dig It) for a good musical rush."

On a personal note, I never thought Pretty Hate Machine was all that great when it first came out. I saw Trent and band tour behind it and they were awful live. It took Wish and Downward Spiral to convince me to come back around to them.
barlowdog is offline  
Old 01-16-2006, 10:38 PM   #8
bollox's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Washington DC
Posts: 1,315
Local Time: 05:02 PM
though i hesitate to defend pitchfork . . .

while their overbearing pretentiousness can be too much and is easily mocked, i still think they are one of the best sites for music news/reviews. particularly in terms of reviews, which i feel is a lost art that pitchfork has gone some ways to revive. just pick up a rolling stone or other "music" magazine and look at the review section: the reviews are completely cursory and insubstantial. at least you know that the pitchfork reviewers actually spent some time with the album in question. i also find it respectable that they went from being a small website to one of the authorities on indie music. if you don't think they played at least a small part in helping break bands like the arcade fire and clap your hands say yeah, then check your head. the majority of the time, i find their reviews to be pretty fair and accurate.

as for the phm reissue, the review was a bit harsh, but nin, discounting the downward spiral, is one of their favourite targets. while i don't entirely agree with the review (something i can never have is a beautiful song, bitches!) i would say that about half the album is great and the other sounds dated, in the bad way. i'd venture to say that even t. rez wants to distance himself from much of the material on that album. while most music does date itself to the time it came out in, the term "dated" usually means "out"-dated. (e.g. 70s jackson 5 & 80s depeche mode sound like the time periods they sprung from, but still sound great & timeless today)
bollox is offline  
Old 01-19-2006, 02:15 AM   #9
Bunbury's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Close yet far from home \m/
Posts: 1,580
Local Time: 09:02 AM
Pitchfork is pure shit, why bother checking their reviews?? Is just asking to get pissed off.

Bunbury is offline  

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:02 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright ©