Surprise Surprise! Pitchfork hates NLOTH!

[Clawgrabber]

I realize there is a thread for professional reviews above, and i am not sure if this has been mentioned, but i am so irritated about pitchfork's hipster mentality that i decree that this deserves its own thread.

Pitchfork gave HTDAAB a 6.9 in 2004
How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb | Pitchfork

Today they gave NLOTH a 4.2.
No Line on the Horizon | Pitchfork

A 4.2!!!!!!

Seriously, their reveiw of HTDAAB, I actually (in retrospect) find myself agreeing with a good portion of it. But There are about three words of truth in the NLOTH review.

I just don't understand this site. And I find it very telling that they are one of (if not the only one) that doesn't allow for user comments below their reviews like Rolling Stone does.

Pitchfork make clawgrabber angry! Clawgrabber smash!

 

[Yahweh]

Who cares what those elitist clowns think of any album, although I guess somebody does because their site seems to get a lot of traffic.

 

[sadisticpenguin]

Shocking.

Pitchfork is not a site you should take seriously, ever. It has no journalistic integrity whatsoever. They gave the new U2 album a poor review because they are expected too. Radiohead could release an album of Cher covers and they'd cream all over it.

I fucking hate this hipster bullshit pretentious site.

 

[sadisticpenguin]

Having said that, the first bit of this review is some of the most pro-U2 stuff I've ever read.

Guess I should read before knee-jerk posting.

 

[nirniva]

You mean PITCHFORK didn't like U2?

 

[mikal]

the funny thing about this is that even a couple of the jerks at Atease that worship Pitchfork are saying that the rating is bullshit.

the joke is on Pitchfork here, folks.

 

[Dragonfave]

If this review made it to Pitchfork "Most Read Record Reviews" list, I don't know how I would feel about it.

 

[U2DMfan]

Just take note of how much the actual album is discussed and how much of the set-up is to describe the posturing of the reviewer itself.

"Yes, I must use the majority of the piece to explain the obvious, to preach to this fashionable choir, (why U2 no longer has it) and toss in two lazy paragraphs of general distaste for the latest work at the end."

In other words, I actually don't know why I don't like it or couldn't articulate it much on a sonic level but I surely know I'm not supposed to like it.

 

[nirniva]

Just take note of how much the actual album is discussed and how much of the set-up is to describe the posturing of the reviewer itself.

"Yes, I must use the majority of the piece to explain the obvious, to preach to this fashionable choir, (why U2 no longer has it) and toss in two lazy paragraphs of general distaste for the latest work at the end."

In other words, I actually don't know why I don't like it or couldn't articulate it much on a sonic level but I surely know I'm not supposed to like it.

Yeah, that annoyed me as well. Really, the only actual criticism in the review was something along the lines of "BAWWWWWWWWWW BONO'S LYRICS SUCK AND THEY SOUND LIKE THEMSELVES!!!!"
You know, they never seem to get mad when Radiohead sounds like themselves...

 

[Clawgrabber]

Just take note of how much the actual album is discussed and how much of the set-up is to describe the posturing of the reviewer itself.

"Yes, I must use the majority of the piece to explain the obvious, to preach to this fashionable choir, (why U2 no longer has it) and toss in two lazy paragraphs of general distaste for the latest work at the end."

In other words, I actually don't know why I don't like it or couldn't articulate it much on a sonic level but I surely know I'm not supposed to like it.

Heh, i noticed that as well. Its mostly "This is who U2 is and what i think about them. Oh and here is a quote from Adam."

 

[gareth brown]

Yeah, that annoyed me as well. Really, the only actual criticism in the review was something along the lines of "BAWWWWWWWWWW BONO'S LYRICS SUCK AND THEY SOUND LIKE THEMSELVES!!!!"
You know, they never seem to get mad when Radiohead sounds like themselves...

THAT's BECAUSE THEY NEVER DO!!"!" THEY EVOLVE WITH EACH ALBUM. THEY';RE UNTOUCHABLE GOD DAMN IT!!!! I WON'T HEAR A WORD AGAINST THOSE GENIUSES! ED O'BRIEN HAVE MY BABIES!!!!!!!!!!!!!1




seriously though, agree 100% with what was said above about 'I know i'm NOT SUPPOSED TO LIKE IT' cueing very poor writing. Ah well, their loss.

 

[nirniva]

THAT's BECAUSE THEY NEVER DO!!"!" THEY EVOLVE WITH EACH ALBUM. THEY';RE UNTOUCHABLE GOD DAMN IT!!!! I WON'T HEAR A WORD AGAINST THOSE GENIUSES! ED O'BRIEN HAVE MY BABIES!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

 

[Clean187]

I disagree with the review, but the article makes some vailid points.

 

[shart1780]

I don't see why you guys are throwing a hissy fit over this. It's Pitchfork.

I'm just suprised they rated Bomb so much better when it's so much worse.

 

[BigMacPhisto]

Well, the Bomb earned slightly better reviews than the latest outing...so Pitchfork isn't the only outlet to be less impressed by NLOTH.

 

[nirniva]

I don't see why you guys are throwing a hissy fit over this. It's Pitchfork.

I'm just suprised they rated Bomb so much better when it's so much worse.

This is Interference. We can throw hissy fits about ANYTHING.

 

[LemonMelon]

Wow, I'm genuinely surprised by the rating. Didn't expect anything that low.

 

[nirniva]

Wow, I'm genuinely surprised by the rating. Didn't expect anything that low.

I was expecting a 6.5 or so. Had my hopes up for a 7.
4.2 just seems like flamebait.

 

[cdirani]

if a review is that predictable, then we should not consider it that much. I, for one, do not consider 90% of this kind of job.

 

[tsweeney]

Ptichfork hates anything mainstream. I am surprised they gave NLOTH that low of a rating. They actually gave GOYB a positive review when it came out.

 

[Clawgrabber]

I don't see why you guys are throwing a hissy fit over this. It's Pitchfork.

I'm just suprised they rated Bomb so much better when it's so much worse.

It's not really a hissy fit so much as a request for a little consistancy. Look, IMO this album is superior to BOMB, and for pitchfork to give bomb a 6.9 and then give this one a 4.2... that's just insane.

I read pitchfork a lot, and they rarely give albums they deem worthy of review a score as low as 4.2.

You are right, it's just pitchfork, at the end of the day it doesn't matter. But still doesn't make much sense to me.

 

[Clawgrabber]

I was expecting a 6.5 or so. Had my hopes up for a 7.
4.2 just seems like flamebait.

Given HTDAAB's 6.9 i was expecting like a 7.2

 

[nirniva]

Ptichfork hates anything mainstream. I am surprised they gave NLOTH that low of a rating. They actually gave GOYB a positive review when it came out.

JANUARY: "Hey, GOYB is pretty good! Not perfect, but I like it."
MARCH: "GOYB IS TEH SUCKXORZ! WORST SINGLE EVAR!!!11!1!1!!!1"
Is that from Interference or Pitchfork? You decide.

 

[clerks]

It is called PITCHFORK not SPOON. Nothing is more fun than to say "that sucks."

A side note, Pitchfork just gave me a 2.5

 

[SamuelSmeloc]

JANUARY: "Hey, GOYB is pretty good! Not perfect, but I like it."
MARCH: "GOYB IS TEH SUCKXORZ! WORST SINGLE EVAR!!!11!1!1!!!1"
Is that from Interference or Pitchfork? You decide.

 

[Jive Turkey]

Pitchfork are the kids who work at the local record store and think they are the definitive voice of whats cool. If they gave the album a good review, they'd lose 'credibility' with their hipster friends

 

[dan_smee]

this is like opinion piece journalists who write garbage to incite a response. You justify their existence by being angry and actually paying attention. If noone cared, they would get no traffic and no money. Becaus they piss you off, you visit to see what they say, and they get $$$.

Just stay away if it upsets you

 

[Aygo]

Shocking.

Pitchfork is not a site you should take seriously, ever. It has no journalistic integrity whatsoever. They gave the new U2 album a poor review because they are expected too. Radiohead could release an album of Cher covers and they'd cream all over it.

I fucking hate this hipster bullshit pretentious site.

Bingo! Same goes for Time Out. Their audiences are not expecting them to rate well commercial big acts like U2 - that would be a betrayal to their public's way of life.

 

[achtungbaby1366]

Shocking.

Pitchfork is not a site you should take seriously, ever. It has no journalistic integrity whatsoever. They gave the new U2 album a poor review because they are expected too. Radiohead could release an album of Cher covers and they'd cream all over it.

I fucking hate this hipster bullshit pretentious site.

lmao that is good stuff

 

[lancerla]

Shocking.

Pitchfork is not a site you should take seriously, ever. It has no journalistic integrity whatsoever. They gave the new U2 album a poor review because they are expected too. Radiohead could release an album of Cher covers and they'd cream all over it.

I fucking hate this hipster bullshit pretentious site.

If Radiohead released an album of Cher covers I bet it would be awesome.