Page 3 of 4

Posted: Fri Dec 03, 2004 12:25 pm
by Proptronics
Alright so I just checked out a review of Stars, a band I've heard a buzz about and wanted to see what someone thought of it. Here's a list of words and phrases that were used that confused, in lieu of informing, me:

curmudgeonly things-ain't-the-same listeners
nearly leakproof (I know what the words mean, just not in regard to making an album)
capable band who suffuses pedestrian topics
a procession of lugubrious strings
the grandiloquence is kept to a minimum
the track is never slogs enough
A lo-res synth arpeggio carries the song alongside a propulsive drumbeat
the album feels wontedly cathartic
your emotional nadir
some monochromism is to be expected

Fuck you dude, how can you fucking rock out when you're stroking your thesaurus the entire time the records playing?!?!

Posted: Fri Dec 03, 2004 1:36 pm
by creepy
methinks a thesaurus wasn't the only thing being stroked...

(not that there's anything wrong with that...)

Posted: Fri Dec 03, 2004 1:43 pm
by Proptronics
Man, I love your icon Creepy. Everytime I look at it, it makes me think "what would Bob Pollard say about this?" Bob would tell the kid to fucking straighten up, drink a beer and listen to Thin Lizzy.

Posted: Fri Dec 03, 2004 1:56 pm
by blackshoestring
Anybody see GBV on Conan last night? I think Bob was wearing sweatpants.

Posted: Fri Dec 03, 2004 2:11 pm
by foxforcefive
Saw it. The first thing my wife said is that his sweatshirt made him look fatter than usual. (We just saw them live a couple weeks ago.) Conan said it was their last ever TV appearance, but I think they're going to be on Austin City Limits in the next month or so.

Posted: Fri Dec 03, 2004 2:25 pm
by booker
For the most part, Pitchfork's reviews are totally useless to me. I just appreciate a different musical aesthetic than their reviewers.

Posted: Sun Dec 05, 2004 2:10 am
by Mixmaster Shecky
Proptronics wrote:Man, I love your icon Creepy. Everytime I look at it, it makes me think "what would Bob Pollard say about this?"
We should always ask ourselves, 'What would Uncle Bob do?'

Posted: Mon Dec 06, 2004 2:06 pm
by Coopstar
Speaking of Pitchfork, while I was doing some research on the new Trail Of Dead record - Worlds Apart, I came upon this interview with Conrad Keely. You all may remember that in 2002, Source Tags And Codes got a 10.0 from them - is this the only time this has happened? Anyway, this is kinda funny. I can't wait for this damn record btw....

http://www.mcgilldaily.com/view.php?aid=3101


MD: Still on the subject of the Internet, Pitchfork gave you a big fat “10” for Source Tags & Codes. Are you guys worried at all about this record living up to that? Pitchfork has a tendency to turn on a lot of bands; they gave a 6.7 to Secret of Elena’s Tomb and 3/5 for the “Worlds Apart” single. Are you guys worried about them turning on you?
CK: If I lived my life worried about what Pitchfork thought would you consider me a very intelligent person?

MD: No.
CK: Last thing I heard about Pitchfork from one of our friends that worked there was that all those guys have not been laid in three years...

Posted: Mon Dec 06, 2004 2:18 pm
by dieblucasdie
I think the Trail of Dead record and Modest Mouse's Moon and Antarctica are the only records they've given 10.0 right out of the gate, but they routinely give it to re-issues of already-canonized records, most recently to that Boards of Canada album.

Posted: Tue Dec 07, 2004 2:15 pm
by steve-o
dieblucasdie wrote:I think the Trail of Dead record and Modest Mouse's Moon and Antarctica are the only records they've given 10.0 right out of the gate, but they routinely give it to re-issues of already-canonized records, most recently to that Boards of Canada album.
Ok Computer and Kid A both got a 10.0.