pitchfork rating predictions

[ratsprayer]

i just mentioned this in another thread, and we may only have a few hours before they post it, but does anyone have predictions about pitchfork's review?  im going with 8.9.  

[fastswimmer]

well...everyone knows pitchfork's ratings reflect on the "indie-ness" of the album rather than actual musical content, so i'm guessing a disappointing 8.2 rather than the 9.9 it deserves.

that said, i usually find the actual write-ups to be really insightful, it's just the numerical ratings that are usually off.  Wolf Parade with a 9.2!? psshhh!

[CC]

http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/record-reviews/m/my-morning-jacket/z.shtml

[The Boar]

I was going to guess around an 8.5 but, unfortunately (or fortunately depending on your opinion of Pitchfork), it's lower than that.

I just got in from out of the country -- been in the East for six weeks -- and I only made it through the first half of "Z" on my way in to work this morning. So far, I'm impressed -- it's certainly different but in a good way I think.

Pitchfork seems to take shots at a lack of cohesiveness in the second half of "Z" but that is largely out of step with other reviews I've read, which have called the album focused throughout. Indeed, upon first listening to it, Leckie's influence (a la Radiohead) is very prominent and I have to say I miss the sort of ambling, dreamy movements from song to song that marked the second half of "It Still Moves". Maybe what Pitchfork criticizes is exactly what I'll be looking for.

[primushead]

Seems like it got a 7.6.  I guess it wasn't obscure enough.  

[TheLink]

ah, fuck them. ;D

[primushead]

ah, fuck them. ;D

Basically, yeah ;)  They didn't even get Jim's name right on the main page of the website (I believe he was credited as Jim Jones)

[EC]

I think it's a faily poor understanding of the album.  It's one thing to hint that What a Wonderful Man might be about Jesus (I thought that myself until I read otherwise, except that the ice cream and tape part didn't make sense), it's another thing to say that it's about Jesus.

James sings as if in ecstasy

I have a feeling that the person who wrote this interview assumes that My Morning Jacket is a happy fun rock jamband, and decided not to let Z sway him from his opinion.

That's what I think.

[doEVILslittle]

WAWM ain't about no jesus...it's about a friend jim's who killed himself...i read it in one of the interviews on the press page

[October]

isn't What a Wonderful Man about a friend who killed himself anyway...not jesus

[EC]

isn't What a Wonderful Man about a friend who killed himself anyway...not jesus

(that's what I meant...)

[Nikkogino]

I was going to guess around an 8.5 but, unfortunately (or fortunately depending on your opinion of Pitchfork), it's lower than that.

I just got in from out of the country -- been in the East for six weeks -- and I only made it through the first half of "Z" on my way in to work this morning. So far, I'm impressed -- it's certainly different but in a good way I think.

Pitchfork seems to take shots at a lack of cohesiveness in the second half of "Z" but that is largely out of step with other reviews I've read, which have called the album focused throughout. Indeed, upon first listening to it, Leckie's influence (a la Radiohead) is very prominent and I have to say I miss the sort of ambling, dreamy movements from song to song that marked the second half of "It Still Moves". Maybe what Pitchfork criticizes is exactly what I'll be looking for.

I think that the second half of the album is better, but that is just me.  I am a huge fan of "into the woods", "lay low", "knot comes loose", and "dondante."  That reviewer is on crack.

[primushead]

He put every southern rock cliche into that review that was humanly possible.  I hate this line:

"MMJ abandoned the Skynardisms of It Still Moves on side one...blah blah blah".

come on...skynardisms?  It seems to me like the reviewer doesn't have any respect for the band.  He just sees them as southern, one-trick ponies who tried to go wierd.  Oh well.  I guess they can continue to suck Arcade Fire's proverbial cock :)

[Nikkogino]

 I guess they can continue to suck Arcade Fire's proverbial cock :)

Haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.  Amen...everyone is too busy doing that to listen to anything else.  Personally, I think that Pitchfork gives extra points for unknown bands.  Now that MMJ is doing well, they knock them down a few points.  Pitchfork is gay.

[ratsprayer]

Haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.  Amen...everyone is too busy doing that to listen to anything else.  Personally, I think that Pitchfork gives extra points for unknown bands.  Now that MMJ is doing well, they knock them down a few points.  Pitchfork is gay.

they dont seem to appreciate 'lay low', so theyre gay bitches.

[Nikkogino]

they dont seem to appreciate 'lay low', so theyre gay bitches.

agreed

[Ronnie Dobbs]

Jesus.

Jee-Sus.

Personally, I could give a flying fuck about pitchfork.
Likewise, I could give a flying fuck about any reviewer that calls 'Z' a masterpiece and name drops "Kid A".
I could give a flying fuck about the length of their hair.
Or beards.
Or how much they drink.
Or whether the band lives in Louiville or records in upstate New York.

I'd like to put this on the table:

Any person who writes on this thread to gripe about the 'score' of a review is missing something. To me, it's kinda like a highschool thing ... like you're pissed at someone for not liking the same thing you like AS MUCH as you like it. Kinda like you're striving for attention.

Kinda like you think the person or thing in question [pitchfork here] is cooler than you and their opinion somehow overrides yours. Like if pitchfork gave this CD a 4.0 you'd have to justify coming to this website.

Puhleeze.

Calling someone 'gay' over not liking a particular track is really sad. Unless you meant that they're too happy enjoy it — but I fear that wasn't the intended use of 'gay'. And I'd go so far as to say if anyone involved with the band read that comment, they'd prolly just shake their head.

Enjoy the music. Grow up.

[EC]

Hm.  Somewhat valid points, although I think you miss the force that runs through this thread which is that most people don't generally like pitchfork reviews, and that most people want Z to get good reviews because it's awesome.

I'm glad that you don't care if Z gets called a Masterpiece.  I do.  It makes me excited.

The gay thing, although wrong, was clearly not expressed with ill-intentions.

Thanks for your opinion, but you don't have to trample all over everything.  

[Dobbs, Still]

Ill-will or not, it kinda surprises me as how 'gay' is the default setting for saying something is lame- that's all. The fact that it is the default setting is what I find sad.

I'm not saying people shouldn't be happy with good reviews - but why get riled up about bad ones?

If someone doesn't like the same thing as you, it doesn't make them wrong.

It looked like people were expecting an 8.9 or 9.0 or whatever - they got a 7.6. Again, getting all worked up over a fictional 1.3 points doesn't seem to make a lot of sense.

[ratsprayer]

Ill-will or not, it kinda surprises me as how 'gay' is the default setting for saying something is lame- that's all. The fact that it is the default setting is what I find sad.

I'm not saying people shouldn't be happy with good reviews - but why get riled up about bad ones?

If someone doesn't like the same thing as you, it doesn't make them wrong.

It looked like people were expecting an 8.9 or 9.0 or whatever - they got a 7.6. Again, getting all worked up over a fictional 1.3 points doesn't seem to make a lot of sense.

sorry, its a bit of inside humour from another thread in regards to 'bitches' and 'gay'.  its a simple fact that a lot of us read pitchfork, so the anticipation of their review, good or bad, was on our minds, at least mine.  its a curiosity thing, and im sorry if you think im here banning their isp so i cant go to their page any more.  im not that worked up over, hence the term 'gay bitches.'  im not arsed if someone like it or not, but simple fact is being fans here on a band's forum, we are going to be interested in reviews, and make reviews of the reviews.