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.
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!
http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/record-reviews/m/my-morning-jacket/z.shtml
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.
Seems like it got a 7.6. I guess it wasn't obscure enough.
ah, fuck them. ;D
Quoteah, 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)
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.
QuoteJames 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.
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
isn't What a Wonderful Man about a friend who killed himself anyway...not jesus
Quoteisn't What a Wonderful Man about a friend who killed himself anyway...not jesus
(that's what I meant...)
QuoteI 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.
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 :)
Quote 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.
Quote
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.
Quote
they dont seem to appreciate 'lay low', so theyre gay bitches.
agreed
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.
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.
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.
QuoteIll-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.
QuoteIll-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.
Well, that's true. That's one of those things, like the word "retarded", that I even used on here earlier today, that sometimes comes out of your mouth without thinking, and it is wrong. You're right.
QuoteI'm not saying people shouldn't be happy with good reviews - but why get riled up about bad ones?
Why not? If you don't like the writing, or you think the author's not done a good research job, then you can not like it. I didn't really see anybody getting too freaked out, though...
QuoteIf someone doesn't like the same thing as you, it doesn't make them wrong.
Yes it does.
haha. just kidding.
QuoteIt 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.
I'm trying to figure out how come YOU care so much about this... I don't know, pitchfork can give it a certain review, we can feel one way or not about said review, and so it goes...
:)
But you're so right, and thank you for the reminder. gay and retarded. I have GOT to get those out of my immediate language.
my biggest fault with the internet is that sarcasm cant be detected. im calling al gore right now, people. ::)
meh, those writers have a thesaurus up their asses. it's like a contest to see how many cool words and stupid personal reflections they can insert into a review. wow, anyone could do that.
I'm sooooooooooooooooooooooooo indie, and you're not! I saw Guided by Voices in 1985! And you didn't! That's what I get from their reviews...
Quote
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.
I agree. Pitchfork (at least as discussed on this forum) is more of a joke than anything. It's funny to bitch about a review of an album that you love and a critic who gives it a generally mild review.
are we really trying to defend ourselves to this gay asshole? c'mon, we are better than that. ;) not that there is anything wrong with that. ;D
i'm kidding of course and this thread is getting way too silly for me. give me a break buddy. i think someone's politics are getting in the way of seeing this thing clearly. :P
Quote
I agree. Pitchfork (at least as discussed on this forum) is more of a joke than anything. It's funny to bitch about a review of an album that you love and a critic who gives it a generally mild review.
thats so gay you agree with me, primushead. [smiley=bier.gif]
Quoteare we really trying to defend ourselves to this gay asshole? c'mon, we are better than that. ;)
I've got nothin' better to do, though. It's rainy outside and I can defend this post to the bitter end!
Quote
thats so gay you agree with me, primushead. [smiley=bier.gif]
Would you stop it with the lemonade already? You stupid fucker ::)
Quotemy biggest fault with the internet is that sarcasm cant be detected. im calling al gore right now, people. ::)
Didn't see this before for some reason, but yeah! Like the above post. How could you know I'm joking when I said "you stupid fucker"? Or maybe I wasn't joking at all...
The point is, there needs to be a sarcasm meter when you talk to people. I've had many an awkward moment when I try to be witty and sarcastic, but end up getting read as an asshole.
you mean, like this?
(http://webpost.net/qu/QueenOfTheRing/Sarcasm.jpg)
LOL!
Say 'what' again, mutha fucka! Say 'what'!
Damn, I need to watch that movie again.
you...flock of seagulls...don't get up.
I didn't say a goddamn thing to you!
Say what again, muthafucka!
Mmmm...This Is a tasty burger!!
Pumpkin: Which one is your wallet?
Jules: It's the one that says Bad Motherfucker.
you guys dont like the pitchfork review, and now youre quoting pulp fiction. grow up, would you? :D ;D
sooo fucking high school. i mean really. ;)
Come on guys. Ease it up.
(On a sidenote, at rehearsal last night, Shelby said to me "Oh, I get it, you do a bit of a retard (pronounced ritarrrd) in that section." And I couldn't stop laughing for 20 minutes. [retard means slow in italian or something] Anyhoooo....)
QuoteCome on guys. Ease it up.
sorry, personally, i know im only trying to get attention here. :-*
Vincent: And you know what they call a... a... a Quarter Pounder with Cheese in Paris?
Jules: They don't call it a Quarter Pounder with cheese?
Vincent: No man, they got the metric system. They wouldn't know what the fuck a Quarter Pounder is.
Jules: Then what do they call it?
Vincent: They call it a Royale with cheese.
Jules: A Royale with cheese. What do they call a Big Mac?
Vincent: Well, a Big Mac's a Big Mac, but they call it le Big-Mac.
Jules: Le Big-Mac. Ha ha ha ha. What do they call a Whopper?
Vincent: I dunno, I didn't go into Burger King.
Ehm, maybe it's just me, but that's a pretty good review on Pitchfork, isn't it? The 7.6 is a bit weird, granted, but the review, well, I kinda agree with it. Apart from the A/B-side part and how they seem to suggest that 'What a wonderful man' is religious, or whatever it is they're trying to say there, well, I've seen worse reviews. I liked it.
Apart from that, I think Pulp fiction is, if not the most overrated, then at least the most overquoted movie ever. I mean, what is that with people knowing whole dialogues by heart? Don't you have phone numbers to memorize, or something?
Oh, shit. You agreed with pitchfork. Judging from past experience ... run for cover.