Collected Animals

Posted: **Wed Feb 03, 2016 6:34 am**

marginwalker wrote:

Screw Pitchfork, Anthony Joe Biden is where it's at!

Eww I hope this is a joke. I loathe Joe Biden. That dude is a penis wrinkle.

But I'm with Synusoid. Rating music is fucking lame.

Posted: **Wed Feb 03, 2016 6:36 am**

Ratings are meaningless

Posted: **Wed Feb 03, 2016 6:39 am**

is there a rotten tomatoes for album reviews?

Posted: **Wed Feb 03, 2016 6:39 am**

marginwalker wrote:

Screw Pitchfork, Anthony Joe Biden is where it's at!

Go away Anthony

Posted: **Wed Feb 03, 2016 6:40 am**

Guys remember how good page 160 was

Posted: **Wed Feb 03, 2016 6:41 am**

truth - i couldn't care less about whether pitchfork, stereogum, Joe Biden, etc. like the record BUT there is something special about having a record we've been following/yearning for reach the levels of acclaim we're expecting it to. maybe it's validation, maybe it's just to say "i told you so!" - i don't know.

also, there's a post on this link that shows pitchfork's updated scores for albums, that'll show you how meaningless their number system (and assigning scores/ratings to music) really is.
http://sheekyforums.com/thread/61777632 ... hfork.html

Posted: **Wed Feb 03, 2016 6:55 am**

kafkaesque wrote:

i completely agree. but i simultaneously find it odd that a website that generally highly rates acclaimed bands' pop-leaning projects wouldn't even review these relatively agreeable singles

I do agree that it is odd for them to not review FloriDada or Lying In The Grass, definitely.

I just think that reviews should be nothing more than "listen to this if you like [blah blah blah and blah such things]" or "don't bother listening to this if [etc. etc. interests]"

idk lol i am rambling

Posted: **Wed Feb 03, 2016 7:01 am**

Freak wrote:

I'm guessin it'll be a solid 7.7 or some shit

they did that feature earlier this year tho, so my $$$ is on P4k Fest appearance

someone posted in the live shows forum that they asked avey and he said they werent playing pitchfork fest this year.

Posted: **Wed Feb 03, 2016 7:04 am**

zaltakid2000 wrote:

truth - i couldn't care less about whether pitchfork, stereogum, Joe Biden, etc. like the record BUT there is something special about having a record we've been following/yearning for reach the levels of acclaim we're expecting it to. maybe it's validation, maybe it's just to say "i told you so!" - i don't know.

I feel the same way, we are human after all and acceptance is important... But, I find it mind blowing how the guys seem to brush it aside. The best way I can explain it is with super sport stars in how they don't give a shit about commentators and analyst... They just look down upon them like they are in a different world of understanding and creativity. I mean look how they try to get into messi's head and or tiger when he was the shit... The athletes have a disdain for sport critics I wonder how the guys feel about it all... I get the feeling that they are pushing the limits within their own music and to have strangers rate their work when they would never ina billion years be able to make the same thing.

I guess I have trouble relating with people that are at genius level and maybe critics think they belong there with the musicians when in fact they are clueless that's why I have always found peer reviews more relevant.

Posted: **Wed Feb 03, 2016 7:20 am**

Didn't mean for this to turn into a P4k discush; was just hoping to read some educated guesses as to why a traditional step in their alb buildup process has been skipped.

Posted: **Wed Feb 03, 2016 7:50 am**

this is one of my least favorite pitchfork reviews about one of my favorite albums, vladislav delay's demo(n) tracks

http://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/2558-demon-tracks/

i highly recommend that album

Posted: **Wed Feb 03, 2016 8:38 am**

I guess I'm in the minority here cause I'd much rather hear what Joe Biden has to say over p4k.

Just curious here; why does anyone trust p4k to accurately assess anything? At least Joe Biden has a consistent track record, and explains in detail why he likes or dislikes something(whether or not you agreee or disagree is up to you). P4k just hands out 10's when its convenient, beneficial to them, or properly paid for.

Posted: **Wed Feb 03, 2016 8:44 am**

agreed; I stopped watching Joe Biden for various reasons but I definitely prefer him to pitchfork

Posted: **Wed Feb 03, 2016 8:45 am**

James Russel wrote:

Just curious here; why does anyone trust p4k to accurately assess anything?.

i dont think anyone really does. but their reviews kind of "matter" because of the influence of the site and its popularity (im self-perpetuating their control ovr music forums..). but i think we shld b able to talk abt them w/o having to launch into digressions abt why they dont matter/suck. they just are for better or worse..

Posted: **Wed Feb 03, 2016 8:48 am**

diomedes wrote:

they just are for better or worse.

this is the problem

Posted: **Wed Feb 03, 2016 8:52 am**

better than rolling stones

Posted: **Wed Feb 03, 2016 8:53 am**

In what way?

imo the only difference is the demo they peddle too.

Posted: **Wed Feb 03, 2016 8:57 am**

this has gone on for too long now but i mean they do cover and provide good content on a lot of the bands im into, and moreso than i assume rs does. plus theyre selective with the mainstream coverage... idk its ok but ya they suck too.

Posted: **Wed Feb 03, 2016 9:03 am**

i feel like they used to be more interesting, and somehow more in tune or something. not perfect but at least better. like in the 2000s or whatever, and the "cred" they got for seeming to be on the cusp those years has somehow lasted despite them really going downhill. it amazes me they still are industry leaders, you'd think it'd be a more cutthroat, throw out the old-guard type of industry that wouldnt tolerate an expired dictator like that.

this album will get a lukewarm 7.4 and probably it's ok, but maybe not. the score is basically already set. they arent gonna let ac make them look like they are stuck in the 00s.

my guess is that they havent been super keen on the 2 tracks that have been released and so they didnt give em it's ok. i think thats understandable. maybe if they had chosen other cuts P4k woulda thrown them a it's ok or two, i feel like it might be that kind of thing.

Posted: **Wed Feb 03, 2016 9:04 am**

diomedes wrote:

they do cover and provide good content on a lot of the bands im into, and moreso than i assume rs does.

Yeah I feel that. They do cover things that RS wouldn't. I guess I'm just cynical and inherently don't trust either of them, which is why someone like Joe Biden can be appealing(even though it's rare that I agree with him, it's just nice to see someone attempting to honestly express their opinion and back it up with thought out reasons).

edit: i totally agree vovenarg

Posted: **Wed Feb 03, 2016 9:08 am**

p4k was a pretty useful resource for me in the 2000s when there were fewer resources or i didn't know the resources well. CA has been a much, much more useful resource however since i found it. so much better to hear from real people who know whats up and are passionate and who you can discuss with in a much fuller way.

thanks for that CA. you should be makin the P4k bucks.

Posted: **Wed Feb 03, 2016 9:26 am**

I really hope that that is what things shift towards in the future. I want to hear everyone's opinions, but only if they are actually real individual opinions, and not just whatever some writer's overlord is pigeonholing them into/paying them for.

Yeah I know I sound egdy(fight the corporate machine BRAH!) but at this point, I seriously couldn't care less about reviews coming from any well known publications(if it's a good writer/someone I recognize reporting on the music, thats one thing, but otherwise, who cares?)

Posted: **Wed Feb 03, 2016 9:44 am**

I'm feelin the burn on this one.

Posted: **Wed Feb 03, 2016 9:52 am**

James Russel wrote:

I really hope that that is what things shift towards in the future. I want to hear everyone's opinions, but only if they are actually real individual opinions, and not just whatever some writer's overlord is pigeonholing them into/paying them for.

Do you guys use RateYourMusic? It's pretty much what you just described. Just random people writing reviews for albums, where every review can be different and can look at the release from many angles. The average ratings on the site are pretty accurate for the most part. They are all user ratings too.

Posted: **Wed Feb 03, 2016 9:53 am**

Vovenarg wrote:

this album will get a lukewarm 7.4 and probably it's ok, but maybe not. the score is basically already set .

I don't get this about pitchfork (or it's reader I guess). isn't 7.4 a really, really good score?

Posted: **Wed Feb 03, 2016 10:02 am**

these types of collective cultural outlets like p4k aren't actually designed to provide fruitful dialogue about music--
they're designed to replace it.

Posted: **Wed Feb 03, 2016 10:22 am**

@ popparen: i mean an 7.4 is obviously fantastic, but it's like when Tomboy got an 8.5, it's like equivalent of a neutral score especially in the context of who AC are and how they have reviewed them in the past. it's like "good job, not as good as you used to be but good effort." a pat on the back and sort of a quieting of the convo. it's a safe play that kind of pushes the album to the side and says "good but not too exciting," especially when it's a very established act. i think it also is in a range they give out quite often so it kinda feels like the lukewarm safe thing after awhile. when you read it it can be like "oh cool, another 7.4". that might be the impression i'm basing things on. idk.

but yeah, who wouldnt be stoked to get an "7.4" range from any source or any person. that's a solid score for something as difficult and subjective as music. i think it's more about how AC used to be hittin consistently in the 9s or high 8s for awhile, for what thats worth.

Posted: **Wed Feb 03, 2016 10:35 am**

oh yeah, I get it. well, I don't agree that they aren't relevant. it doesn't really matter what we think about them because we are still talking about them and people are still reading their reviews. they will stop being relevant when we stop talk about them.

I still think pitchfork is a good place to go for news. the reviews sucks tho and I wish they could talk about the music and describe it more in their reviews.

Posted: **Wed Feb 03, 2016 11:01 am**

same. it's interesting how much more idiosyncratic and personal their review voices were in the early days. sad how homogenized and faux-authoritative/faux-scholarly their voice has become. i still check there for news too, mainly cause i'm lazy and it's a years-old habit.

Posted: **Wed Feb 03, 2016 11:49 am**

It's blatant that p4k aren't interested in re-hyping the band, more so now that they're not playing their festival this year. Otherwise, Floridada would've been BNT'd and Lying in the Grass would've got a review. There's no pandering to be done.

I still expect a higher score than CHz, maybe an 8.0 or 8.1. But probably no it's ok. Eh, it says it all really that we feel comfortable guessing what score a publication will give an album we haven't even heard yet.

All that said though, only one major publication reviewed Mr. Noah.

Posted: **Wed Feb 03, 2016 11:49 am**

lavalanche wrote:

is there a rotten tomatoes for album reviews?

Only one I know of: http://www.albumoftheyear.org/

Posted: **Wed Feb 03, 2016 11:54 am**

Pandasticus wrote:

James Russel wrote:
I really hope that that is what things shift towards in the future. I want to hear everyone's opinions, but only if they are actually real individual opinions, and not just whatever some writer's overlord is pigeonholing them into/paying them for.

Do you guys use RateYourMusic? It's pretty much what you just described. Just random people writing reviews for albums, where every review can be different and can look at the release from many angles. The average ratings on the site are pretty accurate for the most part. They are all user ratings too.

I do use and like RYM but c'mon, that place can be as snarky and caustic an environment as any music review site. Also seems heavily imbued with /mu/ ideologies and edginess.

Posted: **Wed Feb 03, 2016 11:55 am**

Ayy lmao www.tinymixtapes.com/features/2015-identity-crisis

Posted: **Wed Feb 03, 2016 12:08 pm**

Tropic of Cans wrote:

lavalanche wrote:
is there a rotten tomatoes for album reviews?

Only one I know of: http://www.albumoftheyear.org/

http://www.metacritic.com/
it's helpful, I don't always read the review scores or reviews but I use sites like this, pitchfork, TMT and such to give me ideas of things to throw on, then I can decide if I like it and want to invest more time. pretty fun. also last.fm and spotify reccommend me new stuff all the time, it helps to keep a varied source of rec's flowing in

trying to discover all kinds of new stuff to listen to so I can tide over until PW release

Posted: **Wed Feb 03, 2016 12:37 pm**

Fovrodi wrote:

Let's get this quoted 100 times.

You'll find $1000 tomorrow if we do

Spoiler: show

Posted: **Wed Feb 03, 2016 1:21 pm**

lavalanche wrote:

is there a rotten tomatoes for album reviews?

http://anydecentmusic.com

I like metacritic for movies/tv, but I think anydecentmusic is better for music, particularly smaller acts.

Posted: **Wed Feb 03, 2016 3:43 pm**

roopn wrote:

marginwalker wrote:
Screw Pitchfork, Anthony Joe Biden is where it's at!

Go away Anthony

Anthony lives in the same town as I do. I see him once in awhile... I don't talk to him, I just give him the look every time I see him.

EDIT: I should find him and get PW from him, sure he has a promotional copy. WHY DIDN'T I EVER SPEAK A WORD TO HIM...

Posted: **Wed Feb 03, 2016 3:55 pm**

mrlucrative wrote:

WHY DIDN'T I EVER SPEAK A WORD TO HIM...

you fucked up

Posted: **Wed Feb 03, 2016 4:06 pm**

paint-thony withtano here

Spoiler: show

Posted: **Wed Feb 03, 2016 4:24 pm**

Joe Biden is one of the worst currently active critics

Collected Animals

Painting With

Re: Painting With

Re: Painting With

Re: Painting With

Re: Painting With

Re: Painting With

Re: Painting With

Re: Painting With

Re: Painting With

Re: Painting With

Re: Painting With

Re: Painting With

Re: Painting With

Re: Painting With

Re: Painting With

Re: Painting With

Re: Painting With

Re: Painting With

Re: Painting With

Re: Painting With

Re: Painting With

Re: Painting With

Re: Painting With

Re: Painting With

Re: Painting With

Re: Painting With

Re: Painting With

Re: Painting With

Re: Painting With

Re: Painting With

Re: Painting With

Re: Painting With

Re: Painting With

Re: Painting With

Re: Painting With

Re: Painting With

Re: Painting With

Re: Painting With

Re: Painting With

Re: Painting With

Re: Painting With