pitchfork

[mister spills]

I stand behind my statement.

To be fair, I do think there's a problem of a critical establishment going on. Certain things get embraced and others blacklisted, and it's all perpetuated by this mutual appreciaton society of the over-educated, you know? They just like to hear themselves talk. They're in it to be as smarmy and cutting as possible, basically.

It's like that Simpsons episode where Homer's working as a food reviewer for the paper... that agribusiness critic reads his review: "I see John Deere has unveiled it's new line of rototillers. Well, suprise suprise... they're green! I say it's time to write John Deere a dear john..."

Or something like that. I mean, it's one thing to be a skilled writer, which a lot of these guys are. But that doesn't have anything to do with taste. You could be the world's greatest writer and think Huey Lewis rocks hard.

[dEvRoNiKa]

Reviews are interesting and insightful when you agree with them.

You're kidding, right?

Ha!! Yeah – No, I’m not.

Reading a (good/fair) review of something you already like that maybe offers up some thoughts that you hadn’t entertained, or touches on something you didn’t realize can be interesting or insightful. Reading a bad review of something you like isn’t likely to make you think, “Whoa, I am an idiot for ever liking this load of dogshit! I’m throwing it out NOW.” Nobody does that, people like what they like - and reviews telling ME what I won’t LIKE? They’re a waste of time. Reviews discussing the music/lyrics whatever, in some objective fashion? Well – that I can deal with. So yeah – I stand behind my statement.




I think I'm a fan of positive reviews, even if it's regarding something I don't like. Start it with, "If you like bubble-gum pretend country, you're going to absolutely love this record!" etc... Reviews should be descriptive, not just an opportunity for somebody who doesn't like something to convince you that you shouldn't like it either. I have no use for that crap.

[calexico]

I agree, Hot B.

Reviews are interesting and insightful when you agree with them (for me at least), but when I adamantly disagree, they just irritate me and they feel like a giant horrible foul smelling wet blanket of DOOM trying to ruin my good time.

Gee,that blanket sounded bad enough until you made it wet too!

[mister spills]

Reviews are interesting and insightful when you agree with them.

In the parlance of the day, HAHAHAHA.

You're kidding, right?

[calexico]

I tend to stay away from reviews as a rule because they either infuriate me or I totally agree with them thus wasting the time it took to read it which could have been used elsewhere.

I don't think I have ever gone out and bought an album based on a review although I have bought albums,loved them and by chance came across reviews of them lambasting them and think...did this guy even listen to the record?

[dEvRoNiKa]

I agree, Hot B.

Reviews are interesting and insightful when you agree with them (for me at least), but when I adamantly disagree, they just irritate me and they feel like a giant horrible foul smelling wet blanket of DOOM trying to ruin my good time.

So yeah ...

Let his review be his review.

An enormous fountain of spewing human waste.

[hot burrito]

I never buy an album based on a review, just like I don't go see a movie based on a review. Let his review be his review. I agree with you all. His review would not be what I would have written. I would write something like that about Aerosmith or someone. Not to say they are not good, but just isn't my cup of tea.

[dEvRoNiKa]

I should have never read this drivel. It makes me cuss like a sailor.

I've said it before and I'll say it again ...
Pitchfork can suck it. Hey Stephen M. Douchebag is also cordially invited to suck it.

This isn't the first time they've pissed me off with their shitty elitist verbiage. Rock criticism (honestly) is a dead medium. With musical tastes so vast and pop-culture icons overruling common sense with flash and technology, it’s a goddamn wonder we even bother to read, soak in, or give a crap what these dudes type up (off the cuff depending on their mood, hangover and/or caffeine intake). It’s worthless.

I like writing reviews, and occasionally reading them. I like giving my opinion on music, good or bad – but I try to be as fair and open-eared as possible. I feel like this guy went into it knowing he wasn’t going to give it a positive spin. I have the same issue with PopMatters. Mitch Pugh wrote one time the following:

Jay Fa-rrar n.&adj. n. 1 an alternative country singer/songwriter in the Bob Dylan troubadour tradition and former co-front man of Uncle Tupelo; largely credited as one of the founding fathers of the alternative country music genre. adj. 2 A way of behaving that is self-important or self-indulgent (Mike smoked a lot of weed and started getting all 'Jay Farrar' on us.)

Sure it’s mildly humorous, but it’s also shamefully stupid and clearly some attempt at character assassination, thereby completely canceling out any chance of my considering anything he says of value. He went on into a barrage of ridiculous comments about how Jay uses “big words”, and how much of an ass you must be to say things like “post industrial” in a song. What a bastard. I can't stomach reading reviews like that. They serve no purpose.

I’m of the opinion that if you use Wilco as a reference or comparative tool in a Son Volt review, you’ve already LOST THE GAME. In his own words: “these three bands (UT, Wilco, Son Volt) have diverged so dramatically from each other that any comparison between them becomes more nostalgic than musical.” Yeah - I couldn't have said it better MYSELF, dumb ass.

Here’s a crazy thought Pitchfork (et al) How about you jackasses STOP trying to invent comparisons between two (three) completely unrelated bands? I mean – that’s a start. You can at least have some SHRED of credibility if you’ll just do that. Baby steps.

Assholes.

Feeling better.

[stratoman]

Again, more evidence that a person should never do a drug named after a part of his own ass.

[badmofaux]

It never fails to frustrate me the way the critical establishment seems so hell-bent on dismissing bands who stick to their guns. They always use terms like "stuck in a rut" or "covering no new ground." Myself, I like it when bands keep on delivering the same thing. If it ain't broke...

Usually, when a band starts "going in new directions", you can be sure it's more a matter of the well of inspiration having run dry. I mean, it's one thing to develop in your musicianship and songwriting (think the first 3 Ramones albums), but it's quite another when a band has obviously hit the wall and are desperate for direction (did someone mention Wilco?).

[fadeaway]

a big, low voice delivering lyrics that don't always bother to make sense. The number of such tracks on A Retrospective makes it surprisingly monotonous, especially for a best-of comp that has so much material
-Stephen M. Deusner, May 26, 2005

Clueless people writing reviews...we all know the detailed writing of lyrics that Jay utiliizes. Even the most obscure..seemingly thoughaway line is well researched. Idiots...like the guy that was interviewing the Burt Renolds( who had his stunning plastic face on)..didn't watch the movie...didn't watch the original movie...didn't know anything about anything...he deserved to get slapped. Little Steve Deusner didn't do his homework either...so, will someone slap him.

Tallman

Actually, Stephen is quite aware of what he's writing about. He's an old friend of mine from Memphis (he now lives in Delaware). I went to a pair of Son Volt shows with him. Some of his criticisms are right on. The omission of "Caryatid Easy" was a mistake. I agree with him that "windfall" is quite the anthem. I don't think he's absolutely correct, but I do think that Trace is the best of Farrar's work. Anyway, don't be too hard on him. He's a nice guy and is entitled to his own opinions. Just don't say he didn't do "homework". He knows the bands' work well.

Sorry Fadeaway,

I'm sure your friend had every intention of writing a negative review. Right from the get go. Trace is a classic but then to compare WST with Summerteeth...he's got to be talking about ST..which got great reviews in certain rags and dismail reviews in others.. about the same sale as SWT, just doesn't make sense. Medicine Hat to She's a Jar. Farrar chose to go a less commercial route after WST got tagged with the ' what the hell is this guy singing about' not paying attention to any of the detailed research Farrar put into his lyrics ( musta' hurt) ...with no disrepect to Tweedy( whom I totally respect) YHF was as much Jay Benetts album as it was Jeff's...there can be only one center to a circle. If Jeff had not of hired Nels Cline on lead guitar things would have quite different on the Wilco scene. I'm sorry to say........
Your buddies review is one of the reasons I don't read Pitchfork anymore.

Just my opinion and hopefuly no hard feelings.

Tallman

No hard feelings, Tallman. One thing I guarantee, however, is that Stephen did not set out to write a bad review. Stephen is a huge fan of the Uncle Tupelo years and the majority of critics seem to pine for those days. They see Tweedy as innovative when, frankly, I had a very difficult time stomaching the last two Wilco records. All in all, I agree more with y'all. Stephen's just a good friend and a respectable critic. While we may not agree with his criticisms his opinions are his own and are not nearly as influenced by other critics as one may think. He did, after all, in The Village Voice call Trace one of the most important records of the '90s. I've been hard on Farrar myself before. Terroir Blues did little for me. OATMOR, however, has reinvigorated my respect for him. It kinda bothers me when people on this board so ferociously protect Jay from criticism. Not everything he does is perfect. He is, after all, human. Bob Dylan did "Self-Portrait", remember? What about the Neil Young electronica shit? It would've been terribly boring if Stephen had written a review that just said, "Jay Farrar is a God and this is the best Retrospective thing ever done in the history of music.". It's his job, ya know.

[stretch]

a big, low voice delivering lyrics that don't always bother to make sense. The number of such tracks on A Retrospective makes it surprisingly monotonous, especially for a best-of comp that has so much material
-Stephen M. Deusner, May 26, 2005

Clueless people writing reviews...we all know the detailed writing of lyrics that Jay utiliizes. Even the most obscure..seemingly thoughaway line is well researched. Idiots...like the guy that was interviewing the Burt Renolds( who had his stunning plastic face on)..didn't watch the movie...didn't watch the original movie...didn't know anything about anything...he deserved to get slapped. Little Steve Deusner didn't do his homework either...so, will someone slap him.

Tallman

Actually, Stephen is quite aware of what he's writing about. He's an old friend of mine from Memphis (he now lives in Delaware). I went to a pair of Son Volt shows with him. Some of his criticisms are right on. The omission of "Caryatid Easy" was a mistake. I agree with him that "windfall" is quite the anthem. I don't think he's absolutely correct, but I do think that Trace is the best of Farrar's work. Anyway, don't be too hard on him. He's a nice guy and is entitled to his own opinions. Just don't say he didn't do "homework". He knows the bands' work well.

Sorry Fadeaway,

I'm sure your friend had every intention of writing a negative review. Right from the get go. Trace is a classic but then to compare WST with Summerteeth...he's got to be talking about ST..which got great reviews in certain rags and dismail reviews in others.. about the same sale as SWT, just doesn't make sense. Medicine Hat to She's a Jar. Farrar chose to go a less commercial route after WST got tagged with the ' what the hell is this guy singing about' not paying attention to any of the detailed research Farrar put into his lyrics ( musta' hurt) ...with no disrepect to Tweedy( whom I totally respect) YHF was as much Jay Benetts album as it was Jeff's...there can be only one center to a circle. If Jeff had not of hired Nels Cline on lead guitar things would have quite different on the Wilco scene. I'm sorry to say........
Your buddies review is one of the reasons I don't read Pitchfork anymore.

Just my opinion and hopefuly no hard feelings.

Tallman

[calexico]

Yes, opinions ARE like assholes. Trouble is, all of us here have them, too.

Ture enough,but we are not getting paid to write for a fairly widely read website and no one gives a shit about what we think!

[bostonma]

Sounds to me like this guy just doesn't like Jay's music and wants to bitch and moan about it. His complaints about the order of songs are pointless. I'm sure there was a reason and Antelope's thoughts on it sound good to me. As for the songs that were left off, well, everybody has an opinion on that, right? Left A Slide comes to mind. And how can he not like Holocaust? The songs are indistinguishable? Lyrics that don't make sense? His pal Tweedy writes some of the most seemingly nonsensical lyrics I've ever heard in recent years, but he calls that "self consciously agressive innovation"...yeah, whatever. Amelodic tracks? Once again Tweedy springs to mind. So why does he like Wilco so much? Oh that's right, all critics must love Wilco. Finally, as others have pointed out earlier, why is he even comparing the two anymore? Their styles diverged long before this cd was released.

[Damaged Son]

Good point about the order of tracks, Antelope 850.
I've played Son Volt many times for people and while some of them enjoy the first half of the album, they don't realize that they've heard this band before until 'Drown' kicks in.

And then they're pleasantly surprised, and start looking at the CD case or ask that all too familiar "Who is this? I've heard this song before..."