Hearing a Pitchfork 10 live

Thought from last night…
So there's something religious, something etherial about hearing amazingly good, breakthrough, original music live. Sure, the Decemberists are great, but not like Radiohead or Wilco.

Say what you will about Pitchfork– I find some of their reviews questionable, but when they give something a 10, I almost always agree. And when I hear a 10 live, I realize what bliss is.

i agree…pitchfork is usually spot on with their reviews. YHF truly deserved the 10.0 rating. i'm anxious to see what they give AGIB. last night's show was phenomenal.

YAWN

Originally posted by chimbly sweep:
Sure, the Decemberists are great, but not like Radiohead or Wilco.

I think I may hand in my Wilco fan card like I did my Radiohead card

all joking aside, I did at one point last night think to myself while watching Wilco play that they are a really great band in terms of playing their instruments and making the exact sound they want to make

I would still rather go to a Decemberists show, they are my second favorite live act right now, we all know who my first is, hopefully the Decemberists live show doesn't suffer in the bigger 9:30 club

Originally posted by joz:
pitchfork is usually spot on with their reviews.

how is that possible, they write something 1 day and disagree with it the next, they even backed off their wilco review several times

Mark E. Smith pointed out to me that in their review of the new Gomez album they claimed the previous one was better, yet it had a lower score

i…wouldn't give that much weight to their wack number ratings. remember they gave source tags & codes and yhf 10's…and then made the interpol record #1 for the year. the individual ratings are just one dude, i think that the head guy (ryan something) may approve them, but the whole process is anarchy from what i understand.

note the use of the clarifying adverb "usually"…get bent pollard.

Originally posted by joz:
get bent pollard.

are you going to do the honor of bending me?

no thanks

Originally posted by pollard:

Originally posted by joz:
pitchfork is usually spot on with their reviews.

how is that possible, they write something 1 day and disagree with it the next, they even backed off their wilco review several times

Mark E. Smith pointed out to me that in their review of the new Gomez album they claimed the previous one was better, yet it had a lower score

No doubt all true. You need to read PF with your music snob hat on. I sent them a vitriolic email after they criticized the most recent White Stripes record for the same things that had previously garnered effusive reviews. It wasn't even that I loved the record, it's just that there was no consistency to their rating system. I'm sure they read it & enjoyed it. And probably implemented all of my practical suggestions for improvement. :D

Another example is the Twilight Singers. They repeatedly say that Blackberry Belle is better than Twilight. Yet it is rated .5 lower.

Turns out they're just as dumb as the rest of us ~ only they have top secret clearance for the worlds finest thesaurus.

pitchfork is like any other 'zine…once you read it enough, you'll find the writers who you trust. the ratings system isn't tallied up by averaging all the votes of the staff; it's only the writer's opinion. the writers contradict each other all the time. i like the idea of having multiple reviews, so you get different perspectives.

i like the reviewers who describe the album well, instead of using the space for their creative writing essays. while the oh-so-clever reviews can be fun to read, they often don't say shit about what the music sounds like.

concerning pitchfork 10s, i usually disagree with them (trail of dead's source tags and codes, radiohead's kid a, even john lennon's imagine). as much as i love yankee hotel foxtrot, i still don't think it's a 10.

Originally posted by evilsanta:
YAWN

bigyawn

i guess i should have stressed my point more– it's not an endorsement of Pitchfork, per say, but a note about bands so good that when you're standing there listening, you get that "it doesn't get any better" blissful feeling…

smooshy, i know.

Originally posted by chimbly sweep:
…bands so good that when you're standing there listening, you get that "it doesn't get any better" blissful feeling…

Good Pt - It's why I'll always keep going to shows & buying records. You try to make good choices, but you still end up kissing a lot of frogs. The rare situations though like you describe above make it all worthwhile:

Main Entry: tran·scen·dent
Pronunciation: -d&nt
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin transcendent-, transcendens, present participle of transcendere
1 a : exceeding usual limits : SURPASSING b : extending or lying beyond the limits of ordinary experience c in Kantian philosophy : being beyond the limits of all possible experience and knowledge

Comparing Pitchfork rating numbers can get you in trouble, I've found the Best New Music section to be spot on though.

Originally posted by chimbly sweep:
i guess i should have stressed my point more– it's not an endorsement of Pitchfork, per say, but a note about bands so good that when you're standing there listening, you get that "it doesn't get any better" blissful feeling…

smooshy, i know.

You're spot on. And that's exactly the way I feel, but it's my own visceral reaction to what *I* think is perfect. I know many others usually disagree, but who cares, cuz I get that great "this is perfection" feeling all to myself! :D