Arcade Fire/Augie March

That's fine by me. If the information sounds interesting, I'll go and research the band and make my own judgment. The key is the variety. Pitchfork does a good job covering indie-obscure, but barely touches anything beyond their own little niche.


Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
Popmatters shouldn't be considered anything more than an information source. 99 and 44/100 of their reviews are glowingly positive.

Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
I just find popmatters a much more interesting read, mixing popular stuff with the obscure and covering a much wider variety.
Originally posted by Taster:
So I rely on Pitchfork, Big Yawn , and this board to a great extent and buy most of my music without having heard the album first. They serve a purpose, IMO.
Nice one there buddy….

Keep in mind that on BigYawn, Insound, Splendid Amazon and others actually let you listen to full songs or sound clips. No need to go in completely blind. Save yourself some bucks.
That sounds interesting, but I just looked up two of my favorite albums of the year, by Bobby Bare Jr. and BR549, and they're not even listed. And it's not like these albums are obscure, they've certainly been reviewed in numerous publications.

Originally posted by redsock:
Personally, I like meta-critic, as it compiles reviews from all over the place and gives it one final score. And they include lots of more obscure stuff too, along with the fluff.
all from pitchfork, this took about 30 seconds to find

(63%) Drive-By Truckers: The Dirty South
[New West; 2004] Rating: 8.4 - Review by: Stephen M. Deusner

(63%) Drive-By Truckers: Decoration Day
[New West; 2003] Rating: 8.0 - Review by: Stephen Haag

(27%) Patterson Hood: Killers and Stars
[New West; 2004] Rating: 7.4 - Review by: Stephen M. Deusner

(63%) Old 97's: Fight Songs
[Elektra] Rating: 4.0 - Review by: Neil Lieberman

(63%) Old 97's: Drag It Up
[New West; 2004] Rating: 7.0 - Review by: Stephen M. Deusner

(63%) Wilco: Being There
[Reprise; 1996] Rating: 6.8 - Review by: Ryan Schreiber

(63%) Billy Bragg & Wilco: Mermaid Avenue
[Elektra; 1998] Rating: 7.8 - Review by: Aparna Mohan

(63%) Wilco: Summer Teeth
[Reprise; 1999] Rating: 9.4 - Review by: Neil Lieberman

(63%) Billy Bragg & Wilco: Mermaid Avenue, Vol. II
[Elektra; 2000] Rating: 6.3 - Review by: Ryan Kearney

(63%) Wilco: Yankee Hotel Foxtrot
[Nonesuch; 2002] Rating: 10.0 - Review by: Brent S. Sirota

(63%) Wilco: A Ghost Is Born
[Nonesuch; 2004] Rating: 6.6 - Review by: Rob Mitchum

(63%) The Minus 5: Down with Wilco
[Yep Roc; 2003] Rating: 7.3 - Review by: Rob Mitchum

(27%) Uncle Tupelo: 'No Depression', 'Still Feel Gone' and 'March 16-20, 1992'
[Rockville; 1990; 1991; 1992; r: Columbia Legacy; 2003] Rating: 6.7 / 7.0 / 8.4 - Review by: William Bowers

(27%) Uncle Tupelo: 89/93: An Anthology
[Columbia/Legacy; 2002] Rating: 7.8 - Review by: Jason Nickey

(27%) Jeff Tweedy: Chelsea Walls
[Ryko; 2002] Rating: 6.3 - Review by: Joe Tangari

(27%) Jay Bennett & Edward Burch: The Palace at 4am (Part I)
[Undertow; 2002] Rating: 5.6 - Review by: Rob Mitchum

(27%) Loose Fur: Loose Fur
[Drag City; 2003] Rating: 7.2 - Review by: Will Bryant

(27%) The Autumn Defense: The Green Hour
[Broadmoor] Rating: 5.7 - Review by: Joe Tangari

(27%) The Autumn Defense: Circles
[Arena Rock; 2003] Rating: 6.9 - Review by: Amanda Petrusich

(100%) Wilco: More Like the Moon EP
[Wilcoworld.net; 2003] Rating: 7.0 - Review by: Rob Mitchum

(63%) Rhett Miller: The Instigator
[Elektra; 2002] Rating: 6.9 - Review by: Joe Tangari
What is your point? QUOTE]Originally posted by pollard:
all from pitchfork, this took about 30 seconds to find

(63%) Drive-By Truckers: The Dirty South
[New West; 2004] Rating: 8.4 - Review by: Stephen M. Deusner

(63%) Drive-By Truckers: Decoration Day
[New West; 2003] Rating: 8.0 - Review by: Stephen Haag

(27%) Patterson Hood: Killers and Stars
[New West; 2004] Rating: 7.4 - Review by: Stephen M. Deusner

(63%) Old 97's: Fight Songs
[Elektra] Rating: 4.0 - Review by: Neil Lieberman

(63%) Old 97's: Drag It Up
[New West; 2004] Rating: 7.0 - Review by: Stephen M. Deusner

(63%) Wilco: Being There
[Reprise; 1996] Rating: 6.8 - Review by: Ryan Schreiber

(63%) Billy Bragg & Wilco: Mermaid Avenue
[Elektra; 1998] Rating: 7.8 - Review by: Aparna Mohan

(63%) Wilco: Summer Teeth
[Reprise; 1999] Rating: 9.4 - Review by: Neil Lieberman

(63%) Billy Bragg & Wilco: Mermaid Avenue, Vol. II
[Elektra; 2000] Rating: 6.3 - Review by: Ryan Kearney

(63%) Wilco: Yankee Hotel Foxtrot
[Nonesuch; 2002] Rating: 10.0 - Review by: Brent S. Sirota

(63%) Wilco: A Ghost Is Born
[Nonesuch; 2004] Rating: 6.6 - Review by: Rob Mitchum

(63%) The Minus 5: Down with Wilco
[Yep Roc; 2003] Rating: 7.3 - Review by: Rob Mitchum

(27%) Uncle Tupelo: 'No Depression', 'Still Feel Gone' and 'March 16-20, 1992'
[Rockville; 1990; 1991; 1992; r: Columbia Legacy; 2003] Rating: 6.7 / 7.0 / 8.4 - Review by: William Bowers

(27%) Uncle Tupelo: 89/93: An Anthology
[Columbia/Legacy; 2002] Rating: 7.8 - Review by: Jason Nickey

(27%) Jeff Tweedy: Chelsea Walls
[Ryko; 2002] Rating: 6.3 - Review by: Joe Tangari

(27%) Jay Bennett & Edward Burch: The Palace at 4am (Part I)
[Undertow; 2002] Rating: 5.6 - Review by: Rob Mitchum

(27%) Loose Fur: Loose Fur
[Drag City; 2003] Rating: 7.2 - Review by: Will Bryant

(27%) The Autumn Defense: The Green Hour
[Broadmoor] Rating: 5.7 - Review by: Joe Tangari

(27%) The Autumn Defense: Circles
[Arena Rock; 2003] Rating: 6.9 - Review by: Amanda Petrusich

(100%) Wilco: More Like the Moon EP
[Wilcoworld.net; 2003] Rating: 7.0 - Review by: Rob Mitchum

(63%) Rhett Miller: The Instigator
[Elektra; 2002] Rating: 6.9 - Review by: Joe Tangari
Which would be the niche that most people on this board listen to.

Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
Pitchfork does a good job covering indie-obscure, but barely touches anything beyond their own little niche.
Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
The key is the variety. Pitchfork does a good job covering indie-obscure, but barely touches anything beyond their own little niche.
my point is that what you are saying here is not entirely true

basically, you want a site that covers everything you like

if pitchfork starts covering more of a variety, nobody covers as much obscure stuff, and there are people who want to read that
Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
That sounds interesting, but I just looked up two of my favorite albums of the year, by Bobby Bare Jr. and BR549, and they're not even listed. And it's not like these albums are obscure, they've certainly been reviewed in numerous publications.

Originally posted by redsock:
Personally, I like meta-critic, as it compiles reviews from all over the place and gives it one final score. And they include lots of more obscure stuff too, along with the fluff.
All right, put them to the test:

"A: We try to include as many new releases as possible, in a variety of genres. Our music editor is a music fan and former DJ, and generally uses this test: if he has heard or read about the artist, the CD will be included in our site. Generally, virtually all major pop, rock, rap and alternative releases will be included. We also try to include many indie and electronic artists, as well as major releases in other categories (country, etc.). Occasionally, we will also include import-only items (generally, UK releases) if it appears that they will not be released in the United States in the foreseeable future (otherwise, we will typically wait for the U.S. release). Remember, if an album does not show up in at least 3 of the publications we use, it probably will not be included on the site.

The sheer number of music releases each year (over 30,000 unique titles per year in the U.S. alone–and that's not counting reissues, compilations, etc.), compared to films and video games, makes it virtually impossible to cover every release; thus, our music section is much more selective than our games and movie sections."

Check out there list of magazines/sites… and see if they were reviewed…c'mon you enjoy proving your points. Put your money where your mouth usually is. And no, I don't mean your wife's ass :)
http://www.metacritic.com/about/scoring.shtml#music
i like pitchfork more for the news, i really don't take their reviews all that seriously.

i like the arcade fire, haven't hear the augie march. i have the arcade fire ep too. i wouldn't call them all that obscure, they are on merge, afterall
Originally posted by god's shoeshine:
i like pitchfork more for the news, i really don't take their reviews all that seriously.
In that case, you're better off reading sites like Stereogum, Billboard and other news-sites that are updated throughout the day. Many times, I'll know about items a day or so in advance of Pitchfork's publishing because they only post updates once a day in the early AM.
Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
That's fine by me. If the information sounds interesting, I'll go and research the band and make my own judgment. The key is the variety. Pitchfork does a good job covering indie-obscure, but barely touches anything beyond their own little niche.
What's wrong with that?

If I'm craving Hunan shrimp, I'm not sliding into Little Italy for that dish. If I want to be served up some Indie reviews, I might just go over to Pitchfork.

(Except that I never read Pitchfork.)
Originally posted by Random Citizen:
Originally posted by god's shoeshine:
i like pitchfork more for the news, i really don't take their reviews all that seriously.
In that case, you're better off reading sites like Stereogum, Billboard and other news-sites that are updated throughout the day. Many times, I'll know about items a day or so in advance of Pitchfork's publishing because they only post updates once a day in the early AM.
i'll check out stereogum, thanks. but billboard has alot of bands i don't like. pitchfork tells me everytime ted leo or bob pollard shits. and yes, the drive-by truckers too.
Let me restate my point.

The fact that pitchfork gave an album an 8.7 really means nothing to me. Their reviewers are snarky, deliberate obscurists who tend to champion obscurity more than quality (in my opinion), and thus they lose my respect.

But to be honest, I don't use reviews to determine whether an album will be good anyway.

Though sometimes if I read a review that validates my positive or negative opinion, and that review is in a publication I like, it puts a grin on my face.

Again, if an 8.7 pitchfork review is evidence that would make you personally want an album, that's your perogative. My point was it means nothing to me.
it is not about the number, there are plenty of things they say in the text that can give you an idea if you will like it or not
The Arcade Fire album is great. If you can find their self released EP pick that up too. As for their live show, one of the best bands I've seen in a while.
I would agree. But it's the objective text, not the subjective text, that would be the key part of the read to me.

Originally posted by pollard:
it is not about the number, there are plenty of things they say in the text that can give you an idea if you will like it or not
Do you mean to say that a fine album isn't at all like Nadia Comenici's perfect 10? Or perhaps a dive from Greg Louganis? Dear sir, I beg to differ!

Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
The fact that pitchfork gave an album an 8.7 really means nothing to me.
Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
I would agree. But it's the objective text, not the subjective text, that would be the key part of the read to me.
pretty much the same here, although comparisons to other artists, which can be pretty subjective, can be helpful

so there is a key part to pitchfork reviews then, looks like it can be taken seriously
I think he's saying that the 8.7 was awarded only because the French judge was pressured by the Russians into artificially inflating the score of the Arcade Fire while underscoring the stellar performance of the team from Texas.

Originally posted by econo:
Do you mean to say that a fine album isn't at all like Nadia Comenici's perfect 10? Or perhaps a dive from Greg Louganis? Dear sir, I beg to differ!

Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
The fact that pitchfork gave an album an 8.7 really means nothing to me.
haha. Well put. Still, they had this to say about Drag it Up:

To an extent, if Drag It Up sounds disappointing, it's mostly in relation to previous albums;

…even though it managed to outscore Fight Songs, the only other Old 97's album they reviewed. 7.0-4.0.


Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
I think he's saying that the 8.7 was awarded only because the French judge was pressured by the Russians into artificially inflating the score of the Arcade Fire while underscoring the stellar performance of the team from Texas.

Originally posted by econo:
Do you mean to say that a fine album isn't at all like Nadia Comenici's perfect 10? Or perhaps a dive from Greg Louganis? Dear sir, I beg to differ!

Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
The fact that pitchfork gave an album an 8.7 really means nothing to me.