I was wondering what people thought of these albums. I decided to buy only one of the two, having never heard either, and I picked The Arcade Fire. Any thoughts?
Arcade Fire/Augie March
I'm picking up the Arcade Fire disc this evening, but from what I've heard (a few tracks on WOXY.com plus the Merge Records site), it's really damn good. Good enough that I'm seriously thinking of attending their Philly show in November.
The album is receiving a lot raves: Pitchfork gave it a 9.7; the AMG gave it 4 stars, which again, is pretty impressive considering this is their debut.
The album is receiving a lot raves: Pitchfork gave it a 9.7; the AMG gave it 4 stars, which again, is pretty impressive considering this is their debut.
Pitchfork gave it 9.7. Say no more.
No more.
I actually looked for Arcade Fire at Crooked Beat, not judging them on not having it either. What I have heard of it has been promising. Makes me kind of wish I had gone to the second Unicorns show when they were opening.
Originally posted by Rhett Miller:Well BigYawn hasn't reviewed it yet, so the true test is yet to be told.
Pitchfork gave it 9.7. Say no more.
Oh, and Rhett, stop being a prick. Just cause No Depression won't review it, don't be a baby.
Pollard-
Olsson's Landsburgh has the Arcade Fire, or at least they did a week ago.
Olsson's Landsburgh has the Arcade Fire, or at least they did a week ago.
Arcade Fire: Good but not great, IMO… 7/10
Augie March: Not bad… 7.5/10
Augie March: Not bad… 7.5/10
I can't believe people actually take Pitchfork seriously.
Originally posted by redsock:
Originally posted by Rhett Miller:Well BigYawn hasn't reviewed it yet, so the true test is yet to be told.
Pitchfork gave it 9.7. Say no more.
Oh, and Rhett, stop being a prick. Just cause No Depression won't review it, don't be a baby.
What I really want to hear is the Dungen album Pitchfork was touting yesterday, I listened to some clips and it sounded great.
Originally posted by Rhett Miller:how do you mean take it seriously, why not take it as an opinion, they do listen to the stuff they write about, it is pretty easy to listen to stuff before buying it
I can't believe people actually take Pitchfork seriously.
Originally posted by Rhett Miller:I think there are very few people on this board who would take what any site, Pitchfork or BigYawn, said about a CD literally. It is merely a suggestion. If you like the bands they are compared to, heard a strong sound clip whatever, I think most folks focus more o nwhat they know than what they read. But I for one have found many a good CD from reading a review about it, both in Pitchfork and other places.
I can't believe people actually take Pitchfork seriously.
Originally posted by redsock:
Originally posted by Rhett Miller:Well BigYawn hasn't reviewed it yet, so the true test is yet to be told.
Pitchfork gave it 9.7. Say no more.
Oh, and Rhett, stop being a prick. Just cause No Depression won't review it, don't be a baby.
For example this thread was started when someone was curious what other folks think of a aprticular disc. He or she obviously was looking to get some mroe information before he or she made a purchase. What's wrong with that?
Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
I can't believe people actually take me seriously.
They seem pretty myopic and narrow in scope.
Originally posted by pollard:
Originally posted by Rhett Miller:how do you mean take it seriously, why not take it as an opinion, they do listen to the stuff they write about, it is pretty easy to listen to stuff before buying it
I can't believe people actually take Pitchfork seriously.
Originally posted by Rhett Miller:thats why they aren't the only source
They seem pretty myopic and narrow in scope.
I would agree with what you say.
They just seem to deliberately go out of their way to review albums that a vast majority of music fans could care less about. Deliberately choosing obscure albums and giving them rave reviews. Ooooh, aren't we cool?
I just find popmatters a much more interesting read, mixing popular stuff with the obscure and covering a much wider variety.
They just seem to deliberately go out of their way to review albums that a vast majority of music fans could care less about. Deliberately choosing obscure albums and giving them rave reviews. Ooooh, aren't we cool?
I just find popmatters a much more interesting read, mixing popular stuff with the obscure and covering a much wider variety.
Originally posted by redsock:
Originally posted by Rhett Miller:I think there are very few people on this board who would take what any site, Pitchfork or BigYawn, said about a CD literally. It is merely a suggestion. If you like the bands they are compared to, heard a strong sound clip whatever, I think most folks focus more o nwhat they know than what they read. But I for one have found many a good CD from reading a review about it, both in Pitchfork and other places.
I can't believe people actually take Pitchfork seriously.
Originally posted by redsock:
Originally posted by Rhett Miller:Well BigYawn hasn't reviewed it yet, so the true test is yet to be told.
Pitchfork gave it 9.7. Say no more.
Oh, and Rhett, stop being a prick. Just cause No Depression won't review it, don't be a baby.
For example this thread was started when someone was curious what other folks think of a aprticular disc. He or she obviously was looking to get some mroe information before he or she made a purchase. What's wrong with that?
Originally posted by Rhett Miller:Well, they reviewed the Cd this person was asking about. They serve a niche. It may be a bigger niche in their mind than it really is, but a niche nonetheless. Sure they are highbrow and snarky. But would you rather they review some pop-punk band currently playing on KRoq or some avant garde noise band from Brooklyn you've never heard of? It seems to me you pick the better of two evils. Besides, I'd rather read a review about a band I don't know anything about than a band I know I don't like. I personally don't wanna read reviews built for the lowest common denominator, ie folks who only read Entertainment Weekly for their music purchases. Make me think a little if nothing else.
I would agree with what you say.
They just seem to deliberately go out of their way to review albums that a vast majority of music fans could care less about.
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.
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.
Pitchfork has given glowing reviews to some albums which I bought and loved and others which I bought and hated. I don't really have the benefit of having friends who seek out good music. 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.