/mu/ - Music (Temp full images)

>>49221596
>rating nigger music a 6.6
it's a shame

I don't see a problem with this. Flockaveli is a modern classic

Take Care: 8.6
Drukqs: 5.5


Pitchfork.

>>49221596
le epic meme face XDD

>>49221625
Fact

>not reading the reviews

>>49221668
why would they have a 0-10 system if they wanted people to read the reviews

it's often that they don't even talk about the album too

someone justify this for me.

>>49221648
haha epic self reaction image frend

You know it's not the same person/people who decide on the ratings of each album right? Those two ratings are unrelated.

As soon as you attribute a number to something people instantly start bickering about them and completely ignore everything else. Maybe actually read the reviews?

>>49221596
Keep in mind, Pitchfork isn't just one reviewer but many. Opinions are going to vary.

However I just read that Kind Of Blue review and it's nothing but praise so I don't get where the 6.6 comes from.

>>49221700
it's common knowledge that pitchfork staff votes on a score and then gives the score to a reviewer to write it up

>>49221596
pretty sure they were reviewing the reissue brah

>>49221752
Every pitchfork review gets a 10.0 BNR so they really had to dislike this album.

the 6.6 wasn't for the music, though. the reviewer said that the special edition stuff wasn't worth the price tag, hence the mediocre score.

>>49221630
>take care
>bad

I understand how shit Flockaveli is but get some taste anon

That being said 5.5 is a shitty rating and is too low

>>49221700
haha it literally is though

the entire staff comes to a score for the album

>>49221806
This. There was an article posted a long time ago telling people exactly how they score albums and shit.

>>49221668
>Implying they're worth reading

>5 paragraphs on who they are and what their past albums were
>Half a paragraph of, "Um, yeah, the sounds are nice and stuff."
>No specified songs, production techniques, features, lyrics, etc.

http://web.archive.org/web/20021005181357/www.pitchforkmedia.com/record-reviews/d/davis_miles/kind-of-blue.shtml

They gave the remastered album a 10

>>49221700
ya it is lol. score is predetermined the review is just babble asked of them to write in accordance to the score

Why don't you guys learn from /v/'s retardation and just stop?

>>49221879

>>49221915
Because /mu/ is The Partyboard. :D

pitchfork are a bunch of drunk dudes

>>49221879
>pulling up a deleted score
pitchfork deleted it for a reason

>>49221760
They said that it was an overpriced money grubbing reissue with not enough bonus content to justify it.

Pitchfork sucks and the review is poorly written, but that rating isn't a reason to hate p4k.

>>49221971
>The album is bad because it costs too much

Only the finest QUALITY™.

>>49221596
>middling Miles Davis album
>best Waka Flocka Flame album

I see no problem with this.

>>49221923
Didn't they admit they rated the album erroneously at first because they weren't looking at what it was trying to do

>>49221723
It's a reissue...my guess is that it didn't have much in the way that made it a worthwhile purchase. People assume that albums are being rated something new or differnet, but reissues are usually, or at least supposed to be, judged on their merit as a new purchase

>>49222023
Pretty much, and they completely blamed the writer of the original review.

>>49222048
>the writer of the original review
>Ryan Schreiber
man, glad they got rid of that hack

>>49222048
ya thats how they work the score is assigned then some irrelevant retard writes a review based on the score then if they end up wrong they can be like 'LOL INDIVIDUAL REVIEWRAS HAHAHAHA'

>>49221596
>implying some of the cuts on the anniversary edition aren't better than the album

fucking Green Dolphin Street, Love for Sale, and Fran-Dance blow the original album out of the fucking water with ease

>>49222035
This. For any album that has tons of versions and variations floating around, like Kind of Blue or Pet Sounds, a review about the music for a reissue is unnecessary since anyone looking up the review already knows it and are rather trying to find out whether this new limited-edition anniversary special box set is worth their $150 or whatever the fuck.

>>49221997
Normally id agree with you but these cash grabbing reissues should be treated like the consumer products for aquisionists that they are and not art.

On the other hand, for original or otgerwise legitamite releases, the reviewer should pretend they got the record for free.

>>49222139
>the album isn't art because it's suddenly being jew'd out

Stop, regardless of the price, the album should be reviewed on the music alone.

>>49222085
To expand on my post, and going back to Miles Davis: since the KoB reissue in question does not do much to expand upon the work, the 6.6 is warranted; however, things like the Complete (x) Sessions box sets are almost all worthy of perfect or near-perfect scores because of the wealth of great new material they contain, pushing them outside of the realm of completionist-baiting cash-grabs.

>>49222163
I never said it is isnt art (it is). I said that when reviewing reissues and special editions it is appropriate to be mindful of the cost of the album.

Captcha umeufa musical

>>49221766
Take Care was p good, but not an 8.6 and Flockaveli is fucking great. Maybe, it is you who needs to get some taste.

Flockaveli is a solid 8 though.

>>49221596
They based the Kind of Blue rating on how much shit came with the reissue and the fact that it cost $109, read the review dumbass.

>>49221687
Kind of Blue was a reissue and they were reviewing the reissue itself (as opposed to the actual album)

i mean i know music is about taste but still..

>>49222068
>some irrelevant retard
Yeah, who the fuck is this Ryan Schrieber idiot anyway?

>>49221923
opinions change after an album has been out for 10 years and has a legacy. what's wrong with them admitting they were wrong when reviewing a reissue?

i swear u people are autistic.

>>49221596
ur an idiot

>>49221875
sure but you're then open to ridicule à la OP

>>49223374
Oh look, another fucking buzzword.

>>49223388
No ridicule for me, I don't bother with Pitchfork at all apart from their news.

>>49223307
pitchfork is right

>>49222163
>the album should be reviewed on the music alone
If you really think this then you are a fucking fool and a luddite. Music journalism in a post-internet world has to be more than "the songs are like this" and "here are some excerpts from the lyrics, they encompass themes x, y and z" because all of that factual information is readily available on the Wikipedia entry for the album you goon.

It's an artform that, like all artforms, is constantly shifting and changing in terms of what it comprises and whilst I accept that Pitchfork isn't exactly a torchbearer for this advancement, your stagnated manner of thinking is holding everyone back.

>>49222023
That's their excuse, the real reason that they re-review albums that they gave shit reviews to before is because the albums became critically acclaimed and pitchfork doesn't want to look like pretentious idiots who gave a good album a bad score. It's to save face and not have people realize they are inconsistent, arbitrary retards

>>49223511

>he posts from his Macbook pro while sitting in Starbucks with fake glasses on

>>49223511
You're talking left-field nonsense that isn't in the scope of this conversion. I don't know what was in that guys post that caused you to go on a rant about gauge inarticulate bullshit.

>>49223726
Guage meant vauge

/mu/.

>>49223520
... or maybe they changed minds or gave the job to a different writer with a different opinion. i don't see why they have to force themselves to stick to the score they gave an album several years ago, by re-reviewing with a different score they're accepting that they were wrong

>>49221596

Nothing wrong here. Flockaveli is great, and the 50th anniversary edition is a waste of money as all the worthwhile extras from those sessions have been released.

>>49223750
>sufjan
>plebeian
fuck off you fucking fuck

>>49223814
I really don't see how you can deny this

>>49223750
>Human Clay
>Raditude
No one on here likes either of those albums.

>>49223750
>Devo
>Swans
>implying either of those bands are plebeian
You tripfags have the worst taste.

>>49223750
such an obvious troll i feel silly for even pointing it out

someone needs to make an actual version of this though. stuff like tame impala can stay but throw in andrew jackson jihad, american football and other mediocre emo/ indie this board laps up

>>49221596
i h8 p4k

captcha: pitchfork sux

>>49223842
> Not enjoying beautiful pop composition
Hating on Sufjan gets you nowhere

>>49223750
>yeezus
>pleb
not understanding proto-meta-retro-post gospel rap

>>49223881
>>/mu/thread/S45323745#p45323960
>>/mu/thread/S48044150#p48044673

>>49223902
TBK is a poor man's heavy psych and devo is fucking terrible in general
You anonymous have the worst taste and are even worse when you get called on it.

>>49223934
This is the "actual version"
AJJ would be a nice addition, I can't remember anything from American Football so I don't really have an opinion on that front

>>49223968
>> Not enjoying beautiful pop composition
It's like you haven't even seen my 3x3

>>49223988
>falling for this

>>49223988
Why Divine Music From a Jail?

>>49223814
sufjan is pleb, pleb means accessible and popular - not bad

>>49221596
Was that Miles Davis review the one written from the perspective of a black version of Alex from A Clockwork Orange?

>>49224017
throat-singing is my least favorite plebememe

>>49224019
accessibility is not a useful descriptor and should not be used in definitions

>>49224017
why not

he's just trying to get a reaction, no justification necessary

>>49224033
no that was john coltrane - live at the village vanguard masters

>>49224048
this whole thought process of "if someone disagrees with me, they are trolling" is really cancerous and self-centered and you can fuck right off back to /v/ with it

>>49224044
>accessibility is not a useful descriptor
why?

>>49224095
man you're so lame

do you have a last.fm?

>>49224088
I need to get my Jazz in order

>>49224111
it's not universal, nor is it measurable in any meaningful way, nor does it grant you any information other than "he/she like thing"

it's a thinly-veiled popularity argument

>>49224140
yeah

>>49224178
share it pls

>>49224207
http://www.last.fm/user/berdaches

>Kanye West - Yeezus: 9.5
>Death Grips - Exmilitary: 7.5

>Disclosure - Settle: 9.1
>Aphex Twin - Drukqs: 5.5

Pitchfork are a good music news website but their reviews are a fucking joke.

>>49224088
>>49224033
What?

Someone explain this to me

>>49224273
how new are you

>>49224244
Deaf Grapes got a 7.8 m8

>>49224273
just google it you fuckign mooncalf

>>49224338
Nope, they got a 7.5
http://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/15583-exmilitary/

>>49224353
Well shit. I was sure it was a 7.8 all this time.

>>49224178
>nor does it grant you any information
nothing useful is objective or measurable in any way, all criticism is subjective and i think 'how easy i think this album is to listen to and enjoy' aka accessibility is a pertinent and useful descriptor.

i disagree with the quoted statement; accessible means 'easy to enjoy' and this can tell you a lot about the aims and style of the music.

>>49224244
>they don't share my opinion therefore they are wrong

>>49223307
Atmosphere is gay.
>m-muh emo rap
Get fukt faget

>>49224381
Pitchfork shill pls go.

>>49224363
the major flaw in your argument so far is that all I have to do is say "sufjan stevens is not accessible" and it becomes so

as I said, any counter to this that you can think of will boil down to a popularity argument

>>49224405
>using an ad hominem because you are incapable of defending your own opinion

>>49223934
i tried

>>49222163
reissues are not reviewed on the quality of the compositions though
they are reviewed on the quality of any remastering, mixing, new packaging, bonus materials or other things that make Kind of Blue (2008) worth getting

>>49224491
>

>>49224499
you did pretty bad

>>49224499
this is still clearly a troll pic

>>49224381
My point is that pitchfork commonly put accessibility above innovation. Yeezus is a watered down version of Death Grips and yet Yeezus got a much higher score than any of their albums. Settle is a bland rehash of 90s UK Garage and yet it got a much higher score than one of Aphex Twin's best albums.

>>49224415
i don't see much value in giving an objective description of an album in a discussion about how 'good' an album is. art is subjective and all an objective description can do is tell us what the artist has done, there is no way to objectively describe the value of the work.

i think accessible is a useful descriptor because it clearly communicates how easy i found the album to enjoy in a hedonic sense and that i feel listeners who like 'easy to listen to' music are likely to appreciate it.

this discussion stemmed from your 5x5 titled 'plebcore', if pleb doesn't mean popular and easy to enjoy, what does it mean?

>>49224290
>>49224345
I just googled it and remembered seeing it on /mu/ before

its so bad

why did he do it

why

>>49224597
>objective
you stop it
stop it right now

>>49223750
le ching chong plebtrip has spoken

>>49224590
>My point is that pitchfork commonly put accessibility above innovation.
so can any person, it's all opinions and people who like accessibelity over innovation will rate accessible albums higher and there's nothing wrong with that imo.

>Yeezus is a watered down version of Death Grips
i disagree

>Settle is a bland rehash of 90s UK Garage
agreed

>yet it got a much higher score than one of Aphex Twin's best albums.
one of my least favourite AT albums but again so what if pitchfoek rates accessibility over innovation, i don't see how that makes them a bad reviewer

>>49223750
friendo stop shitting on albums I like.

>>49223750
>opposite
>divine music from a jail
>long fin killie

gj friendo

>>49224613
>the major flaw in your argument so far is that all I have to do is say "sufjan stevens is not accessible" and it becomes so
you're implying here that any subjective argument is a waste of time. the same thing can be said for any subjective descriptor.

>>49224669
Pitchfork really need to stop having Larry Fitzmaurice write reviews, he's one of their worst writers.

>>49224733
his paralytic stalks review is a fucking disgrace.
man, fuck p4k.

>>49221596
jesus christ.

>>49223750
thanks, i haven't heard opposite before.

>>49224770
how the fuck do you give that album a 4.6

>>49224730
>you're implying here that any subjective argument is a waste of time
besides the subjective fact that everything ever is a waste of time, nobody has ever given me an accurate idea of how accessible something will be to me

ever

as in, not once in my entire life

>>49224915
if you're trying to be passive-aggressive and imply that you're seeking things out specifically because I denounce them then I legitimately pity you

>>49224998
i wasn't trying to be passive-aggressive, i was legitimately thanking you.

>>49221668
>read pitchfork

>>49224998
>besides the subjective fact...
that's your experience. in a world where everyone had vastly different music tastes 'accessible' would be useless but most people grew up listening to pop and rock and have a vaguely similar idea of what makes a song good. this means the descriptor is useful for many people and also gives some idea of what the artist is trying to achieve with their music and what kind of music listener is more/less likely to enjoy it.

>>49225341
People wish shitty taste in music try especially hard to do damage control and shill out the "muh subjective taste" arguments. Lindsey Stirling is a garbage violin playing novelty act.

>>49225445
wrong thread

>>49225341
>that's your experience.
welcome to subjectivity enjoy your stay

>most people grew up listening to pop and rock and have a vaguely similar idea of what makes a song good
>as I said, any counter to this that you can think of will boil down to a popularity argument

I think you guys massively underestimate the differences in taste from person-to-person when you look at people who are actively interested in music
hell, even the /mu/ and p4k drones have differing ideas on what makes something good

my main issue is presenting accessibility as a criteria for things the way you did. if anything, none of those albums are accessible.

>>49221596
Someone should remake this but with a better example than the reissue. I'm sure pitchfork gave better albums lower scores than Flockaveli, lets find 'em.

>>49221596
if you actually read the review you'd know they weren't rating the musical content of kind of blue they were rating the quality of the reissue. don't be such a dumbass

>>49221596
Kind of Blue is fucking awful.

Jazz is aural shit.

>>49223750
which one is the center?
I've seen it before and I wanna say it's throat singing. I've been meaning to give that a try.

>>49223374
>we don't like this album
>oh shit lots of people like it and now we look stupid
>pinkerton 10/10

>>49226134
you're correct

>>49226134
oidupaa vladimir oiunn, /mu/'s favorite political prisoner, of course!

>>49221766

Flockaveli is better than take care. take care sucks

>>49221879
Why they change rating? Seriously, who cares about this album, Davis is hipster enemy or something?

>>49223374
You think this album is better than 0.6? Please this is some power-metal muh production music for dumb teens, you would think this isnt worth of spit if they dont change rating

>>49223750
What's wrong with Houdini?

>>49221596
fucking agreed

>>49221596
it's reviewing the 50th edition nerd

>>49223374
They review said it wasn't any betyer this time around, they just Andrew W.K. was soing his thing and took it for what it was.