Pitchfork Review OverSteps

Yay, Hipsters.

  PITCHFORK said:

almost organic compared to something like Confield.

WHAT.

god that is terrible lol

I'm getting sick of this fucking shit. What is it with these lazy reviews these days where they just describe the sounds they heard? As if someone will read the words "grandiose synths" and decide to buy the album.

All I could gauge from that four paragraph piece of shit is that the album is sort of different and nicer sounding than previous efforts... Well fucking done Patrick Sisson! You've summed up on a page what a blogger could sum up in a sentence then tacked a number at the bottom as if you ever actually justified the score. Not that the score bothers me of course, but where did he actually criticize the album? 7.2? Why? Were there too many clattering and colliding rhythms, or not enough? Was there TOO MUCH reverb on see on see?

I know that reviews are just a subjective opinion of course, but there is literally no opinion here. It's not even that hard to criticize music if you've actually listened to the album and formed an opinion, but judging by the fact that he says theres twenty seconds of silence at the beginning of r ess implies he's whacked it on in the background instead of giving it a proper listen on headphones (which I think is the best way to hear AE). I hope he's not paid to review because he fucking sucks.

Patrick Sisson's Oversteps Review

Pitchfork Media

1.3

  On 3/22/2010 at 11:20 AM, Obel said:

All I could gauge from that four paragraph piece of shit is that the album is sort of different and nicer sounding than previous efforts... Well fucking done Patrick Sisson! You've summed up on a page what a blogger could sum up in a sentence then tacked a number at the bottom as if you ever actually justified the score. Not that the score bothers me of course, but where did he actually criticize the album? 7.2? Why? Were there too many clattering and colliding rhythms, or not enough? Was there TOO MUCH reverb on see on see?

 

I like when he ripped on pt2ph8 and then said nothing about other than basically saying "I didn't care for it," and even then I'm getting that from his implication. He said nothing bad actually about it.

What a shoddy review. =\

Can we make a stomping braindance footbrain to send to this guy's skull?

BRB jizzing to r ess

  On 3/22/2010 at 11:20 AM, Obel said:

 

Patrick Sisson's Oversteps Review

Pitchfork Media

 

1.3

people who make their music listening choices by reviews can fuck right off

so, is pitchfork pretty popular nowadays?

typical pitchfork wankfest

whenever I see a pitchfork review posted here this is always the first thing that comes to mind

  On 3/22/2010 at 2:50 PM, Bob Dobalina said:

typical pitchfork wankfest

 

whenever I see a pitchfork review posted here this is always the first thing that comes to mind

Typical indeed, writing a review with one hand and wanking in front of the mirror with the other one, classic pitchfork

  On 3/22/2010 at 10:00 AM, Mesh Gear Fox said:

they rated it lower than quaristice? that's just silly

Rightly so. Quaristice gives it a caning.

idm is to pitchfork as darth vadar is to the ocean

what can we do to help counter that worthless pitchfork site

  On 3/22/2010 at 5:10 PM, sysyphus said:

what can we do to help counter that worthless pitchfork site

Make a review site dedicated to reviewing Pitchfork reviews.

wow david cross using ae in his article? does he mean untilted?

also, i love david cross.

  On 3/22/2010 at 10:00 AM, Mesh Gear Fox said:

they rated it lower than quaristice? that's just silly

Yeah , I've only heard samples from Oversteps and it sounds a lot better than Quaristice .

That review...is fail.

Terrible review.

The onion article is good, but I think the Something Awful parody page is funnier. It pretty accurately hits on pitchfork's unwavering love of radiohead:

"Discovering a new Radiohead release is like staring into the eyes of Jesus Christ and feeling the eternal stream of love and awe that flows from Him. I might be so bold as to claim that Radiohead is the Jesus Christ of music... Putting this disc into your stereo and listening to it is like having the saints pee liquid gold into your ears."

  On 3/23/2010 at 12:25 AM, homecharlie said:

Terrible review.

 

The onion article is good, but I think the Something Awful parody page is funnier. It pretty accurately hits on pitchfork's unwavering love of radiohead:

 

"Discovering a new Radiohead release is like staring into the eyes of Jesus Christ and feeling the eternal stream of love and awe that flows from Him. I might be so bold as to claim that Radiohead is the Jesus Christ of music... Putting this disc into your stereo and listening to it is like having the saints pee liquid gold into your ears."

Ah, the good ol days when Something Awful was funny.

it's nice to see the twitter/12hr autechre stream thing mentioned. i know a lot of watmm hate twitter, but i was keeping a constant eye on #autechre through it and tweeting the odd time, it actually felt to me like the first time twitter had a use or reason to exist. and it was pretty fun.

actually i think that's the watmm spreadsheet they mention, lol. i stuck that on twitter too and it got retweeted lots. looks like pitchfork monitor #autechre on twitter, i guess.

  Quote

almost organic compared to something like Confield

album comparison fail.

all their reviews are like that, its retarded. they dont ever give good reasons for their reviews, especially when theyre things like "3.7", like where the fuck do those numbers even come from?? i swear they just throw darts at a board and thats how they come up with their scores.

  On 3/23/2010 at 1:34 AM, MAXIMUS MISCHIEF said:

i swear they just throw darts at a board and thats how they come up with their scores.

that's the thing though - i'm pretty sure they don't do that. i'm pretty sure that they actually believe, with conviction, that the score is a direct correlation to what their hive mind think about the music.