Pretentious douchebag here: they actually said it was interesting that a rock legend would still be trying new things this late in his career. The end result had ups and downs, but they never said it was terrible. But hey, the big live release was his last really good one, as far as I care. He mellowed out too much.

I just came here to give submitter +1 for titling the link "(Some Wentzbag)" because, as everybody should know by now, the word douchebad is out, and Wentz is in

douchebad AND douchebag

The new Springsteen CD is really good. A lot better than Magic, which I absolutely hated.

Is it ironic that someone on Fark would call the Pitchfork staff "pretentious douchebags"?

/Have you heard of the Fark music tab?
//blah blah blah Radiohead sucks! blah blah blah YNGWIE MALMSTEEN!!1! blah blah

Meanwhile Rolling Stone gave Bruce 5 stars, its highest possible rating. But Bruce is on the media-whore promo machine with this release. I'm sure that his cooperation for a cover story improved the record review a bit.

More often than not, the use of the word "pretentious" is in and of itself pretentious ... including one of the times it was used in this sentence and the time it was used in the headline.

Who is pitchfork and why should I care?

Have you ever seen a one legged dog, making his way down the street?

They've shown their true colors many times before:

Link (new window)

I particularly will never forgive them for this.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who goes to Pitchfork specifically so I can buy all the albums they rate horribly. There's no surer sign of quality.

Meanwhile Rolling Stone gave Bruce 5 stars, its highest possible rating

I can't believe I once paid for a subscription to that rag. I am not a greenie, but I am outraged at the waste of paper.

Makh: Who is pitchfork and why should I care?

they had an awesome music festival last year, and my friends won't stop telling me about it.

Pitchfork isn't bad. If your musical tastes tend to stay strictly to one certain genre, they'll probably put you off, but I've found that they're rather evenhanded in both their reviews and their "top whatever" lists. I've found that it's hard to go wrong if you crack open one of their "best of" lists and pick it up at random.

I may, however, be an elitist douchebag.

I prefer simply, "wentz".

Or should that be capitalized? It's a name, so yes, but he's a wentz, so why give respect? Tough call.

At least no one's lookin' at me anymore. :)

They gave it a 5.8, which is a bit above average. Boo hoo.

Tprpa412: Is it ironic that someone on Fark would call the Pitchfork staff "pretentious douchebags"?

/Have you heard of the Fark music tab?
//blah blah blah Radiohead sucks! blah blah blah YNGWIE MALMSTEEN!!1! blah blah

Post of the year

Tprpa412: Is it ironic that someone on Fark would call the Pitchfork staff "pretentious douchebags"?

/Have you heard of the Fark music tab?
//blah blah blah Radiohead sucks! blah blah blah YNGWIE MALMSTEEN!!1! blah blah

I can't think of a single thread where I've seen Yngwie Malmsteen's name brought up. Now if you'd said Rush/Iron Maiden/Insert Generic Metal Band Here, you'd be dead on.

/Radiohead does suck though
//as does Bruce Springsteen

El Freak: I can't think of a single thread where I've seen Yngwie Malmsteen's name brought up. Now if you'd said Rush/Iron Maiden/Insert Generic Metal Band Here, you'd be dead on.

Hey, I like Rush, Iron Maiden, and the generic metal bands! (Not so much Yngwie Malsteen, though one of his live albums is decent).

Miles D Davis Jr.: They've shown their true colors many times before:

Link (new window)

I particularly will never forgive them for this.

They're right, that album does suck.

They did give a bad review to Deloused in the Comatorium also, and they were wrong about that. That was a great record. But everything the Mars Volta have done since then has been awful over-the-top prog bullshiat.

El Freak: I can't think of a single thread where I've seen Yngwie Malmsteen's name brought up. Now if you'd said Rush/Iron Maiden/Insert Generic Metal Band Here, you'd be dead on.

Really? I thought Fark hated Rush.

Recent cases in point:
Link (new window)
Link (new window)

/I like Rush
//especially "The Trees"

5.8 is by no means a terrible score on Pitchfork. The ten point scale is probably interpreted as less forgiving than the 4-star method; The Pitchfork running average is 6.7 for albums, compared to the 3 out of 4 star average for most other publications. I like to think this simply affords them a better opportunity to truly commend deserving work, while maintaining perspective with "just" good music.

But heaven forbid if they give a below-average score to a veteran artist! I bet Bruce Springsteen is having second thoughts on releasing this album after he found out it got reviewed by Pitchfork! What if he never plays the guitar again?

Really though, listen to his new album and read their commentary; it's generally quite astute.

Pitchfork sucks ass.

If you really want a good laugh, check out their '100 Best of' lists for the 80's and 90's...



/all music critics are whores

lincoln65: 5.8 is by no means a terrible score on Pitchfork. The ten point scale is probably interpreted as less forgiving than the 4-star method; The Pitchfork running average is 6.7 for albums, compared to the 3 out of 4 star average for most other publications. I like to think this simply affords them a better opportunity to truly commend deserving work, while maintaining perspective with "just" good music.

But heaven forbid if they give a below-average score to a veteran artist! I bet Bruce Springsteen is having second thoughts on releasing this album after he found out it got reviewed by Pitchfork! What if he never plays the guitar again?

Really though, listen to his new album and read their commentary; it's generally quite astute.

I actually had something typed up but you did it better. Pitchfork tends to actually use the entire 0-10 scale, where as most 0-10 reviewers lean so heavily to 6-10 anything under falls in to "terrible"

Bruce sucks

Kierkegaard's Pseudonym: Pitchfork isn't bad. If your musical tastes tend to stay strictly to one certain genre, they'll probably put you off, but I've found that they're rather evenhanded in both their reviews and their "top whatever" lists. I've found that it's hard to go wrong if you crack open one of their "best of" lists and pick it up at random.

I listen to a very wide range of music, most of which is ignored or criticized by Pitchfork while they extol Lil' Wayne and Kanye West.

Alternative music reviews my arse. They're just another Rolling Stone, except they are far more pretentious about it.

Major label bullshiat repackaged as indie.

I agreed with the review, and was amused by the stereogum thread (new window) regarding the track "Queen of the Supermarket."
/i kinda like the song, pop touches, melodrama and all

El Freak:
/Radiohead does suck though
//as does Bruce Springsteen

From your profile:

Persons that should be launched into the sun:
Republicans, Democrats...anyone who says "all(insert genre of music here) sucks".

I'll sponsor your flight. I bet you're a failed musician.

The Pitchfork reviewers like Current 93, so they're OK in my book.

Rev. Skarekroe: The Pitchfork reviewers like Current 93, so they're OK in my book.

If you give bad reviews to Current 93, Tibet casts magic spells to make your bollocks shrivel up and fall off. :p

I've heard his new single and I've heard U2's new single

both are beyond horrible

I give more cred to Paste Magazine than I would ever give to Pitchfork. The folks at Paste don't tolerate some of the bratty shiat they pull at PFork.

Makh: Who is pitchfork and why should I care?

I love this. If you really didn't care you wouldn't have commented.

lincoln65: 5.8 is by no means a terrible score on Pitchfork. The ten point scale is probably interpreted as less forgiving than the 4-star method; The Pitchfork running average is 6.7 for albums, compared to the 3 out of 4 star average for most other publications. I like to think this simply affords them a better opportunity to truly commend deserving work, while maintaining perspective with "just" good music.

But heaven forbid if they give a below-average score to a veteran artist! I bet Bruce Springsteen is having second thoughts on releasing this album after he found out it got reviewed by Pitchfork! What if he never plays the guitar again?

Really though, listen to his new album and read their commentary; it's generally quite astute.

I'll second this. A 5.8 is basically a 3 star rating from say a Rolling Stone. The only difference is that Pitchfork's reviewers tend to listen to the albums while RS just throws out 3 star rating to everyone who's not in bed with Mr. Wenner.

/Dylan could come out with an album of him farting for an hour and RS would give it 5 stars.

Wrapped up like a wentz, another runner in the night...

/it is a Springsteen thread

CityExile: Dylan could come out with an album of him farting for an hour and RS would give it 5 stars.

To be fair, Dylan just keeps making great albums. I am not a Dylan apologist either. I am one of his biggest fans, and I'll admit he just can't do it live anymore. His band sucks (which is a stark departure from 1960-1999), he doesn't play guitar and he can barely sing above a whisper. No point in going. But his albums are great ... the guy can still write great tunes.

There are torrents out there of Pitchfork lists.

I dl the Pitchfork Presents the 100 Best Tracks of 2008, and kept 12 tracks.

That's about right. 12% in agreement with Pitchfork.

Bob Dylan does keep making great albums.

Springsteen hasn't made a great album since Tunnel of Love. That's 1987.

those evil pretentious indie bastards Pitchfork media only gave one of Springsteen's most recent albums an 8.5 rating. Harumpf!

Pretentious Mainstream = the new Pretentious Indie?

WaltzingMathilda: CityExile: Dylan could come out with an album of him farting for an hour and RS would give it 5 stars.

To be fair, Dylan just keeps making great albums. I am not a Dylan apologist either. I am one of his biggest fans, and I'll admit he just can't do it live anymore. His band sucks (which is a stark departure from 1960-1999), he doesn't play guitar and he can barely sing above a whisper. No point in going. But his albums are great ... the guy can still write great tunes.

I agree completely, I have nothing at all against Dylan. He just happened to be the first name that popped into my head.

CityExile: WaltzingMathilda: CityExile: Dylan could come out with an album of him farting for an hour and RS would give it 5 stars.

To be fair, Dylan just keeps making great albums. I am not a Dylan apologist either. I am one of his biggest fans, and I'll admit he just can't do it live anymore. His band sucks (which is a stark departure from 1960-1999), he doesn't play guitar and he can barely sing above a whisper. No point in going. But his albums are great ... the guy can still write great tunes.

I agree completely, I have nothing at all against Dylan. He just happened to be the first name that popped into my head.

Yeah, but your point about RS reviews is still a good point, I just think Dylan deserves all the stars he gets is all.

However, to bolster your point, they gave Weezer's green album 4 stars and it didn't even come in at 30 minutes. I mean, it's barely an LP and it gets 4 stars? (I loved their first 2 albums, btw).

I'm a long time Bruce fan, but I agree ... the album is rather mediocre. Historically Bruce has always been a prolific songwriter, but rather selective about what he's released. That's why the Tracks boxset of unreleased material was so phenomenal. Many of those songs were absolute top-shelf material as stand alone songs, Bruce just didn't release them because he didn't feel like they fit with the album he was releasing at that time.

Now it seems like he's releasing album after album with very little self filtering as to what should be "Bruce Quality".

WaltzingMathilda: However, to bolster your point, they gave Weezer's green album 4 stars and it didn't even come in at 30 minutes. I mean, it's barely an LP and it gets 4 stars? (I loved their first 2 albums, btw).

running time is a pretty weak litmus test. Unless you're talking about too short or too long, even that shouldn't count as much against a rating as much as overall quality does.

Marla Singer's Laundry: El Freak:
/Radiohead does suck though
//as does Bruce Springsteen

From your profile:

Persons that should be launched into the sun:
Republicans, Democrats...anyone who says "all(insert genre of music here) sucks".

I'll sponsor your flight. I bet you're a failed musician.

You know there's a difference between saying an individual artist sucks and saying an entire genre sucks, right?

FeedTheCollapse: WaltzingMathilda: However, to bolster your point, they gave Weezer's green album 4 stars and it didn't even come in at 30 minutes. I mean, it's barely an LP and it gets 4 stars? (I loved their first 2 albums, btw).

running time is a pretty weak litmus test. Unless you're talking about too short or too long, even that shouldn't count as much against a rating as much as overall quality does.

Well, it was also a bunch of short, crappy songs. What I meant by the running time is that it was barely beyond an EP and was getting 4/5 stars as an LP. I doubt you want me to review the record, but basically it was incredibly unimaginative and recycled, which compared to their first 2 efforts made it a massive failure ... or at least deserving of 2.5 - 3 stars instead.

Funny how each of his last 4-5 albums have all gotten great reviews until the next one comes and then the previous one 'kinda sucked'.

He has nothing left to say and continues to keep saying it.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion and music is completely subjective, but I'm afraid if you don't believe the Seegar Sessions Album was anything short of phenomenal you need to slit your wrists.

Let me guess. It's full of gravelly-voiced anthems about living in America?

InmanRoshi
Everyone is entitled to their opinion and music is completely subjective, but I'm afraid if you don't believe the Seegar Sessions Album was anything short of phenomenal you need to slit your wrists.

I am a big Springsteen fan, and I was certain that I would hate the Seeger Sessions; suffice it to say, the album does get a lot of play.
I received an advanced copy of Working on a Dream, and enjoyed it as well. I can't wait for the deluxe release of Darkness on the Edge of Town, though.

/subby

mfaby: Funny how each of his last 4-5 albums have all gotten great reviews until the next one comes and then the previous one 'kinda sucked'.

This is how albums are marketed. Every band says "this is our best album. The last album we recorded over the internet while we were all fighting. Our producer sucked and we were just kinda going through the motions. On THIS album, we're getting along great and we all lived in a house together and our new producer is the best ever. These songs are really the best we've ever written."