|
Post by matt on Mar 20, 2010 19:16:31 GMT -5
pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/5930-the-masterplan/This review of The Masterplan really does deflate you. We all know this site hate - and I mean HATE - Oasis, but the fact that this review is meant to be professional is sad. The use of profanities with no constructive criticisms at all makes Pitchfork Media a complete joke with this one article alone. So sad.
|
|
|
Post by thomaslivesforever on Mar 20, 2010 19:28:00 GMT -5
Pitchfork do the some great reviews, but largely they are indie boy shit who slate anything outside of their scene.
Their reviews of Oasis are pretty poor, influenced by rejection of most thing popular.
|
|
Wolf
Oasis Roadie
YOU DON'T LIKE BEETHOVEN
Posts: 417
|
Post by Wolf on Mar 20, 2010 20:01:08 GMT -5
Pitchfork do the some great reviews, but largely they are indie boy shit who slate anything outside of their scene. Their reviews of Oasis are pretty poor, influenced by rejection of most thing popular. Not really, Gorillaz are immensely popular and Plastic Beach got an 8.5, but I see where your coming from. They are very biased. Why TM got a 3.7 is beyond me, I think maybe Oasis are just too British for American publications to handle. I think Rolling Stone gave TM 2.5 stars out of 5, but that could just be down to the fact that they are shit.
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Mar 20, 2010 20:08:39 GMT -5
What inept bastards -=
On The Masterplan there are a few scattershot moments of crackling energy on "Fade Away," and "Headshrinker" that certainly blow away "Wonderwall" and "Alcohol and Cigarettes," for example.
|
|
|
Post by Cast on Mar 20, 2010 20:21:30 GMT -5
Pitchfork can write a really good review when you're in the indie circle that they are based in. they criticize bands in their respective outlet pretty well. However if they dislike you they fucking hate you. They've never done a good or even a fair review of Oasis. How the masterplan got that low of a score is INSANE, its lower than DBTT and DOYS. Even their review of HC is just pointless and horrible journalism. But they can write good reviews aka (Yankee Hotel Foxtrot-Wilco, Ladies and Gentleman we are floating in Space-Spirtualized).
I take every review with a grain of salt (Allmusic is my favorite) but with pitchfork i do even more so.
|
|
|
Post by putthisin ® on Mar 20, 2010 20:29:11 GMT -5
They probably didn't even listen to the album before writing that review.
Pitchfork is an embarrassment to the music world
|
|
|
Post by Mogly on Mar 20, 2010 21:32:40 GMT -5
Pitchfork has changed a lot since that review.
In 2008 they gave the Shock Of The Lightning a good review, STC's was decent and Noel's The Dreams We Have As Children wasn't that bad. They don't like Oasis, obviously, but since Don't Believe the truth they were at least listening to the music they were reviewing.
Pitchfork's taste in music is different to that of this forum's average member, but I've discovered some truly fantastic music through them
|
|
|
Post by thepicturesgeneration on Mar 20, 2010 21:56:11 GMT -5
You're giving them just what they want by going to that site...more traffic
We all know what pitchfork is about, is this any surprise? let's throw our arms up in disgust again!
oasis fan forum vs indie music review site...
|
|
|
Post by playeru on Mar 21, 2010 5:57:19 GMT -5
The site is a very good source for finding new indie acts. They just don't like Oasis I guess. They love Blur though.
|
|
|
Post by hangthedj on Mar 21, 2010 6:14:43 GMT -5
The site is a very good source for finding new indie acts. They just don't like Oasis I guess. They love Blur though. They don't love Blur, they just rate their albums in an objective way, something that they lack with Oasis, I'm a reader of Pitchfork, but they hate them without any reason, or maybe because they're too mainstream for them, but then again they rate the Beatles with tens Anyway, you shouldn't give a fuck about it, it's just their opinion, and it's based on hate, so I don't think it's very valid
|
|
|
Post by Headmaster on Mar 21, 2010 11:46:35 GMT -5
They have made years ago a list with the top 100 best albums of the 90's, and guess what? Neither DM or MG, not even at #100.
The fact is that they hate Oasis, but I don't know why.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 21, 2010 16:17:21 GMT -5
P4K deserves all the hate they get for being the epitome of hipster-shit (how can qualitatively rate music down to the very decimal point is beyond me), but every now and then they churn out a good article/review and frequently feature links/streams to good stuff.
|
|
|
Post by playeru on Mar 21, 2010 17:33:54 GMT -5
Their problem with Oasis is that they don't bring anything new. And there is some truth in that, just think about Radiohead's Kid A transformation, or Blur's 13. Risky albums, but revolutionary. I don't have a problem with Oasis not changing, but I see why others might have one.
|
|
|
Post by NYR on Mar 22, 2010 0:14:40 GMT -5
once again, i ask... why is this such a concern to you? if you like the music you like, isn't that all that matters? screw everybody else. listen to what you like.
|
|
|
Post by Velo on Mar 23, 2010 2:01:13 GMT -5
Pitchfork 500: a book listing the best 500 songs from late 70s (punk) to the present list Live Forever as a top song. And they don't slag it either. Just mention how Noel is really good at making ordinary seem monumental and others. And to put it in context, the only othe r Britpop bands that got mentioned were Elastica, Pulp and Blur.
Same with their recent reviews, they all seem to say 'Oasis' old stuff were great, but that's about it' and you know what, that's a pretty valid critiscm. nto bad by me.
|
|
jrs40
Oasis Roadie
Posts: 400
|
Post by jrs40 on Mar 23, 2010 5:23:34 GMT -5
Pitchfork 500: a book listing the best 500 songs from late 70s (punk) to the present list Live Forever as a top song. And they don't slag it either. Just mention how Noel is really good at making ordinary seem monumental and others. And to put it in context, the only othe r Britpop bands that got mentioned were Elastica, Pulp and Blur. Same with their recent reviews, they all seem to say 'Oasis' old stuff were great, but that's about it' and you know what, that's a pretty valid critiscm. nto bad by me. C'mon they gave Heathen Chemistry a 1.2/10 (it was poor but not that bad) and the masterplan 3.7/10, stop the clocks 6.5/10. And whenever I look at an act I like on wikipedia it's always pitchfork that gives the most harsh review. Daft Punk-Discovery got 6.3/10. When it's undoubtably at least a 9 Unless it's Radiohead where anything over a 9 is a gimme. Radiohead KID A-10/10 "I had never even seen a shooting star before. 25 years of rotations, passes through comets' paths, and travel, and to my memory I had never witnessed burning debris scratch across the night sky. Radiohead were hunched over their instruments. Thom Yorke slowly beat on a grand piano, singing, eyes closed, into his microphone like he was trying to kiss around a big nose. Colin Greenwood tapped patiently on a double bass, waiting for his cue. White pearls of arena light swam over their faces. A lazy disco light spilled artificial constellations inside the aluminum cove of the makeshift stage. The metal skeleton of the stage ate one end of Florence's Piazza Santa Croce, on the steps of the Santa Croce Cathedral. Michelangelo's bones and cobblestone laid beneath. I stared entranced, soaking in Radiohead's new material, chiseling each sound into the best functioning parts of my brain which would be the only sound system for the material for months".
|
|
|
Post by playeru on Mar 23, 2010 5:43:52 GMT -5
Kid A deserved the 10.0 mark.
Also, Arcade Fire, Interpol, Sigur Ros, are some of the bands I discovered through the site and they are all great.
|
|
|
Post by His Royal Noelness on Mar 23, 2010 6:25:04 GMT -5
Pitchfork 500: a book listing the best 500 songs from late 70s (punk) to the present list Live Forever as a top song. And they don't slag it either. Just mention how Noel is really good at making ordinary seem monumental and others. And to put it in context, the only othe r Britpop bands that got mentioned were Elastica, Pulp and Blur. Same with their recent reviews, they all seem to say 'Oasis' old stuff were great, but that's about it' and you know what, that's a pretty valid critiscm. nto bad by me. C'mon they gave Heathen Chemistry a 1.2/10 (it was poor but not that bad) and the masterplan 3.7/10, stop the clocks 6.5/10. And whenever I look at an act I like on wikipedia it's always pitchfork that gives the most harsh review. Daft Punk-Discovery got 6.3/10. When it's undoubtably at least a 9 Unless it's Radiohead where anything over a 9 is a gimme. Radiohead KID A-10/10 "I had never even seen a shooting star before. 25 years of rotations, passes through comets' paths, and travel, and to my memory I had never witnessed burning debris scratch across the night sky. Radiohead were hunched over their instruments. Thom Yorke slowly beat on a grand piano, singing, eyes closed, into his microphone like he was trying to kiss around a big nose. Colin Greenwood tapped patiently on a double bass, waiting for his cue. White pearls of arena light swam over their faces. A lazy disco light spilled artificial constellations inside the aluminum cove of the makeshift stage. The metal skeleton of the stage ate one end of Florence's Piazza Santa Croce, on the steps of the Santa Croce Cathedral. Michelangelo's bones and cobblestone laid beneath. I stared entranced, soaking in Radiohead's new material, chiseling each sound into the best functioning parts of my brain which would be the only sound system for the material for months". Sory. I just threw up a little
|
|
|
Post by Headmaster on Mar 23, 2010 12:50:41 GMT -5
Their problem with Oasis is that they don't bring anything new. And there is some truth in that, just think about Radiohead's Kid A transformation, or Blur's 13. Risky albums, but revolutionary. I don't have a problem with Oasis not changing, but I see why others might have one. But Oasis are much better melodically than Blur and Radiohead, these bands needed to use more technology to make their songs better. This no even Pitchfork can deny. Same with their recent reviews, they all seem to say 'Oasis' old stuff were great, but that's about it' and you know what, that's a pretty valid critiscm. nto bad by me. If they think old Oasis are so good why didn't they put DM or MG in their top 100 90,s best albums?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2010 13:26:40 GMT -5
As mentioned earlier, Pitchfork has improved a lot since that dire Kid A review. I agree, there are select bands that they overrate and select bands that they underrate, but there is a middle ground at the some points. Like all reviews, one should take it with a grain of salt. Their problem with Oasis is that they don't bring anything new. And there is some truth in that, just think about Radiohead's Kid A transformation, or Blur's 13. Risky albums, but revolutionary. I don't have a problem with Oasis not changing, but I see why others might have one. But Oasis are much better melodically than Blur and Radiohead, these bands needed to use more technology to make their songs better. This no even Pitchfork can deny. That's bullshit, come on. You can say Oasis are better melodically, sure, but to say those bands technology to make their songs better is shit. I can say the same thing about The Beatles if that's the case.
|
|
|
Post by Headmaster on Mar 23, 2010 15:04:50 GMT -5
I want to see Radiohead release an album melodically good as MG or DM without eletroinics "plic" "plac" "tum" "tum" sounds. They were not capable of this, they have to use Ondes Martenot and that stuffs to make their songs work.
|
|
|
Post by J.B on Mar 23, 2010 16:06:19 GMT -5
The nob reviewing the album has obviously not listened to the album or went into listening to it negatively and not wanting to like what he heard due to his love of Phil Collins, Blur or whatever other shit he listens to. I thought this the first time I listened to it due to him basically summing the album up as a money-making scheme of releasing average songs that are not good enough for real albums. Ridiculous comment considering that some of the Oasis' best songs and indeed some of the best songs of all time are on it.
Seriously mate take anything that this poxy site takes with a pinch of salt.
|
|
|
Post by hangthedj on Mar 23, 2010 16:47:33 GMT -5
I want to see Radiohead release an album melodically good as MG or DM without eletroinics "plic" "plac" "tum" "tum" sounds. They were not capable of this, they have to use Ondes Martenot and that stuffs to make their songs work. Do you know before Radiohead started experimenting with electronic they made two of the best albums in the 90's?I mean, have you listened to The Bends or OK Computer? sorry, but you just don't have any idea of what you are talking about; in the 90's Radiohead were a guitar band, with more roughness than Oasis sometimes; but they didn't want to make the same music again and again, is that bad? Cause if it its, Rubber Soul and Abbey Road are rubbish and Dark side of the moon is also shite. Experimenting is a good thing, Oasis didn't do it, and that's because some peope don't like them, because they made the same kind of music in all their career, I love it and they're my favourite band, but I can see why people can hate them.
|
|
|
Post by matt on Mar 23, 2010 17:36:46 GMT -5
I want to see Radiohead release an album melodically good as MG or DM without eletroinics "plic" "plac" "tum" "tum" sounds. They were not capable of this, they have to use Ondes Martenot and that stuffs to make their songs work. Do you know before Radiohead started experimenting with electronic they made two of the best albums in the 90's?I mean, have you listened to The Bends or OK Computer? sorry, but you just don't have any idea of what you are talking about; in the 90's Radiohead were a guitar band, with more roughness than Oasis sometimes; but they didn't want to make the same music again and again, is that bad? Cause if it its, Rubber Soul and Abbey Road are rubbish and Dark side of the moon is also shite. Experimenting is a good thing, Oasis didn't do it, and that's because some peope don't like them, because they made the same kind of music in all their career, I love it and they're my favourite band, but I can see why people can hate them. The Bends is a fantastic album - really great, as is OK Computer, but not as much in my opinion. I like Kid A, it's not great to me but it's good enough. Radiohead are a fascinating band who admirably don't put out the same record every few years and long may it continue. However, Thom Yorke may be a more sophisticated lyricist (though he's no Bob Dylan or Morrissey let's remember) than Noel Gallagher, but he can't compete when it comes to writing an ear opening melody - a melody that captures the pure essence of what Noel is trying to say. His lyrics aren't poetry but they're still very good - they pack pride, passion and belief and send it out to the listener also. The majority of songs on The Masterplan have these qualities and if you can't recognise this, then you must be one big son of an ignorant douchebag. You feel the passion of Oasis songs like no other band I tell you, and this is why they are my favourite band. Radiohead may be able to write more complex songs and sophisticated lyrics, with a high degree of musicianship, but crucially, they fail to connect with me and many many others around me. Radiohead have at times wrote lyrics in similar vain to my second favourite band, The Smiths, but they lack the melancholy of both The Smiths and Oasis. Maybe this is the reason I can't emotionally connect to them, I don't know. With Pitchfork, I just get the sense that they don't get it. They are obviously on a completely different wavelength to me. Music to me is about having that intense emotional connection with the listener, and I don't care if it doesn't have the most complex chord structure in the world, because as long as it speaks to me, that's all that matters.
|
|
Wolf
Oasis Roadie
YOU DON'T LIKE BEETHOVEN
Posts: 417
|
Post by Wolf on Mar 23, 2010 18:55:01 GMT -5
|
|