Likes: 
Faceplams: Pitchfork reviews
LMAO
Unintelligible Whispering
Pitchfork reviews
LMAO
Dis-member
So that means it’s about three times better than The Fragile!!!
Active Member
“Pitchfork sucked twenty years ago” circlejerk aside it’s an accurate review. The album sucks and has less of an excuse than anything else post-Zeitgeist. Terrible production that doesn’t fit the band, Jimmy and James feeling like hired guns and not like their own creative voices, lyrics as bad as ever, vocal deliveries that sound as bored as possible and the most standout songs feel like they would have been on b-side discs in the past. There’s no reason for this to suck as much as it does. No one said they had to record it in a couple weeks, no one said they had to shove Billy’s voice high up in the mix, no one forced any of these decisions other than Billy himself. You can get most of the band back and it’s still going to be the same uninspired Teargarden bullshit that it’s been for the past however long now. I hadn’t heard Oceania or Monuments in a long time and relistened to them and neither are as good as I wanted to think they were and this is just as bad but more disappointing. The best song here is a discount version of past singles and it’s nothing other than a half an hour of bland as fuck adult alternative pop made for no reason other than to have something to promote. I’d love to love something they put out but this is boring, cynical, disposable and forgettable nap music.
Last edited by implanted_microchip; 11-19-2018 at 02:49 PM.
Active Member
I hate Pitchfork, but damn that review nailed it. Rolling Stone and Pitchfork reviews sum it up nicely. I rather Teargarden tracks. Yeah, I said it, Teargarden tracks. The Fellowship and Astral Planes are better than anything on Shiny.
Active Member
No, it's not that bad of an album. Fuck Pitchfork. Fuck their dipshit, Kayne, Vampire Weekend loving, hipster posturing, overwrought, snotty, pretentious reviews. It's a solid 3/5.Originally Posted by Helpmeiaminhell
Active Member
The same writer gave Oceania a 6.3 and another writer for Pitchfork gave Monuments a 6. You can't act like it's some collective "posturing, overwrought, snotty, pretentious" attitude that led them to scoring this one low. To you it's a solid 3/5 and to some people it isn't. There's no objective authority on this. It's entirely possible for someone to dislike something this strongly even though you like it and for both opinions to be valid.
Although, to quote Billy, "Nobody thinks I made a 3 star record! Nobody!"
Pitchfork has historically been kind to SP too -- the overall favorable Oceania and Monuments reviews, giving Adore, Gish and Mellon Collie best new reissues. The fact they gave Machina I a 4.2 and Machina II a 7.7 is proof they don't have any particular bias one way or the other for SP. I don't understand what it is about Pitchfork that gets such a radioactive attitude out of people when the writers specifically have more to do with the consensus than the website's editorial staff (and it's changed a lot over the last two decades). It's entirely possible a lot of people think this album sucks.
Active Member
Anyone can think anything sucks, of course, I just don't think their very low review for this CD is fair or warranted. And I'm no fanboy either, it was a very okish album and I doubt I'll listen to it all that much. I'm just so sick of fucking pitchfork.
Unintelligible Whispering
3.4 is bull. It's not a great album and I can even understand why people wouldn't like it - it's got plenty of flaws and a few really bad numbers - but I think it warrants somewhere around a 5 (which is what they gave Ogilala, if memory serves). It's basically what I figured we were going to get as soon as it became apparent they were only recording for a few weeks and when it was described as a collection of unrelated songs rather than a focused album. James is very, very present here though, and I don't know how anyone could think otherwise.
I'm not completely thrilled with it, but it doesn't deserve the vitriol it's getting. That review feels more like a review of Billy Corgan than of the music itself and the gist of the claim is that there's no passion or intent in the music, and they're alluding Monuments at least had those things? Fuck off.
Pitchfork absolutely have bias towards certain artists, and you can see it absolutely every single time Radiohead release something. King Of Limbs does not deserve a 7.9. Moon Shaped Pool was good but it was absolutely not a 9.1. And Alice In Chains' last two efforts rating barely a 6 each? Ugh. I can practically see a whiteboard in a dusty office room with pre-set figure ranges next to band names. I've never thought their scores speak to the quality of the music as much as popular perception of the artist in question. They're a joke to me.
Last edited by Shadaloo; 11-20-2018 at 09:36 AM.
Active Member
I have a hard time noticing James' contributions apart from a couple songs tbh...
I like the album. It's not great. But it's something they can hopefully build from. 3/5.
Banned
Pitchfork has given plenty of shit reviews to Radiohead. They gave their remix album a 6, they gave In Rainbows a 6.2, they gave their best of album a 4 and the best of album (special edition) a 2.....Billy spent YEARS trashing every band that had a reunion (Soundgarden, Pavement etc) and calling it a cash grab and saying how he would never "lower' himself to do a reunion tour and reunion album...fast forward a decade and he is doing exactly that....So he needs to eat some shit in these reviews because he needs to answer for what he said..You wanna trash every band that has done a reunion album and swear to kingdom come you will never do one, then a decade later you end up doing one..You better fucking be releasing Siamese Dream Part 2 or you are going to get blasted
Unintelligible Whispering
Yeah, no. When schadenfreude controls your perspective you've lost objectivity and have no business measuring or critiquing any form of art. You've got to separate the art from the artist or you're shit at your job.
I don't know what planet you're on but a 6.0 is still a little above average, which is a 5. I'd hardly call a 6 shit, just 'acceptable'. And as if best-of collections actually count? Rubbish.
Cubby NIИtastic
https://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/10785-in-rainbows/
In Rainbows got a 9.3 from Pitchfork, you must be thinking of something else.
*edit - must be this for the bonus disc, which hardly counts.
https://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums...rainbows-cd-2/
*edit 2 - even Pablo Honey managed a 5.4, better than a majority of their scores for other artists. If that's not a clear indication of how completely biased that publication is to that band...
Last edited by halo eighteen; 11-21-2018 at 10:03 AM.
Active Member
That's because every single Radiohead album and bonus b-side release is better than this crap album
The two biggest disappointments in rock music...
this new SP album and A Perfect Circle's recent one.
Dis-member
How do they manage these stupid scores- 5.1, 6.3, 9.4? Seems pretty bizzare to have a score that ranges from 0.1 to 10.0 with increments of tenths.
“The album was quite good, but had to shave off a tenth of a point due to the not-up-to-par mix of the tambourine on the second-from-last track.” LOL
Administrator
Can we please get over the fucking Pitchfork score?
Active Member
I find all of these music blog/magazine reviews BS and a flawed system. Personally a review has never influenced me. I liked it better the way old video game magazines did it. A game would be reviewed by 4 or 5 different people, each writing their own short review and giving a rating. The final rating would be the average of all their ratings together. It would give you different perspectives. Just seems odd a single person's review represents an entire magazine or blog site.
The Virus Inside
OK! Let's change the subject to the Christmas album!
https://consequenceofsound.net/2018/...ristmas-album/
I'd actually be totally down for this, strangely enough.
Active Member
While I respect your opinion, I respectfully disagree. Especially regarding Eat the Elephant. That is a great album. It may not be as strong as Mer de Noms (and they'll likely never have an album that good again) and it lacks any songs that are as heavy as some of their older material, I think it's definitely on par with Thirteenth Step, overall. As far as Shiny and Oh So Bright Vol. 1, I can see why some people don't like a few of the songs (namely Knights of Malta, Alienation, and Solara), but some of the others seem to me like they should please any Pumpkins fan (Marchin' On, Travels, and With Sympathy). I think the main problem is that it's too short and there's not enough songs. At least the songs on the album span a wide gamut of musical styles. Either way, here's hoping that they're just shaking off the dust and Vol. 2 will be a better (and longer) album that represents more of a return to form (or a leap forward) that can please more of the fans and be less polarizing.That's because every single Radiohead album and bonus b-side release is better than this crap album
The two biggest disappointments in rock music...
this new SP album and A Perfect Circle's recent one.
Throbbing Member
That's because every single Radiohead album and bonus b-side release is better than this crap album
The two biggest disappointments in rock music...
this new SP album and A Perfect Circle's recent one.
Right............
Active Member
Sorry, but I hated the new A Perfect Circle album. Felt a lot of the lyrics were weak, a bit cringy at points. If you make me cringe, it ain't gonna jive with me. Radiohead's worst song is better than the best song on Shiny and Elephant. It's sad for me cuz I absolutely love Mer De Noms and Thirteenth Step. Emotive was play. SP started going downhill around Machina. MII was the better of the two. Zwan, shrug. Zeitgeist, okay. Teargarden, eh. Oceania, bleh. Monuments, yawn. Shiny, facepalm.
Last edited by neorev; 11-21-2018 at 07:41 PM.
Dis-member
Eat The Elephant >>> Bad Witch
Talk about disappointing albums this year, look no further than BW.
Back OT. Previewed the new album on iTunes (not the biggest Pumpkins fan) and thought it was ok actually. Pretty generic and straightforward most of the time, but wouldn’t call it bad- just kind of “meh”.
Active Member
Wow, someone is gonna get murdered for that statement here LOL. I prefer Bad Witch, but I still didn't find Bad Witch to be that amazing to be honest. I like Shit Mirror and Ahead Of Ourselves. It's decent, but I much prefer Not The Actual Events out of the trilogy. I think I even prefer Add Violence over Bad Witch, but Not The Actual Events rocked.
Administrator
I'm excited to hear SP's version of God Break Down The Door.
Back on topic, please.
Unintelligible Whispering
Billco said the other night they're done sifting through materials for Machina. Next is finding a new artist, time in the studio etc. Go team!
Throbbing Member
I thought MCIS era was rich with songs and material, but that Machina has more is crazy to me.
Active Member
New album debuts @54 on the Billboard 200.
https://www.billboard.com/charts/billboard-200
It's better than that. You would think with their massive tour it would have done better.
Banned
Listened to the new EP again today. Still blows big time, lol..
Me, Helpme, Neorev and Bobbie Solo could smoke a joint, pick up a few random instruments, go for chinese and I'm confident we'd still have something better than this turgid, perfunctory bullshit by week's end. That's including a better producer than Rick Ruin..
Unintelligible Whispering
Yep, nothing like a Netphorian circlejerk to really get the creative juices flowing!
Unintelligible Whispering
Going back to Adore and with the exception of Machina II, I honestly don't remember a time when a new SP album wasn't shat on immediately by the fanbase on release. It's all right, five years from now it'll be "huh, you know I was re-listening to this for the first time in years and it really isn't as bad as I thought it was". The usual stuff. I think Teargarden is the only era where absolutely nobody's re-evaluating it as being good.
Like, now you've got people coming out of the woodwork to defend Monuments for some reason. Personally I don't understand that at all, but whatever.
"Man, remember how good that Zwan album was?" Nope, I remember a bunch of good songs that never got released, and a terribly overly loud album everyone complained about with bad LSD sunshine-and-rainbows imagery way more offensive to the ears and eyes than anything else he's ever done, and I carry a distinct memory of someone at a party begging to "turn this hippie shit off".
Last edited by Shadaloo; 11-28-2018 at 09:28 AM.
Active Member
I've seen one person defending Monuments in this board, but the overall agreement is that it was one of the worst SP 2.0 albums, 4 years away from its release it still sounds bad. On the other hand, Oceania stuck with me right away, and I know that there are some people here that do not like this album, but generally Oceania proved that Corgan post SP 1.0 can still deliver big time (Personally I put Oceania right there with MCIS, Adore and Siamese Dream). This new album is completely uninspired. Can't believe the same band that wrote Siamese Dream is also behind this new album. It's so dull!
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
