let's do top 5s of the year so far

[Shapan]

Originally Posted by maoi

i hate that everything on my top 10 is featured in pitchfork

why do people still have this mentality? i mean i dont necessarily agree with everything pitchfork says(im sure they ripped that kills record ive been raving about and i dont even need to check) but its a good way to get music around because a lot of people check that site. if they give an album you like a good review it just means that more people will listen to it, which i thought was a good thing? you cant really be so insecure that the thought that you like an album that few people have heard makes you feel better about yourself, can you? finding albums isnt terribly difficult.

im pretty sure people are paying less and less attention to the substance of these reviews the earlier records leak, anyway. people just check reviews these days to see if they agree with their opinion, considering they've had enough time to form a pretty strong one in the time between the leak and release date. the occasional person who sees a high score for an album, skims through the review and listens to the album is a good thing. its a decent way to get the word out on some albums, like if someone made a thread about the album here. whether or not the number reflects any sort of accuracy is still up to the person listening.

[Rockin' Cherub]

pitchfork sometimes has horrible taste though. especially concerning the way it presents alleged new superstars of indie rock or whatever. if you like a lot of stuff pitchfork likes, chances are you're some dumb easily manipulated hipster type who eats up everything pitchfork says is good and can't form an opinion of his own.

[Rockin' Cherub]

if you're not, you'll have to meet lots of those people at shows you might consider attending

[Shapan]

there are only so many shows you can go to to find out about music, a lot of this stuff is spread by word of mouth or by the internet. i know what you're saying that a lot of people are dictated by sites like pitchfork and thats lame but thats not really what im talking about. (i think theres only so much music you can listen to before you start thinking independently of whats fed to you, anyway) i dont know many people who think pitchfork or cokemachineglow or whatever is cool, but if it serves as an outlet to listen to some good records then thats fine and good. not based on whether or not they praise the album, but just based on the fact that its publicity and buzz for a band that someone who hasnt heard might like. there is so much good music that hearing about it from some other source aside from happening to catch the band live happens all the time. and odds are that source has a lot of bullshit opinions you dont know about. i just figure a lot of these music journalism sites are other sources. and honestly i havent read enough of their reviews to be able to act like ive figured any of them out.

personally i feel reviews are losing a lot of their pertinence because music leaks so early that more people form their opinions way before an album's release date. (some of these people probably post their reviews on pitchfork) there should probably be more of this tool judgement on those communities that provide all the music beforehand. but then it's hard to escape it and you just go around thinking practically everyone is a tool. i prefer to think people are more independent than that, if they like music they look for it, and they dont form their opinions until they listen to it for themselves. and there are plenty of sources that just let you know what exists.

[ravenguy2000]

Originally Posted by Rockin' Cherub

if you like a lot of stuff pitchfork likes, chances are you're some dumb easily manipulated hipster type who eats up everything pitchfork says is good and can't form an opinion of his own.

ok, davin

[davin]

i call 'em like i see 'em.