Pitchfork.
hello friends.this entry today is not about a group, or an artist, but a site that reviews a group, or an artist. i'm sure a lot of you know about it, pitchfockmedia dot com. i must say, a good bit of the time, a majority of the record reviewers get on my nerves.is it fair to re-evaluate your review after the smash sucess of a single? or the controversy created by the band? i dont think so. my case in point, ok go (one of my favorite bands) had been bashed continuously by the record reviewers, but then the videos for the singles "A Million Ways" and "Here it Goes Again" come around, people love the originality of them, and they decide to change their minds about them. hm.another case is the mars volta (again, a favorite of mine), who they, to say the least, hate completely. not once have i read a fair review, and i accept that, because i know the music made by the mars volta isnt acceptable by all people. but, after the infamous 'urine toss' at one of their concerts, and after singer cedric bixler-zavala offered a reward for the 'head' of the tosser, and his passionate disapproval of slam dancing and moshing, pitchfork was rather warm to them as live preformers and 'pioneers in soundscapes'. very interesting.dont get me wrong, im not saying 'dont read pitchfork reviews!' because i myself still read reviews from there, and i still am entertained by some of them, and take into consideration their words. im merely saying, theyre very contradictory, and its hard to take them seriously after reading things like that.i guess thats all i have to say for now.xoxomatthew eugene.
Locating MOG account...
Comments (6)