Knew it! Though you came closest within the game rules. Nonetheless, happy to prove @Majorette wrong!
Yeah, Pitchfork doesn’t really give a shit about narratives, they’re not Stereogum.
still sort of surprised at the score, especially as the review does seem to be trying its damnedest to put a much more positive spin on the album than they’d normally do for other albums they’ve given a similar rating.
Grizzly Bear 7.1
everything x2 8.0
War on Drugs 7.7
Iron & Wine 6.2
Mount Kimble 8.1
The National 7.7
Ariel Pink 8.2
Wolf Alive 6.3
Wolf P 6.6 - too many Wolf/wolfe albums
The Killers 5.9
Grizzly Bear - 8.4 bnm
Everything Everything - 7.9
QOSTA - 7.1
The War on Drugs - 8.4 BNM
Iron & Wine - 6.3
Liars - 7.3
EMA - 7.3
LCD Soundsystem - 8.6 BNM
Mount Kimbie - 8.0
Mogwai - 6.5
The National - 7.6
Alvvays - 8.3 BNM
Ariel Pink - 8.0
Foo Fighters - 5.2
Hundred Waters - 7.7
Chelsea Wolfe - 8.1
Metz - 7.5
Wolf Alice - 6.6
Wolf Parade - 8.2
Well, I gave it a 6 for DiS…
Two people giving The National under 8…not sure they read pitchfork…
No one else guessing Moses Sumney? Guy is nailed on for a debut BNM
Grizzly Bear - 7.3
Everything Everything - 7.1
I was surprised by the GB score, so I read the review…
Pitchfork at it’s worst, really. It just reads as a lukewarmset assessment of Grizzly Bear as a whole. No real explanation why this is such a drop off from Shields.
“it’s not as catchy as two weeks - wah, wah wah”
Neither was 99% of Shields, either. It’s not a big surprise, few bands maintain pitchfork favourites forever…but the review doesn’t make sense
I think this might be better than Shields personally.
I kinda get what p4k are saying, but they’ve simultaneously got the point of grizzly bear AND missed it.
Also remember they aggregate their scores
I understand the aggregate thing…but generally if you’re going to score an album almost 2.0 less (which is big in Pitchfork terms) than the preceding album you need to explain why more clearly.
Yeah but the writer doesn’t always know what the published score is, as I said mine got dropped a point for some editorial reason
Well…they must have some indication, surely? You couldn’t write a 10/10 review for the website to then give it a 5…
Though what I’m trying to say beneath all that is that the review doesn’t really address the strengths/weaknesses of Painted Ruins…and is more just an analysis of Grizzly Bear.
Yeah of course, and no one wouldn’t do that so drastically, but it may explain it going under an 8.0
But yeah I agree, they haven’t really spoken about the album at all, but I sympathise to some degree because you can’t be expected to be a master of everything. I’ve pitched for stuff only to struggle to then know what to say a couple times, it happens.
Or P4k are dicks idk
Yeah I agree with this. It’s also a bit strange that I’m basically defending an album which I’m yet to hear. I just think it isn’t as good a review as ones I’ve read more recently (Fleet Foxes and Big Thief spring to mind). Is it easier to write a positive or negative review than one that’s somewhere in between?
Absolutely, the worst is when you get a kind of middling album rather than something you unquestionably love/hate
Tbh I wasn’t quite sure how I was going to go about writing painted ruins review because it isn’t an easy album to describe (which I think is what happened here with p4k) stuff just kinda came to me as I was writing
And ‘All I Can Think About Is You’ is actually really good.
I was under the impression that the review writer largely knows the score and is generally the closest to consensus.
then again, I’ve seen some positive-ish scored albums reviewed by the person who clearly liked the album the least.