Wasn’t a big fan of their last album myself but some of his comments in that review have aged very badly given what’s happened since
And I know that is part of what annoys me, and that is entirely unfair to say, so I try to be even handed about my response.
I’m listening to The Fragile right now for the first time in ages. Genuinely don’t know how anyone can think it’s not good.
I mean there is his nursery rhyme rapping
I put A Great Wind No Ash on the first mix i did for my now wife
Big Catherine Wheel fan so disappointed to see them on here although WIshville was a notably poor album - Definitely a band of two halves - if they ever reform (which I hope they do; they were strong live) hope they do a Ride and stick to the early stuff.
Ferment (9.6), Chrome (9.5) (and great b-sides from these LPs), Happy Days (7.1), Adam and Eve (4.9), Wishville (4.0 - 1.7 seems overly harsh).
Because starfuckers inc exists
Feel like ‘hasn’t aged well’ should be reserved for kind of zeitgeisty stuff which isn’t good removed from it but everyone loved at the time.
I don’t think anyone but hardcore Oasis fans thought Heathen Chemistry was any good.
It’s you who’s aged well in realising, IMO
Damian Rice - 9 is probably in my top 50 albums.
Eels Shootenanny and Ben Folds Way to Normal are both enjoyable albums.
Also Ok:Go debut has some great songs on it.
Actually might check out a few more albums on the list. If pitchfolk give an album a sub 3 score, probably more chance I’ll like it , than if they have it a 9+.
I do kind of rate P4k for allowing the writers to approach album reviews like creative writing assignments, for better or for worse, even if results are middling. That would make it through the editorial board of approximately 0 other music publications. Imagine turning that in at Q magazine
I’m glad the old music criticism business is flailing tbh. The idea that you can rate any kind of art by an objective metric is harmful and manufactures empty elitism instead of encouraging people to explore music at their own pace.
ah i meant it in a personal way, having loved it when i was 13 it hasn’t aged well for me at all
i just really don’t think i know Jake.
Had to look up ‘Tevas’. Holy hell, how can this have passed subediting?
I used to think this but I’ve now changed my mind
Back in the day when music criticism was a my source of my recommendations (as opposed to just being able to listen to whatever I wanted online) the majority of my reading was from critics but now everywhere I look it’s just fucking marketing copy.
And marketing copy is “an exciting new sound, really clever and interesting, drawing on diverse influences thanks to the artists totally interesting life” a hundred times out of a hundred.
Whereas when I used to almost entirely read stuff from music critics, them describing something as a new sound or clever or interesting meant it probably WAS interesting or new.
Does that make sense? As in, marketing copy for music is absolutely everywhere and hard to avoid - which actually makes me less likely to read music writing
I think maybe Jake is a work of someone who’s been wasting their time taking creative writing classes at the local adult education centre.
Like Jake’s naked form in the context of a large dining area, the sound on this record came as a completely unexpected surprise.
“From the sounds of Look to the Sky, Iha does want to be a star. Unfortunately it’s on 1998’s terms, and he’s prepared with bafflingly outdated alt-rock songs that could comfortably sidle between choice cuts from Marcy Playground and Semisonic and get their asses handed to them.”
Tbh, look to the sky is pretty naff except for gemini and to who knows where
never really listened to it, just heard to who knows where on youtube and it seems perfectly respectable and not as dated as the review makes out, in fact that kind of effects heavy gauzy sound seems quite contemporary, but guess if the rest of the album is weak that makes sense