|   Pitchfork slams Audioslave | Slosh
Nov 27, 2002 2:45 PM | | Don't these guys ever like anything that isn't indie? Sheesh, Audioslave wasn't trying to re-invent grunge or anything. It's more of the same for Cornell. If you liked Soundgarden in the past, you like this too. It isn't the best album I ever heard or anything but I'd still give a 6 or so, not 1.7. I do agree that the band's name is lame though. |
| Why can't you just admit to having bad taste in music? | - Davey -
Nov 27, 2002 3:05 PM | | Why blame everyone else except yourself?
Hehehe, like nobody saw that review coming. Next thing you'll be telling us is that they're slamming Creed too. What? You're not serious? ;-)
Soundgarden put out some pretty decent vinyl although I only have Down on the Upside. I didn't catch the Letterman performance but did you guys see him mishandling that Audioslave LP in the beginning of the show? Didn't you just want to reach out and slap him and tell him to be careful with that vinyl! Gotta agree about the name though. Lame, lame, lame. Maybe not as bad as the all time lamest Porcupine Tree, but still in the running :-) |
| What was I thinking? | Slosh
Nov 27, 2002 4:17 PM | | They gave a 9.5 to that horrid Interpol album for Jah's sake. Their 100 best albums of the 80s list was pathetic. Do those writers even <i>like</i> music? Well, at least one Pitchfork writer has good taste (Rae, have they published any of your pieces yet?).
The Audioslave album does suffer from the 'been there, done that' thing but a 1.7? |
| I dunno.... | Finch Platte
Nov 27, 2002 3:13 PM | | As a drummer, one of the things I loved about Soundgarter was the drummer. Can't say that the guy in Audios Lave is very tasty.
Of course, I wasn't a big RatM fan, so I can't say how that drummer was- he just never struck me as being very innovative.
Just my .02 (.07 Can)
fp
I've read where Cornell's lyrics are fairly insipid- true? |
| I agree with them completely. | Stone
Nov 28, 2002 5:38 AM | | Or maybe not...
I haven't heard the album and I quit reading the review after the obvious grammatical error in the first sentence. :-)
Oh, and speaking of the 80s, I quit listening to Soundgarden after <i>Ultramega OK</i>. What were those guys thinking after that?
Stone |
| Yeah, <i>Ultramega OK</i> roolz (nt) | Slosh
Nov 28, 2002 9:49 AM | | |
| The problem with Pitchfork... | nobody
Nov 29, 2002 6:28 AM | | Well, I actually like the Audioslave disc. I don't think it's anything revolutionary, but its a good listen. For fans of Soundgarden and the like its another good addition to the genre, nothing more, nothing less. No, it doesn't break new ground, it doesn't represent the pinnicle of intelligent or witty lyrics, and it's not going to make anyone stop playing Badmotorfinger, my personal favorite Soundgarden.
But, so what? And, what makes the guys from Pitchfork qualified to be the great arbriters of taste for an album like Audioslave. Now, I'm sure all the writers at Pitchfork are well-meaning and all that, wanting to support the new and exciting while panning the redundant. However, Pitchfork, and other mags of its ilk, suffer from a fundemental problem or closemindedness. They speak from a rather narrow point of view, have very concrete ideas of what they like musically, and very seldom tend to veer from their preconcieved ideas of what makes good music.
The writers at Pitchfork favor indie rock, tend to eschew most harder rock records, unless they are 20 year old punk records, tend to only accept certain preordained as hip rap records, and generally disdain anything mass-marketed.
So, why would these guys even listen to Audioslave in the first place? And, does anybody think they would possibly be able to be objective about it? Truth be told, it's something outside their general sphere of reference. It's something from a foreign world that they already don't like, and probably spend quite a bit of time railing against. It's mass-market heavy metal by established superstars of the genre. Of course Pitchfork hated it.
Sure, there's a place for mags like Pitchfork, a place where like-minded people can congregrate and pat each other on the back at how much more evloved their tastes in music are than the unwashed masses. The real problem comes when people take what they say too seriously. Just go back and look at original reviews of seminal bands like Black Sabbath, the Ramones, Run DMC, the velvet Underground and others by many reviewers of ages past.
Reviewers are just music listeners like the rest of us. Sometimes they get it right, sometimes they get it wrong. The track record of such folks reminds me of the experiment where a monkey beat a leading firm in stock picking by throwing darts at a board. If you think you can read a magazine or web site and be sure to catch the next wave of musical revolution, I seriously beg to differ. Listening to what you like and dumb luck is a more likely way to end up surfing the crest of something big.
And, besides, who really thiks the latest pretenders to rock's mythical throne are any more original than a band like Audioslave? Do the vines really do more than recycle old power pop cords and turn up the amps? What have the Strokes done that hasn't been done before? Face it, there's only so much you can do with two guitars, a bass, and some drums. Making something that sounds good and has some degree of viceral appeal is as good as anything else in my book.
In the end, listen to what you like. If you like well-produced hard rock that sounds a little early 90s with a bigger budget, Audioslave is your bag. If that sort of thing turn you off, stay away. Just don't act surprised when the inevitable happens in the ever-fickle music press. |
| these guys are just like I was 10 years ago.. | Masonjar
Nov 29, 2002 7:30 AM | | I didn't listen to or enjoy things that were not <i>indie enough</i>.. commercial stuff was completely out.. I hated Tool with a passion, not because of their music, but because of who they were.. a "commercial" band playing music that I thought was ripped off the more "indie" bands.
Now, as an older music fan, I try to judge the music by the <i>music</i> and try not to dismiss music based on what label it's on or who is in the band or what "scene" the band is a part of or what kind of people <i>like</i> the band..
I just try to listen to the music. I know I was guilty of this when I was a music reviewer.. to make my reviews more "meaty" I wrote about all kinds of shit that didn't really relate to the <I>MUSIC</I>.. sure, that might have made them more entertaining, but did it really give me better insight or make the review really descriptive of the music on the disc? Most of the time, no. Describing music without reference points is very difficult. Talking about music without talking about where it came from and who made it is also difficult. But completely dismissing music BECAUSE of who made it or where it came from is completely bogus if you ask me. Anyway, when reading reviews, I try to remember that I too went through a jaded twentysomething phase.. like the kidney stone I had a few years ago, it passed..
-jar |
| these guys are just like I was 10 years ago.. | nobody
Nov 29, 2002 7:48 AM | | I know what you mean. I didn't mean to sound too harsh about them. I just think its important that people don't take reviews too seriously. Throughout history, you can point out the folly of listening to the so-called experts of the day. Countless artists, writers and musicians have been panned buy the critics, only to emerge as lasting voices that speak to mankind for decades and even centuries. |
| this reply sounded rehearsed ;-P (nt) | Slosh
Nov 29, 2002 12:26 PM | | |
| Life as a Rehearsal.. | Masonjar
Nov 29, 2002 1:36 PM | | <i>life as a rehearsal
smetimes with people i think I've seen movies to run off the edges.
subset of history, i lose my identity, start bumming at parties.
prop up their tents with one piece of rope from a curtain inside me.
purging reform would admit that you fail, start bumming at parties.
chasing a reason, refusing to reason by listening to reason.
chasing a reason, refusing to reason by listening to reason.
</i>
-Watt |
| |
