darkling1219
Sanitation Engineer
"Sour as a lemon. Please, wait at the window."
Posts: 182
|
Post by darkling1219 on May 17, 2012 14:57:56 GMT -5
Good? More like average. Also I hate their rating system. What's the difference between 6.4 and 6.5 and how on Earth they can measure exactly the quality of an album? Wankers! PS: Also I don't like how Pitchfork became some sort of scarecrow. Everyone is afraid of their rating. They are influential because people pay too much attention to their crap reviews. It's good for Pretentiousfork
|
|
drunk
Sanitation Engineer
Posts: 127
|
Post by drunk on May 17, 2012 15:33:08 GMT -5
Well, in fact, 6.4/10 is kind of 3,2/5, so it seems to be positive, however, if this review didn't include a rating, I would say (just reading words) it's more like 4.0/10. Strange....
|
|
|
Post by luxavalanche on May 17, 2012 15:46:17 GMT -5
That's because the reviewer doesn't determine the rating. Fact. It's voted upon by the team. Pitchforkian politics are really strange, trust me.
|
|
drunk
Sanitation Engineer
Posts: 127
|
Post by drunk on May 17, 2012 15:49:13 GMT -5
Really? Voted by the team? I didn't know that it works this way
|
|
|
Post by luxavalanche on May 17, 2012 15:53:32 GMT -5
Yup, they even have their own IM/chat system. I know way too much about the system and have met most of the 'team'. They're mainly castrated males with beards and bellies.
|
|
|
Post by Tornado on May 17, 2012 15:56:48 GMT -5
That's because the reviewer doesn't determine the rating. Fact. It's voted upon by the team. Pitchforkian politics are really strange, trust me. And how come that almost 95% of their ratings are lower than other magazines/reviewers? Are they stingy by default?
|
|
|
Post by luxavalanche on May 17, 2012 16:02:14 GMT -5
They hate everyone they can afford to hate. But there's talk of one day eliminating their ratings system entirely one day. I know they won't though, since it's their bread and butter.
|
|
|
Post by Tornado on May 17, 2012 16:15:50 GMT -5
They hate everyone they can afford to hate. But there's talk of one day eliminating their ratings system entirely one day. I know they won't though, since it's their bread and butter. Also they have some bad habits like modifying old ratings, deleting old reviews etc. More here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pitchfork_Media#CriticismsI still can't understand their success. There are better reviewers than Pitchfork.
|
|
|
Post by luxavalanche on May 17, 2012 16:18:24 GMT -5
Yes, they deleted 2.0 from their site (it was a 6.7 I think). And they've deleted many more.
They are very much past peak for those who actually pay attention to new music, but they've become something of a potent force in the mainstream, which sucks. Anyway, they are by no means the worst reviewers of this album. I also predicted the girl who ended up reviewing this accurately. She did Lana's review, too.
|
|
|
Post by Tornado on May 17, 2012 17:12:28 GMT -5
Yes, they deleted 2.0 from their site (it was a 6.7 I think). And they've deleted many more. They are very much past peak for those who actually pay attention to new music, but they've become something of a potent force in the mainstream, which sucks. Anyway, they are by no means the worst reviewers of this album. I also predicted the girl who ended up reviewing this accurately. She did Lana's review, too. Also I'd like to add this: those who review a particular album shouldn't be selected if they hate that artist or they didn't know anything about the album's music genre or are big fans of the artist. That would lead to more neutral reviews.
|
|
|
Post by luxavalanche on May 17, 2012 17:39:33 GMT -5
I agree. But having worked in journalism for 5+ years (and looking to leave ASAP), I can tell you the system's resources are stretched to their limits and most hungry young things will write about whatever for whatever price. There's no dignity left in this business at all. And no real passion for music.
|
|
|
Post by GoGoGrrrl on May 17, 2012 20:39:58 GMT -5
It's their 5th album.....most bands have ceased to exist at that point, outright suck and/or sellout, or continue strongly but in pretty much the same vein style-wise. G leans towards the last pattern on this album, and IMO, that's nearly the best case scenario there is.
|
|
|
Post by lasirius on May 18, 2012 14:32:41 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by lasirius on May 18, 2012 15:37:17 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Tornado on May 18, 2012 15:50:10 GMT -5
^ Britney Spears, Katy Perry?! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha h@ ha ha ha ha!
|
|
|
Post by chazmanz on May 18, 2012 22:14:17 GMT -5
All in all the reviews don't seem that bad. A lot of it seems pretty positive to me. I felt a little negative about the critic reviews, but it can help out the band. Any positives toward Garbage I'll take. They deserve it!
|
|
drunk
Sanitation Engineer
Posts: 127
|
Post by drunk on May 19, 2012 6:21:21 GMT -5
I don't understand why some unknown guy removed my wikipedia's work on section ''Not Your Kind of People reviews''. I've added many different reviews with theri sources and it's gone :/
Anyway, ''Not Your Kind of People'' reached (so far) average rating 3,39/5 on Rate Your Music (based on 190 votes). That's really good result!
Previous albums stats on RYM:
''Garbage'' - 3,64 (2537 votes) ''Version 2.0'' - 3,53 (2122 votes) ''beautifulgarbage'' - 3,10 (1244 votes) ''Bleed Like Me'' - 3,15 (950 votes) ''Absolute Garbage'' - 3,83 (256 votes)
|
|
|
Post by garbagefiend on May 19, 2012 9:02:56 GMT -5
NZ Herald By Scott Kara A break away from each other for seven years has done wonders for the spit-polished American-Scottish rockers fronted by Shirley Manson and featuring mega-producer Butch Vig on drums. And though fifth album Not Your Kind of People is no Garbage, the debut album from 1995 which included 90s anthems Queer and Stupid Girl, it's their next best record. It bristles, spits and sparkles, and that's just Manson. Even though she's not as imposing as she once was, on tracks like Blood For Poppies - with its outburst of distorted guitar fuzz up against her swaggering rap - and in her tough shrieks on Battle In Me, it's clear she is still not to be messed with. Musically, though Garbage's traditional whizz-bang electronic manipulation is in full effect, it's not overdone. It stomps, pulses and pummels away in all of the band's pristine rock glory, with Big Bright World starting off like an echo, before exploding into a bombastic serenade. The My Bloody Valentine-style shoegaze of Felt is a surprising centrepiece, and once Control gets going it hammers along wildly like a loose bit of iron. 3.5/5nzherald.co.nz/entertainment/news/article.cfm?c_id=1501119&objectid=10806832
|
|
|
Post by Garbage Addict on May 20, 2012 5:43:57 GMT -5
if you look at Metacritic they are doing better than The Gossip which came out this week - 7 positives to G to 4 for them. I love the album and I've seen a lot more good press for the album than bad - Classic Rock, Metro, Kerrang all loved the album but those scores are not included.
I'm shocked Pitchfork actually had something nice to say at al - they have slated everything they have done since Version 2.0.
At the end of the day its about the fans and the reaction has been overwhelmingly positive.
Will add I'm listening to the new Gossip album, I honestly think it lacks the sheer punch of NYKOP, certainly not as diverse
|
|
|
Post by glindathegood on May 20, 2012 10:33:45 GMT -5
Will add I'm listening to the new Gossip album, I honestly think it lacks the sheer punch of NYKOP, certainly not as diverse I agree. The Gossip changed their sound so much. They are more of a mainstream pop/dance act now. I can't really hear any guitars or instruments. It's not bad, but it's a little hard for me to get used to as I actually saw them on their first tour where they had more of a punk/blues sound. On the new album, every song sounds the same and it's more like a Beth solo album, than a band album. The album is produced by the guy who worked with Girls Aloud. Beth has become more like Madonna or Gaga, which isn't a bad thing, but not an alternative rock queen anymore like Shirley.
|
|