Quote:
Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower
O.K., I have already admitted that I read Pitchfork. Ha ha ha, I'm played out, wheee! Anyhoo, I think the best Pitchfork reviews are the ones where the reviewer seems personally offended by very existence of the album:
http://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/20421-wilder-mind/ |
Smug pretentious reviewers should not be allowed to review pop stuff. Of course this reviewer hates it, because the mob likes it.
The old movie reviewer from DC's City Paper gave me that hard rule for reviewers.
The guy would review Almador (or whatever his name is) movies then do a Tom Hanks Rom-Com, and it would be the same tone.
Like "the new Tom Hanks movie isn't completely horrible, like X, but it really has far less redeeming value than even the insipid y."
What he was missing was that people read his reviews to decide whether to go see the new movies, not to fucking analyze them. And if the reader had listened to the reviewer he would never have gone to see X or Y.
Jesus, Flower you know this. And what the fuck are you doing even reading a Mumford and son review. Fuck sakes, what is happening to you?
