11:17 am // Wednesday, September 19, 2012
Posted by jjb in postchildren.trackback
James Iha’s Look To the Sky, now out in the U.S., gets a 2.9 from Pitchfork’s Ian Cohen: “Bafflingly outdated alt-rock songs that could comfortably sidle between choice cuts from Marcy Playground and Semisonic and get their asses handed to them.”
Comments
Sorry comments are closed for this entry
and yet when I told those P4k Pavement ass fucking assholes to go fuck themselves you defended them. jesus make up your mind which side you are on HU. and yes Perpetua is an asshole. gonna give Song for A Son 2/10 while give Pamevent sell out greatest hits album from their reunion greatest hits tour 10/10.
It’s one paragraph with the score given and a quote from the review. How is that classified as “defending” anyone?
what? mind your business ashley just mind your business.
My favorite part is when Pitchfork says that “Waves wash over me/ Drag me out to sea/ A tide pours slow-ow-ly,” “refus[es] to even bother making any sense” if James is “not already out to sea”. Excuse me, have you never been to the beach? It’s this wonderful place where you can remain on dry land and have waves wash over you (your feet, you legs, your whole damn body if you lie by the shore!). And it’s THIS TYPE OF “PROBLEM” that causes “Look to the Sky” to receive a mere 2.9? Conversely, they “[yearn] for a line as pedestrian and relatable as “We watch things on VCRs.”". You’re right Pitchf*ck, that’s waaay more artistic.
http://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/17022-coexist/
Stay cited!
LOL, I know. The #PitchforkLyricAnalysis has been bringing me the lulz all day long.
That was a blood bath of a review :/
Iha’s new album is not worse than Animal Collective/Pavement SHIT this p4k hipsters praise so much.
but James Iha is a hipster, i would have thought pitchfork would love the album
Completely unfair review. There were parts of this album that I thought were absolutely fantastic, and even the not so stellar tracks don’t warrant a 2.9
$5.99 on iTunes. Getting it Tomorrow.
the last time, i tried to buy an iha song, tinted windows, on itunes my laptop crashed literally as soon as it finished downloading. never again.
Those tweets…lol…good job.
Pitchfork are obsessed with lyrics. If they don’t like the lyrics, they shit on the album. If they don’t like the artist or the artist doesn’t have their cred, the album won’t get higher than 7/10 even if it’s a masterpiece.
That’s just the way it is. If you don’t like them, ignore them.
James isn’t ever gonna be a lyrical genius and that appears to be what sank the review. I take umbrage at outdated alt-rock, though. This album is clearly a huge step forward for him and it sounds very current to me. (I do take daily 90s nostalgia baths, though, so a grain of salt is provided with my opinion.)
Baha… Yet another example of how p4k is irrelevant and nothing but a circle jerk for homo’s and obama worshipers that try to out-do each other’s pretentiousness. I admit, 4-5 years ago it was a decent enough site for indie and electronic rock (mostly altered states). Now, however, 90% of the news stories are hip hop related or about the handfull of bands that they touch themselves listening to, or simply pro-gay rants. James Iha kicks ass and his new album is great. That is all.
Oh mom…was always wondering why…I was into sports.
That was for you Peter.
Well, can we take a minute to talk about the content of the review with correlation to “Look to the Sky?” Cause I’ll be honest, I don’t get it.
First of all, I am very familiar with Ian Cohen’s reviews. He is a very bias kind of writer in which he has strong opinions to what he expects and likes. Reminds me of a closed minded food critic who specifically likes the bitter taste over the sweeter. It certainly has its place in what he has to say sometimes, but in most cases he is far too dogmatic. Also, he has been heavily criticized even by his peers with some of his…questionable reviews http://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/16836-i-get-wet/ (check the original review…)
With that said, I do not understand what exactly Ian is so dissatisfied about. It sounds like he is making fun of Iha for having such simple lyrical dynamics as well as poetical dynamiter. Like what? He spends half the review going over how “stupid” his lines are and “how men his age shouldn’t write like that,” yet his peers at pitchfork don’t questions Kanye Wests lines like “I sent a girl a picture of my dick,” because that is appropriate for an adult to say (pitchforks highest rated album in the past decade I might add). I can understand criticizing lyrics with the context of an album or song, but to just flat out bash an artist for their art (lack of a better term) is far to subjective. I mean, Andrew W.K has some of the simplest lines and beats such as “She is beautiful, she is beautiful, she looks good and its true.”
The music is criticized for sounding outdated, yet he suggests taking out the guitars and adding synth’s to sound like a post-owl city (direct quote…). I mean, say what? Apparently to Ian, guitars are outdated and stuck in 1998, speaking of which. I also found the constant comparisons to Billy and Pains of Being Pure at Heart unnecessary. Again, to me it comes across like a lack of knowing what to write about, so he would rather poke old rotted wounds in order to make attacks that he justifies as points. He spends a few paragraphs making comparisons to Pumpkins work which is fair, but mentions how Iha sounds too outdated unlike the stronger song writing he had in the 90′s. Third time I say this but what the hell does that mean? Ian bashes Iha for sounding like a 1998 Marcy’s playground California pop rocker, yet compares him to his 1995/6 work that was arguable more restrained than anything he has released in the past decade. How would that even make sense? Some how 1995/6 sounds more modern than 1998 apparently…It came from Pitchfork, It must be true. Back to my point, “Look to the Sky,” is so different than anything Iha has done (though not a revolutionary sound outside of his world either) I find those comparisons as pointless as having something in your face everywhere you look around…
He would have better points, but I feel like he spends far too much time bashing which further runes his credibility. The fact that Ian has to go on twitter to pat himself on the back, “look guys, isn’t this stupid and funny? Come laugh with me.” highlights my points even more so… Either way, I think the other critic reviews will showcase what the albums really worth. But I personally enjoyed it though It was a tad too poppy.
seeing how p4k gave an awesome Zwan album 4.8/10 (http://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/8920-mary-star-of-the-sea/) … 2.9/10 for James seem fair …
having said that … I as you know am not a big Iha fan … still I respect his talent and on his second album he shows growth and the album isn’t THAT bad. also p4k thinks vampire weekend are great so fuck them
I give this review a 2.4/10. I mean, the analyses was clearly outdated, and the writing…it was far too lugubrious. I would have preferred a more parochial review that didn’t try so hard. I mean, come on. This sort of Pumpkin bashing just seems so 2000.
I went to Best Buy yesterday to pick up Look To The Sky. The manager said they ordered 3, but wasn’t able to find them in the store for me. lol. 3!
If anyone wants to hear it. It is streaming this week here: http://music.aol.com/new-releases-full-cds/spinner#/7
Man, this MSOTS review is also SO unfair. Geez…
Compare and contrast, compare compare, contrast, bash and so on. This review really has a lot of unnecessary measuring sticks: Smashing Pumpkins, Iha’s old work and the Pains of Being Pure Pop-Tarts. As far as album reviews go this one fails to meet the mark of that one really good album review from 1998 Cohen did. If you replace the juvenile remarks, and add something common to today’s world of journalism it might pass as something worth reading. I can safely tell you Ian Cohen has nothing to say here.
Ok, the MSOTS review did have me laughing at “His black mumu is back in the attic where it belongs”
Yeah a brutal review from pitchfork. Obligatory reference to how much they hate Billy and how pretentious or whatever he is. Huge surprise. I don’t even think they even based that score on the music, and the review shows. They even mention that the music is good, but there were some things that bothered him apparently that sunk the overall review. Things like not being able to logistically reconcile the idea of waves washing over someone if he is not yet out to sea. It’s not James’ fault you’re a dip shit, Mr. Album Reviewer.
I don’t believe Pitchfork has much relevance. I don’t waste my time reading their reviews.
The only thing funnier than listening to people talk about how terrible Pitchfork is watching people lose their shit every time Pitchfork gives something they personally like a poor score.
@somebody, But I don’t like Look to the Sky. It just isn’t my cup of tea. That review was just really unprofessional and for the highly negative terms it was framed in, it was very poorly argued. It’s just like any other profession–if you do a poor job, you should be held accountable for it. That would be true for me irregardless of who they were writing about.
it wasn’t a great album by any means, but the score is maybe a point too low.
also not a fan of how his sounds has hardly changed in 10+ years