if a reviewer gives an album a 0, does that entice you to buy it?

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

witness the review of travistan on pitchfork today...

i liked DP alright a few years back and yet i've pretty much lost interest. BUT HELL, pfork gave travis a 0.0! 'fork often is wrong about albums, but sometimes they do get it right... i mean, opinions don't count for shit, i don't care if your the einstein of taste. but damn... a 0.0?!?

i'm gonna have to buy that stupid album now. (http://www.travismorrison.com/)

― msp (msp), Tuesday, 28 September 2004 15:55 (twenty-one years ago)

It certainly entices me to read the review.

― Wooden (Wooden), Tuesday, 28 September 2004 15:58 (twenty-one years ago)

wooden otm. if i'm scanning a reviews page, i will stop to read the bad reviews, regardless of whether i'm interested in the artist.

wouldn't *entice* me into buying it, wouldn't necessarily put me off either.

― weasel diesel (K1l14n), Tuesday, 28 September 2004 16:02 (twenty-one years ago)

buy? no. give it a listen? probably.
I mean they could've given it a two point something or other and it would've been relegated to the "never got any attention cuz it sucked" bin. but NO they gave it a 0.0 and stuck it as the front review on their site. they secretly want you to listen to it.

― lemin (lemin), Tuesday, 28 September 2004 16:03 (twenty-one years ago)

The giant "suicidegirls" ads make looking at Pitchfork embarrassing.

― morris pavilion (samjeff), Tuesday, 28 September 2004 16:05 (twenty-one years ago)

True, I don't want to look at the shit at work.

― Jordan (Jordan), Tuesday, 28 September 2004 16:09 (twenty-one years ago)

mozilla + adblock is a VERY good thing for office websurfing

― rentboy (rentboy), Tuesday, 28 September 2004 16:11 (twenty-one years ago)

were it ANYONE but travis morrison, i would be interested in the album, but i hate hate hate dplan.

― peter smith (plsmith), Tuesday, 28 September 2004 17:09 (twenty-one years ago)

Answer to the question: NO

...but my one of my favourite albums of the last ten years received a 0.1 on pitchfork, so maybe my answer is YES!

― peepee (peepee), Tuesday, 28 September 2004 17:14 (twenty-one years ago)

was that i get wet?

― peter smith (plsmith), Tuesday, 28 September 2004 17:21 (twenty-one years ago)

i usually never read the reviews on the fork tho. no offense to them, i just don't read reviews much. i'd rather a 3 sentence stick of glue from somebody on ile about a record than a formal review. i only read reviews when i have to read them to find out if they liked the record or not.

i'm still not really down with the p2p for the most part. i was, then i wasn't. now i'm conflicted. (and annoyed.) so for me, i have to buy to try. maybe i'll get lucky and find it used for $2... if it sucks that bad, then i'll probably benefit from some sucker's misfortune.

― msp (msp), Tuesday, 28 September 2004 17:21 (twenty-one years ago)

what album was it?(xpost)

― robin (robin), Tuesday, 28 September 2004 17:24 (twenty-one years ago)

artist in the pfork canon trying something new that pfork doesn't take to all that much=0.0
see: liz phair, sonic youth, etc.
NOT interesting. expected.

― Felonious Drunk (Felcher), Tuesday, 28 September 2004 17:28 (twenty-one years ago)

The album I referred to was Badawi's "The Heretic of Ether"

― peepee (peepee), Tuesday, 28 September 2004 17:29 (twenty-one years ago)

Well, not by itself, but it can certainly help. It was Steven Erlewine's Allmusic review of Billy Joel's "Attila" ("Worst LP ever made!"), in addition to another reviewer who compared it to Sir Lord Baltimore, that together enticed me to seek out that fine LP.

And nothing against Erlewine in general - it was the hyperbolic remarks that I took note of. Any reviewers with opinions I consistently & persistently find to be full of shit (or at least, not ENTERTAININGLY full of shit), I don't waste time reading in the first place.

― Myonga Von Bontee (Myonga Von Bontee), Tuesday, 28 September 2004 18:04 (twenty-one years ago)

If you do set out to buy Travistan on contrarian grounds, be warned that the songs from it I've heard at recent shows have been decidedly meh. Even accounting for the fallen idol factor, Pitchfork is probably right to mark it so low.

― j.lu (j.lu), Tuesday, 28 September 2004 18:14 (twenty-one years ago)

It seemed like there were a few redeeming qualities mentioned in the review, yet it got a 0.0.

True, Felonious Drunk.

I agree about the suicidegirls banner. Definitely borders on not-safe-for-work, although there's no problem if I just shrink the window a bit horizontally.

― sleep (sleep), Tuesday, 28 September 2004 18:15 (twenty-one years ago)

jlu otm--even if you're a plan fan (i'm not, but my gf is/was), travis unleashed doesn't really sound like a great idea.

― mookieproof (mookieproof), Tuesday, 28 September 2004 18:29 (twenty-one years ago)

Depends on which review you're reading.

― Nowell, Tuesday, 28 September 2004 18:34 (twenty-one years ago)

i've had the promo of this for two months (its currently sitting on my floor) and this review doesnt make me want to open it any more.

― jess (dubplatestyle), Tuesday, 28 September 2004 20:45 (twenty-one years ago)

well, i don't have a pat--as in across-the-board, rather than Pee Pee-- answer for this, but the sweeping pans issued for Liars' last record enticed me to give it a good listen, and subsequently write favorable reviews of it.

― ken taylrr (ken taylrr), Tuesday, 28 September 2004 20:49 (twenty-one years ago)

I don't write reviews, but I'm with Ken about the last Liar's album and the effects of it's initial pans.

― peepee (peepee), Tuesday, 28 September 2004 21:18 (twenty-one years ago)

the liars recorded thirded. that album is fucking great! I probably won't have even bothered paying attention to it much because while I like the first record a lot, I assumed the follow up would be more of the same, and it would be like Clinic or something: one record is enough. but no! everyone hated it so much I had to hear it.

― kyle (akmonday), Tuesday, 28 September 2004 21:23 (twenty-one years ago)

isn't this thread actually this thread:

Rolling 2004 Negative Reviews That Make The Subject Sound Awesome Thread

― scott seward (scott seward), Tuesday, 28 September 2004 21:26 (twenty-one years ago)

The pans of the Liars album inspired me to check it out, and also inspired me to google the Rolling Stone reviewer, which resulted in the amazing discovery that, within the space of a few years, the most enthusiastic Phish-loving sophmore in Michigan has become an expert on more musical genres than I would have believed possible.

― dlp9001, Tuesday, 28 September 2004 21:38 (twenty-one years ago)

who's that? too tired to google it myself

― ken taylrr (ken taylrr), Tuesday, 28 September 2004 21:47 (twenty-one years ago)

Christian Hoard. I don't know how he pronounces his name, but if it sounds the way I think it might, I can't help but wonder if he got assigned the Liars review for that reason alone.

― dlp9001, Tuesday, 28 September 2004 21:58 (twenty-one years ago)

OTM.

― latebloomer (latebloomer), Tuesday, 28 September 2004 21:59 (twenty-one years ago)

You guys, that album is just as bad as pitchfork says. HORRIBLE HORRIBLE RECORD.

It's pretentious, plodding, painfully dully, and pro-war.

― Kevin Erickson, Wednesday, 29 September 2004 01:38 (twenty-one years ago)

I WILL NEVER READ A PITCHFORK REVIEW EVER A FUCKING GAIN

― manthony m1cc1o (Anthony Miccio), Wednesday, 29 September 2004 01:40 (twenty-one years ago)

If I wanted to endure kneejerk puerile bullshit I'd walk by a middle school wearing a shirt saying "I'M A FAGGOT."

― manthony m1cc1o (Anthony Miccio), Wednesday, 29 September 2004 01:41 (twenty-one years ago)

artist in the pfork canon trying something new that pfork doesn't take to all that much=0.0

exactly why pfork's

― ryan kuo (ryan kuo), Wednesday, 29 September 2004 01:45 (twenty-one years ago)

oops

exactly why pfork's < 1.0 reviews will always entice me

― ryan kuo (ryan kuo), Wednesday, 29 September 2004 01:45 (twenty-one years ago)

oddly, just because pitchfork hates it doesn't mean it doesn't suck

― mookieproof (mookieproof), Wednesday, 29 September 2004 01:49 (twenty-one years ago)

right

― ryan kuo (ryan kuo), Wednesday, 29 September 2004 01:50 (twenty-one years ago)

(no sarcasm intended)

― ryan kuo (ryan kuo), Wednesday, 29 September 2004 01:51 (twenty-one years ago)

I've never heard it, but what a disgustingly mean-spirited review. Jesus.

― Hurting (Hurting), Wednesday, 29 September 2004 01:56 (twenty-one years ago)

I'm writing a review of this album for stylus and I am really, really, really glad I am right now.

― manthony m1cc1o (Anthony Miccio), Wednesday, 29 September 2004 02:02 (twenty-one years ago)

now reading that review sounds enticing. Perhaps even more enticing than the album, cuz let's face it, Morrison's songwriting skills were going downhill anyways. But that pf review is still hilarious because it seems to give all these reasons to listen to the album and then gives it the lowest score possible. ha.

And everybody mentioning "they were wrong" is otm.

― lemin (lemin), Wednesday, 29 September 2004 02:49 (twenty-one years ago)

somehow i know the liars record was going to come up on this thread before i had even looked at it

― duke threaded, Wednesday, 29 September 2004 04:54 (twenty-one years ago)

First off, where do you get that his song-writing skills were going downhill already anyway? Change is my favorite D-Plan record (given E&I's a close second), and since that's the last thing we have aside from the MP3s on his site (and since those are on the album, I don't think they qualify) is maybe a bootleg or two (which are nearly fucking impossible to find, trust me, I tried a lot.) So exactly how you qualify that I don't understand...

As for Anthony's review for Stylus... Fukcin' A. Man. Right on. I mean, yes, I'm speaking stoner here, but I totally agree...

Anyway, I just had a big convo with a friend about this album, and I think that the reason that Dahlen's review fails utterly for anyone who's actually listened to the album (and I've only given it one quick half-way run-through and I saw this) is that he takes everything out of context of what the album is and what the rest of the lyrics are. Yes it could take a helluva lot more focus. No, it doesn't meet the standards of the Plan song- or lyric-wise. Yes, it could be a lot better. But it by no means deserves a 0.0. I mean, he's at least got some good hooks and a few clever lyrics that even the harshest critic (well, apparently aside from Dahlen) can't ignore...

― moofman (moofman), Saturday, 2 October 2004 08:32 (twenty-one years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.