heres it is

http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/record-re ... ings.shtml

WTF????????

"big dank drumz"

Wow.

yeah really.
I read this today also and went "what the hell is this fucking guy talking about?"
he has absolutely no clue what he is talking about. thats what.
this is the stupidest farce i have seen in a long time. he must have assholes for ears. or maybe he got his ears waterlogged while swimming in lake stupid. ach!
sometimes the internet makes morons break into my life without warning. it makes me mighty upset.

1000% retard

hey, i was about to post that

haha

Hyper-compressed sludge treatments???

I just threw my monitor across the room.

that guy has no clue. most, if not all pitchfork media writers are of this ilk. it's nice they've brought a ton of attention to independent artists, but their writing and critique skills blow. look no further than their horrible "lists," like the "best music of 2000-2004"

Pitchfork clearly has a vast understanding of the rock aesthetic. Top-notch journalists too.

This is the website that just listed a Jay-Z record as their number 2 album from 2000-2004. I also believe that AC/DC has yet to crack either of their 70s or 80s lists.

Connor

I just can't believe they gave that album a 7.3 rating. They have no idea what they're talking about as far as the sound goes. The last record sounded like ass. This sounds great but, the songwriting is beyond subpar and they come off as a shitty motorhead knock-off. Still sounds great though.

slowriot wrote:it's nice they've brought a ton of attention to independent artists

I'm not sure I agree with you on this. I remember something on their site from a few years ago that said something like "let's face it, the best rock music doesn't come out on independent labels." They're just as jizz-happy over rockstardom, fashion, hip-factor, etc. as Spin or Rolling Stone. It's just a different breed of rockstardom, that's all.