ya, that or battle scars

I think that they'd absolutely love ARR if it were SOLELY from some new emerging indie act, imho.

1. 
   

   Slipvin wrote:
   
   Pitchfork is not to be taken seriously. The only thing that makes them cum is stuff like Radiohead and other alternative emoshit.
   
   
   

   
   

hehehe! I just remembered... Pitchfork has been on your shit list since they dogged The Dandy Warhols!!

The don't like the Dandy Warhols?! WTF?

I'm feeling pretty concerned for those avid readers of Pitchfork... I feel like I should free them from these incredibly bad reviews that they fill their heads with.

I say we head down to Pitchfork and bust a few caps in their asses.. :P

Naw, See to be honest, I think WATN was one of the best Chemical albums there is, but in saying that, I kinda love them all..

Im kinda sad Pitchfork never liked it, cause I thought it was really good and most would like it... :(

Pitchfork is still my favoured place to check for music news and reviews. They've shitlisted many albums I love (you think 3.9 for WATN is bad? If I recall, they gave Lateralus 0.9!) but I'd rather that than overly-forgiving reviewers. They cover a wide variety of music and have turned me on to many a good act before.

I disagree with the reviewer's opinion on the album, though I think some decent points are raised and I was interested by the comparisons between DIA and Timbaland and between WATN and Music:Response (and Timbaland's productions in that era), as they were comparisons I had made a while back.

Would have liked to see Dominique Leone review the album as I think she's one of the better members of their crew and generally focuses on electronic music.

They could have saved us allot of hassle and just wrote ''I didn’t like it''

But no, whoever wrote this had some pre written puns that he taught would impress the editor so he stuck them in and ran to the editor and boost about them like that guy in school that tells one funny joke a year but repeats it for the rest of the year.

Like what the fuck was he on about. The day I let an america bother me about their knowledge of music is the day I give up.

Go do us all a fever suck BT's big red synthesizer.

haha I really like some of their old critics' writing, it's pretty sweet.

but lately it's kind of boring.

Look people,saying WATN isnt as good as DYOH is like saying The Scorpions new single isnt as good as Winds Of Change!!I rest my case.

To be honest I am not totally bothered by negative reviews. I may have been bothered a few years ago, but not so much now. It's water off a duck's back. At least there are reasons given as to why there is an unfavorable opinion about a track or album. I really don't put too much stock in even the worst reviews because I love the album and nothing (especially a critic) is going to change that. It's all for interesting reading and food for thought to get a different perspective. IN the end if discussion comes about like in this thread, it gives us something to say/talk about.

What I don't like are the pot shots taken against the band (like that one wanker who bitched about how unexciting Tom and Ed's last names are) and all these trapped-in-1997-why-can't-the-Chems-make-another-Dig-Your-Own-Hole assertions. It's the future, time to move on.