Best Ever Albums

Re: Pitchfork's Scathing Review of Greta Van Fleet

dihansse — Sun, 28 Oct 2018 14:25:16 GMT

Author: dihansse

Posted: 10/28/2018 18:25

They even did a gig in Belgium; I haven’t attended but the reviews were rather positive: their songs maybe not yet very good but they work very hard in putting up a good rock concert and apparently the guitar player is live top notch.

Re: Pitchfork's Scathing Review of Greta Van Fleet

CA Dreamin — Sun, 28 Oct 2018 12:48:03 GMT

Author: CA Dreamin

Posted: 10/28/2018 16:48

Finally got to the GVF album. It was okay. It was listenable. Didn't shine in any way, but certainly didn't deserve the 1.6 Pitchfork review. It's pretty clear to me the Pitchfork reviewer had ulterior motives.

Re: Pitchfork's Scathing Review of Greta Van Fleet

21stCenturySchiz — Fri, 26 Oct 2018 12:38:04 GMT

Author: 21stCenturySchiz

Posted: 10/26/2018 16:38

Ehh, I'll give it a listen over the weekend

Re: Pitchfork's Scathing Review of Greta Van Fleet

Tap — Fri, 26 Oct 2018 04:11:05 GMT

Author: Tap

Posted: 10/26/2018 08:11

I think pitchfork should hand out participation best new music trophies to all musicians, and never hurt anyones feelings.

Re: Pitchfork's Scathing Review of Greta Van Fleet

Anonymous — Fri, 26 Oct 2018 03:37:07 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 10/26/2018 07:37

gloriousgoo wrote:

Puncture Repair wrote:

Glad everyone seems to be on the same sane page about this.

I've always felt anything below a 4/10 on a scale is just an arbitrary way of saying 'bad'. There's virtually no point scoring something a 1 over a 2 other than to prove a point that exists beyond the music, or be heard.

I vehemently disagree with this. I think a well-adjusted rating scale should have an average rating of 5 and use the whole of its range. If you cut off a part of the rating scale as unusable you limit the ability to draw distinctions. If you're saying don't give anything a score below a 4, why not just have a rating system out of 6?

For a major critique publication like Pitchfork to call anything bad (below a 4, I'd say) is a bold and potentially scary move. This comes especially since music is unique in how subjective and abstract it is.

Scores between 7, 8 and 9 are absolutely huge. They make or break how many people would view an album. The step between a 2 and a 3 is not the same as a 7 to an 8. I'm willing to bet Pitchfork's infamous review of Childish Gambino's 'Camp' would have attracted similar attention had they given it a 2.6.

I'm not convinced when aggregating a score, publications like Pitchfork begin debating the minutia between a 1.9 or a 2.1.

When something is good, we love to dissect it to see just how good it is, rank it against the greats, pick apart exactly whether it's as good as we think it might be. When something is bad, it's not worth our time. That's usually all we need to know.

I'm not talking to the strict mathematical sense of this, I'm talking about a publications interests, public reaction, and how we value the music.

Re: Pitchfork's Scathing Review of Greta Van Fleet

gloriousgoo — Fri, 26 Oct 2018 01:35:33 GMT

Author: gloriousgoo

Posted: 10/26/2018 05:35

Puncture Repair wrote:

Re: Pitchfork's Scathing Review of Greta Van Fleet

Hayden — Thu, 25 Oct 2018 15:30:46 GMT

Author: Hayden

Posted: 10/25/2018 19:30

Gave it a spin.

Not unlistenable, but definitely not my thing. Think there was actually a track in the middle I kinda liked though. Lyrics/singing aside, it's not awful. I won't revisit it, and it's definitely not in my top 100 of the year, but I would say with certainty that if it was released 40+ years ago, it'd be praised.

Re: Pitchfork's Scathing Review of Greta Van Fleet

Anonymous — Thu, 25 Oct 2018 15:24:54 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 10/25/2018 19:24

Glad everyone seems to be on the same sane page about this.

I've always felt anything below a 4/10 on a scale is just an arbitrary way of saying 'bad'. There's virtually no point scoring something a 1 over a 2 other than to prove a point that exists beyond the music, or be heard.

Re: Pitchfork's Scathing Review of Greta Van Fleet

RockyRaccoon — Thu, 25 Oct 2018 15:11:40 GMT

Author: RockyRaccoon

Posted: 10/25/2018 19:11

I'll be honest, I liked the Greta Van Fleet album just fine. It was whatever. I don't think it's anything special, it's just another in a long longggg line of "bands that wish they were around in the 70s."

The thing is, there is a way to sound like your influences and still establish your own identity. I (personally) think Wolfmother did that reasonably well. GVF on the other hand don't sound like they were influenced by Zeppelin, they sound like they desperately want to be Zeppelin, and I think that's the key difference. I also feel like they take themselves way too seriously. That being said, there's no denying their talent.

Still, I don't think the album deserves the vitriolic hate that Pitchfork gave it. It'll be in my top 200 this year, it' was enjoyable enough, but it wasn't anything incredible.

Re: Pitchfork's Scathing Review of Greta Van Fleet

Jasonconfused — Thu, 25 Oct 2018 13:12:56 GMT

Author: Jasonconfused

Posted: 10/25/2018 17:12

babyBlueSedan wrote:

Very few people who read Pitchfork were going to listen to this album, and very few GVF fans care what Pitchfork says; one person's tweet in the article that Rocka linked mentioned that they had never even heard of Pitchfork.

Pretty much this. I already had a shit opinion of Pitchfork so their hatred of GVF is almost welcome. If it weren't for BEA I probably wouldn't know what Pitchfork is either.
I enjoyed the album. Not chart-worthy, but I like that style of music and they're decent enough. Obviously not the second coming of Zeppelin.

Re: Pitchfork's Scathing Review of Greta Van Fleet

HoldenM — Thu, 25 Oct 2018 03:57:41 GMT

Author: HoldenM

Posted: 10/25/2018 07:57

You know, I can't really call Greta Van Fleet "bad." They can play their instruments well enough, and string together a song. That said, I have the same problem that I have with someone like Ceremony. It's not just that the imitation is so blatant, but above all, they're so bland. Even vanilla is like, "God, what a boring bunch of songs." As so many folks on this thread have mentioned, they're not even that original for a classic rock revivalist band THIS DECADE--that said, I do take issue with the Tame Impala comparisons, whose similarities with The Beatles mostly begin and end with Kevin Parker sounding kind of like John Lennon, and the fact that they occasionally overlap as psychedelic rock artists. Greta Van Fleet doesn't offer any personality or identity beyond Zeppelin worship. Even my least favorite record of the year--Tirzah's Devotion--I can say is trying to do something different, is trying to carve out its own little sonic space, even if I think it kinda sucks. Greta Van Fleet just seems like a nothing band with nothing to say or contribute, and who serve only to remind everyone that they could be listening to Led Zeppelin. They're not unlistenable, but you know what? Watching paint dry isn't unwatchable.

If you're into them, that's fine and all. Maybe I wouldn't trash them to the degree of Pitchfork, but I also see where the negativity is coming from.[/i]

Re: Pitchfork's Scathing Review of Greta Van Fleet

CA Dreamin — Thu, 25 Oct 2018 00:53:49 GMT

Author: CA Dreamin

Posted: 10/25/2018 04:53

Just listened to From the Fires. It was ok, nothing special. However, that isn't the album Pitchfork trashed. That was their first release from 2017. I'll come back to this after I've heard their new album. Nevertheless, I don't expect it to be as bad as Pitchfork claims based on From the Fires.

Re: Pitchfork's Scathing Review of Greta Van Fleet

Anonymous — Wed, 24 Oct 2018 21:42:47 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 10/25/2018 01:42

elo269megv wrote:

I've gone to over 6 shows/concerts this year alone.

A comment like this makes me think that Austin might actually be the live music capital of the world

Re: Pitchfork's Scathing Review of Greta Van Fleet

craola — Wed, 24 Oct 2018 18:16:23 GMT

Author: craola

Posted: 10/24/2018 22:16

babyBlueSedan wrote:

Jimmy Dread makes a good point. Back in the day a bad review from Pitchfork could kill a band (Travis Morrison's 0 basically ended his solo career). But that was because Morrison was the kind of band that Pitchfork readers cared about. Very few people who read Pitchfork were going to listen to this album, and very few GVF fans care what Pitchfork says; one person's tweet in the article that Rocka linked mentioned that they had never even heard of Pitchfork.

I stopped reading Pitchfork reviews earlier this year because they give every bad between 7 and 8, and every BNM is an 8.3 or 8.4. It's really boring, and when I first saw this score I thought that maybe they were getting back to the days of actually publishing taking a positive or negative stance. But then I remembered they've been panning low hanging fruit for a few years now (Charlie Puth, Lil Xan) so really this is just more of the same.

i wouldn't put this past pitchfork, but that would be a major gamble on the part of GVF, imo, and given P4's reputation in killing careers (or at least stifling sales), i have a hard time believing GVF'd chance it. but yeah, who knows.

Re: Pitchfork's Scathing Review of Greta Van Fleet

babyBlueSedan — Wed, 24 Oct 2018 17:34:20 GMT

Author: babyBlueSedan

Posted: 10/24/2018 21:34

Jimmy Dread makes a good point. Back in the day a bad review from Pitchfork could kill a band (Travis Morrison's 0 basically ended his solo career). But that was because Morrison was the kind of band that Pitchfork readers cared about. Very few people who read Pitchfork were going to listen to this album, and very few GVF fans care what Pitchfork says; one person's tweet in the article that Rocka linked mentioned that they had never even heard of Pitchfork.

I stopped reading Pitchfork reviews earlier this year because they give every bad between 7 and 8, and every BNM is an 8.3 or 8.4. It's really boring, and when I first saw this score I thought that maybe they were getting back to the days of actually publishing taking a positive or negative stance. But then I remembered they've been panning low hanging fruit for a few years now (Charlie Puth, Lil Xan) so really this is just more of the same.

Re: Pitchfork's Scathing Review of Greta Van Fleet

Luigii — Wed, 24 Oct 2018 17:24:54 GMT

Author: Luigii

Posted: 10/24/2018 21:24

Jimmy Dread wrote:

Right up to the point that this thread was first posted I genuinely thought Greta Van Fleet was a person, like Townes Van Zandt or Virgil Van Dijk or whatever. Turns out they didn't penetrate my vape-filled bubble...

...though they have now, and that's kind of the point. The worst thing for a band is to disappear into mediocrity - you've rather be praised to the skies or slated to the point of ridicule than get a 6/10 review. Fact is for us ignorami who've been sleeping in a tent outside Jimmy Page's house for the last 18 months and had never heard of them before (let alone heard their music) I certainly know about them now.

To me the Pitchfork review is a classic case of bad publicity being the exact opposite. The label must be rubbing their hands all the way to the bank. Long-time fans won't care and buy/stream/support the album regardless. People like me who've never heard them will click on a YouTube video and find what all the fuss is about. Every click brings in just that little bit more $$$. And all the while Pitchfork remain credible and relevant to everyone from b-boys to hipsters.

Clever, clever strategy. I reckon P4K and the band are in cahoots.

Honestly I was going to mention that. But mine response would be more assholish with my point being at the end of the day, we're all idiots they'll continue getting fame and "fortune" while we're still stuck in the middle class.

Re: Pitchfork's Scathing Review of Greta Van Fleet

Jimmy Dread — Wed, 24 Oct 2018 17:19:28 GMT

Author: Jimmy Dread

Posted: 10/24/2018 21:19

Right up to the point that this thread was first posted I genuinely thought Greta Van Fleet was a person, like Townes Van Zandt or Virgil Van Dijk or whatever. Turns out they didn't penetrate my vape-filled bubble...

...though they have now, and that's kind of the point. The worst thing for a band is to disappear into mediocrity - you've rather be praised to the skies or slated to the point of ridicule than get a 6/10 review. Fact is for us ignorami who've been sleeping in a tent outside Jimmy Page's house for the last 18 months and had never heard of them before (let alone heard their music) I certainly know about them now.

To me the Pitchfork review is a classic case of bad publicity being the exact opposite. The label must be rubbing their hands all the way to the bank. Long-time fans won't care and buy/stream/support the album regardless. People like me who've never heard them will click on a YouTube video to see what all the fuss is about. Every click brings in just that little bit more $$$. And all the while Pitchfork remain credible and relevant to everyone from b-boys to hipsters.

Clever, clever strategy. I reckon P4K and the band are in cahoots.

Re: Pitchfork's Scathing Review of Greta Van Fleet

Tha1ChiefRocka — Wed, 24 Oct 2018 16:58:15 GMT

Author: Tha1ChiefRocka

Posted: 10/24/2018 20:58

Sorry, I just can't help myself.

BTW Greta Van Fleet's signed to Republic records which means that their labelmates include Ariana Grande, Post Malone, Lil Wayne, The Weeknd, Nicki Minaj, Drake, and many more.

Interestingly, the label has also had acts like 3 Doors Down, Hinder, Black Veil Brides, and Owl City. All of which served a very particular demographic as well.

Hopefully they do grow musically, because their contract probably says that they have to crank out 3 or 4 more albums before Universal will let them go. Especially if they become successful and profitable.

Re: Pitchfork's Scathing Review of Greta Van Fleet

Luigii — Wed, 24 Oct 2018 16:37:37 GMT

Author: Luigii

Posted: 10/24/2018 20:37

So at the point this comment is posted, I would be done with the album we are talking about.

Now, I would not consider myself a gatekeeper for rock music. Hell my interests would go into promoting other genres that I care for like funk, R&B, electronic and hip hop. But this album itself was actually quite enjoyable. I'd argue the vocalist in the tone of his voice is more influenced by the singer for ACDC. Now while I could hear his voice being a bit grating for some, to me not really. And though maybe some other people could talk about this but did Zep have songs that were slow and folksy like some of the tracks on this album? Or did they ever use bongos like on the second to last track? This is coming from a guy that still doesn't have a lot of the classic rock albums under this viewers belt. But more than nothing, this was a quick trip. Like it didn't overstay its welcome and I would buy this. Also Hayden is right where some albums that were ranked higher than the 1.6 this album got are way more tedious. I mean Eminem's Revival got a 5.0 and that album is one of the worst albums ever. That record to be blunt was fucking tedious. While this album that was a ball of joy and was entertaining gets a lower grade. But then again when one of your speaking points is about what you wear and how it was created you lost me. Realistically I'd take the advice of Brockhampton and say Fuck Pitchfork. And Greta Van Fleet should to.

My grade for this:90

Re: Pitchfork's Scathing Review of Greta Van Fleet

Tap — Wed, 24 Oct 2018 16:36:03 GMT

Author: Tap

Posted: 10/24/2018 20:36

elo269megv wrote:

Hayden wrote:

I'm not terribly invested in this argument... like, originally, I just thought you figured shows don't sell out. People go to concerts. Y'know?

Also keep in mind that running/managing a concert by a 4-piece rock band is a lot more expensive than say... some act with a single mic and a guitar. A $40 ticket probably makes $1.50-2 profit for each member, max.

I go to concerts myself.. I've been to two Greta shows already and will attend another in December. I've gone to over 6 shows/concerts this year alone. I know its a thing.

PS. Greta sold out Toronto today and added a second date in May which I would'nt be surprised if it sells out as well.

Just defending a good group of guys (yeah I met them after a show in Flint last May), who don't deserve to be crucified.

I rest my case.

I think it's fine that you defend them and your appreciation of them. But at the same time, there is something to the derivative argumemt. Because Led Zepplin borrowed from others, sure, but it wasn't just one band. I think it's fair for people to have significant problems with that.