Pitchfork's Scathing Review of Greta Van Fleet - Music

RockyRaccoon

Is it solipsistic in here or is it just me?

Gender: Male

Age: 35

Location: Maryland

Moderator

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.
_________________
Progressive Rock

Early Psychedelic Rock

Live Albums

Puncture Repair

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.

Hayden

Location: Vietnam

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.
_________________
Doubles & Conch

gloriousgoo

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?

Puncture Repair

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.

Last edited by Puncture Repair on 10/26/2018 18:16; edited 1 time in total

Tap

to resume download

Gender: Female

Age: 40

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

21stCenturySchiz

Gender: Male

Age: 25

Location: Cincinnati, Ohio

Ehh, I'll give it a listen over the weekend
_________________
"I Wanna Take You To A Wasteland I Like To Call My Home"

CA Dreamin

Gender: Male

Location: LA

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.

dihansse

dihansse

Gender: Male

Age: 62

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.