Pitchfork review of La Foret
Guest
|
Post by Pitchfork review of La Foret on Jul 15, 2005 14:50:27 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by lysine on Jul 15, 2005 14:57:15 GMT -5
i liked it a lot. it was excellent writing, truely. the vocabulary shows that the guy doing the review knows his shit.
|
|
|
Post by dr. strangelove on Jul 15, 2005 15:15:45 GMT -5
i'd have to agree with this review overall, but i don't like that most of it is just a comparison to xiu xiu's other work. i think this album is very much its own beast, and should be dealt with on its own. while i'm not quite as big a fan of it as KP, i am constantly surprised by moments of subtlety in la foret that i overlooked before. the way he wrote this review, it basically tells me "it's good, but not as good as fab muscles, so unless you loved that album, don't bother with this one."
|
|
|
Post by nhennies on Jul 15, 2005 16:12:07 GMT -5
It was a pretty shallow and uninformative review and comparing Xiu Xiu to hacks like Bright Eyes and the guy who made "Tarnation" is ridiculous. "Ale" sounds like smooth jazz? "Clover" has a xylophone? (it's a vibraphone, it even says so in the liner notes) Jamie sounds like Conor Oberst??? yech
As usual, Pitchfork manages to run a lengthy review that could have been stated in less than 5 sentences.
|
|
|
Post by urgeintheicebox on Jul 15, 2005 21:37:21 GMT -5
yes, this isnt a case of 'its all relative', the comparisons and everything were wrong. though the review did seem to be kind to the album. even with its grading (a 7.9) im left wondering why it is that everyone wants another fabulous muscles in the first place. knife play is still the best record, but la foret comes closest to it, a promise was horrible, fabulous muscles was completely different from the first two albums and eps, so i think la foret is basically a step up the latter
pitchfork is a dying animal anyhow, it was good while it lasted
|
|
|
Post by liontails on Jul 15, 2005 23:04:47 GMT -5
personally, i don't remember it ever really being good, but that's just me.
|
|