HAPPY ZOMBIE UNICORN Posted January 23 Share Posted January 23 1 hour ago, suffoKate said: https://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/green-day-saviors/ 5.1 , rated lower than FOAM on pitchfork As a reminder, Pitchfork gave 4.8 to 21CB and 5.1 to RevRad, they didn’t even review any of the trilogy records, AI is 7.1 🥴 3 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KGLWW Posted January 23 Share Posted January 23 Sometimes it just depends on who is tasked with reviewing at Pitchfork. Sometimes reviewers didn’t even like the albums they gave better scores to in the past. It all just makes a mockery of itself honestly. I’m not sure why I bother to read them. They once were a good place to find new music, but they really only care about clicks and money. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HAPPY ZOMBIE UNICORN Posted January 23 Share Posted January 23 Very interesting opinion piece from the New Yorker, nice to see these kind of articles being published https://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/its-green-days-world-now 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
þjáningu Posted January 23 Share Posted January 23 Fantano was always gonna hate it we all knew that I watched his video and I'm confused by a lot of what he says. He gaslights (I don't know if that's the correct word to use here) alot of the songs by giving different meanings to it just to shit on it especially on LMNB and Fancy Sauce Extremely confusing review 🤔 like I get you hate it but your reasons seem kinda stupid ? 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reverend Strychnine Twitch Posted January 23 Share Posted January 23 1 hour ago, HAPPY ZOMBIE UNICORN said: As a reminder, Pitchfork gave 4.8 to 21CB and 5.1 to RevRad, they didn’t even review any of the trilogy records, AI is 7.1 🥴 Pitchfork is a joke. So they say FOAM is better than 21st CB and Revrad. Sorry Pitchfork, no FOAM part 2 for you to give higher ratings. Back in the day they have Weezer's Pinkerton a note like 0,4 (not even 1) and years later Pitchfork gave 7,5 to the original and 10/10 to the reissue of Pinkerton. How is it possible to take them seriously? End of story. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HAPPY ZOMBIE UNICORN Posted January 23 Share Posted January 23 4/5 review https://www.stereoboard.com/content/view/242519/9 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HAPPY ZOMBIE UNICORN Posted January 23 Share Posted January 23 45 minutes ago, þjáningu said: Fantano was always gonna hate it we all knew that I watched his video and I'm confused by a lot of what he says. He gaslights (I don't know if that's the correct word to use here) alot of the songs by giving different meanings to it just to shit on it especially on LMNB and Fancy Sauce Extremely confusing review 🤔 like I get you hate it but your reasons seem kinda stupid ? We are talking about someone that apparently put AI and Uno at the same level. More than confusing, provoking for the sake of it (or for the sake of getting some views and comments). https://www.reddit.com/r/fantanoforever/s/DHiTCWus1G 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MillenniumFan Posted January 23 Share Posted January 23 3 hours ago, jengd said: Couldn’t get past the para that said Tre’s drumming was proficient and nothing more. What were they listening to??? I wonder if it’s the same reviewer who said Greta Van Fleet were “proficient musicians at best” back in 2018. It just shows that they didn’t and still don’t understand the term proficient. In the case of GVF there are many valid criticisms one could have levelled against their work: deficiencies in songwriting/lyrics, too derivative, production errors etc. but their playing being “proficient at best” in a world where many of the top 100 artists don’t even record a real drumkit, piano, guitar/bass, let alone vocals from scratch anymore is absolutely laughable and just goes to show that some Pitchfork reviewers do not know what they’re talking about. Even Fantano wasn’t dumb enough to ever call either Green Day or Greta Van Fleet “proficient at best”. He knows they are more than capable musicians when it comes to playing their instruments, so his criticisms were and are addressed elsewhere. Edit: Lol just saw Fantano gave Saviors 3/10: that’s gotta be a deliberately contrarian take right? That’s even worse than I thought lol But as others have said, tastes differ and that’s ok. I disagreed with his final review of RevRad, although I could see a lot of the deficiencies that he was pointing out. Similarly I kinda agreed with his take on the new Blink album, but in this case I just really notice how our musical taste differs and I’m reminded of the fact that he didn’t like American Idiot or 21CB, soooo… well yeah, makes sense he wouldn’t like this one either. Tbh at the end of the day, he’s just a guy with an opinion which he’s entitled to have, but which I’m also entitled to disagree with. his word isn’t music gospel. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ekim Posted January 23 Share Posted January 23 57 minutes ago, MillenniumFan said: I wonder if it’s the same reviewer who said Greta Van Fleet were “proficient musicians at best” back in 2018. It just shows that they didn’t and still don’t understand the term proficient. In the case of GVF there are many valid criticisms one could have levelled against their work: deficiencies in songwriting/lyrics, too derivative, production errors etc. but their playing being “proficient at best” in a world where many of the top 100 artists don’t even record a real drumkit, piano, guitar/bass, let alone vocals from scratch anymore is absolutely laughable and just goes to show that some Pitchfork reviewers do not know what they’re talking about. Even Fantano wasn’t dumb enough to ever call either Green Day or Greta Van Fleet “proficient at best”. He knows they are more than capable musicians when it comes to playing their instruments, so his criticisms were and are addressed elsewhere. Edit: Lol just saw Fantano gave Saviors 3/10: that’s gotta be a deliberately contrarian take right? That’s even worse than I thought lol But as others have said, tastes differ and that’s ok. I disagreed with his final review of RevRad, although I could see a lot of the deficiencies that he was pointing out. Similarly I kinda agreed with his take on the new Blink album, but in this case I just really notice how our musical taste differs and I’m reminded of the fact that he didn’t like American Idiot or 21CB, soooo… well yeah, makes sense he wouldn’t like this one either. Tbh at the end of the day, he’s just a guy with an opinion which he’s entitled to have, but which I’m also entitled to disagree with. his word isn’t music gospel. He's just still bitter about his wife leaving him Well despite or because all the negative British press reviews green day will most likely debut at #1 on the UK charts followed by neckdeep #2 when their charts release this week so take that critic's, Nobody likes you! 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luketrebilliemike Posted January 23 Share Posted January 23 1 hour ago, HAPPY ZOMBIE UNICORN said: We are talking about someone that apparently put AI and Uno at the same level. More than confusing, provoking for the sake of it (or for the sake of getting some views and comments). https://www.reddit.com/r/fantanoforever/s/DHiTCWus1G I find it really hard to trust or take seriously any reviews that are posted on social media that so so rewards controversy and clicks. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post The Grohl Posted January 23 Popular Post Share Posted January 23 6 hours ago, suffoKate said: https://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/green-day-saviors/ 5.1 , rated lower than FOAM on pitchfork I thought Green Day were too mainstream for Pitchfork to talk about 🙄 At this point I think Fantano just wants to rile up Green Day fans. He knows they'll hate watch his review so what does it matter to him? I don't care if he didn't like saviors. My beef with him is he doesn't seem to like Green Day at all so why is he still bothering? That's like if I reviewed a Coldplay record and said I hated it even though I've never liked the band to begin with. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthur_Rhuan Posted January 23 Share Posted January 23 (edited) 4 hours ago, HAPPY ZOMBIE UNICORN said: 4/5 review https://www.stereoboard.com/content/view/242519/9 Another one, at this point the boys could make a cover of the song Four Out of Five by AM 😛 And of course pitchfork will give a worse score than FOAM lol Edited January 23 by Arthur_Rhuan 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Thatsername Posted January 23 Popular Post Share Posted January 23 6 hours ago, HAPPY ZOMBIE UNICORN said: Very interesting opinion piece from the New Yorker, nice to see these kind of articles being published https://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/its-green-days-world-now "The most compelling thing about “Saviors” is how current it feels, and not because Green Day has capitulated to the whims of the Zeitgeist but because, somehow, the Zeitgeist has bent around Green Day." Love this quote. It's very true and when you think about it, also kind of scary. 5 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JardyOfSuburbia Posted January 23 Share Posted January 23 Classic Pitchfork. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suffoKate Posted January 23 Share Posted January 23 6 hours ago, Reverend Strychnine Twitch said: Pitchfork is a joke. So they say FOAM is better than 21st CB and Revrad. Sorry Pitchfork, no FOAM part 2 for you to give higher ratings. Back in the day they have Weezer's Pinkerton a note like 0,4 (not even 1) and years later Pitchfork gave 7,5 to the original and 10/10 to the reissue of Pinkerton. How is it possible to take them seriously? End of story. Yeah, sorry, I was questioning whether or not to link their Saviors review, but it reads so ridiculously that I knew a lot of us would ROTFL at it, really. Just a shit review that I would rate -5.1 on the pitchfork scale 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lucky_stars Posted January 23 Share Posted January 23 That pitchfork review pissed me the fuck off. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reverend Strychnine Twitch Posted January 23 Share Posted January 23 22 minutes ago, lucky_stars said: That pitchfork review pissed me the fuck off. No worries. Pitchfork is merging into men's magazine GQ and losing their main staff aka Pitchfork is dead in a way. And Green Day will win a Grammy for this album too. Nice Guys Finish Last. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emenius Posted January 23 Author Share Posted January 23 Mojo (Music magazine, UK) 4/5 Green Day, Saviors The pop-punk reliables act their age even while playing like kids. Can a canonical punk trio stay interesting after its singer breaks 30, 40, even 50? That is the question Billie Joe Armstrong - the Green Day leader, now 51, whose sneer became world-famous at 22 - has been answering in assorted ways for three decades, whether through agitprop smashes or Norah Jones collaborations. Green Day are admirably assured, honest, and funny on Saviors, their fourteenth LP. They often sound like their adolescent pop-punk selves but satisfyingly write like adults, confronting American demons, including mass shootings and rampant inequality, and personal ones, like depressive spells and sobriety struggles. Reuniting with producer Rob Cavallo, Green Day find variety within these 15 tracks, conjuring Cheap Trick on Corvette Summer and even the lighters-up balladry of hair metal on Father To A Son. "We all die young someday," Armstrong croons during the closer, smartly dismissing age while acknowledging that it's steadily coming for all of us. Grayson Haver Currin 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ekim Posted January 23 Share Posted January 23 1 hour ago, lucky_stars said: That pitchfork review pissed me the fuck off. Rivers cuomo said it best "don't be influenced by a bunch of dorks" cough cough Pitchfork! 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
disappearing_boy_39 Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 20 hours ago, suffoKate said: https://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/green-day-saviors/ 5.1 , rated lower than FOAM on pitchfork I emailed Pitchfork about a mistake they made. Originally they wrote that Rob Cavallo's "last studio work with the band was on American Idiot." They got back to me almost immediately and corrected the article writing: "Rob Cavallo, who did some of his most famous studio work with the band on American Idiot." I still don't agree with their rating, but at least they have good "customer service." 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackplanet Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 One time, a long time ago, Pitchfork reviewed "Maybe I'll Catch Fire" by Alkaline Trio. It was scathing. They also compared it to Less Than Jake for some reason and proceeded to trash Asian Man Records and Mike Park, one of the nicest dudes in punk rock. Also, there was that time they gave "Dear You" by Jawbreaker a 2.3. It's hard for me to take them seriously, honestly. It's not even because they've given things I like negative reviews (that's going to happen sometimes and it's fine) - it's because of how far up their own asses they seem to be. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stories and songs Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 21 hours ago, jengd said: Couldn’t get past the para that said Tre’s drumming was proficient and nothing more. What were they listening to??? I couldn’t get past the first paragraph where it was apparent this person hates their guts for some reason. Jesus Christ. 😂 Her saying Tre was nothing more than proficient is also wild. This is why if it’s a professional publication, I like to read film reviews from people who studied film and music reviews from musicians. I’m a writer — I write about an industry I don’t work in. But I’m informed by interviews and research from experts and that’s what my stories are based on. I don’t like to discredit fellow journalists, but I feel like simply being a movie buff or a music fan does not qualify one to critique art on a professional level. Personally, of course! But not for what are supposed to be reputable sources. The internet has totally muddied the professional critic’s perspective. See guys, this is why I said I don’t read negative reviews. When I go ahead and read them anyway I’m ready to throw hands. 😅 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lenny Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 19 hours ago, þjáningu said: Fantano was always gonna hate it we all knew that I watched his video and I'm confused by a lot of what he says. He gaslights (I don't know if that's the correct word to use here) alot of the songs by giving different meanings to it just to shit on it especially on LMNB and Fancy Sauce Extremely confusing review 🤔 like I get you hate it but your reasons seem kinda stupid ? They seem stupid because he possesses a low IQ. Stupid input = stupid results. It’s ironic because a lot of the points he attempts to make against the album itself are the actual issues with his channel and videos as a whole. Extremely pretentious dude fighting hard to coerce people into thinking he actually knows something about music. 1 hour ago, stories and songs said: I couldn’t get past the first paragraph where it was apparent this person hates their guts for some reason. Jesus Christ. 😂 Her saying Tre was nothing more than proficient is also wild. This is why if it’s a professional publication, I like to read film reviews from people who studied film and music reviews from musicians. I’m a writer — I write about an industry I don’t work in. But I’m informed by interviews and research from experts and that’s what my stories are based on. I don’t like to discredit fellow journalists, but I feel like simply being a movie buff or a music fan does not qualify one to critique art on a professional level. Personally, of course! But not for what are supposed to be reputable sources. The internet has totally muddied the professional critic’s perspective. See guys, this is why I said I don’t read negative reviews. When I go ahead and read them anyway I’m ready to throw hands. 😅 Wow.. so we live in a world of talentless hacks but also in that same world being proficient isn’t enough? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StefanD Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 Dont know why I read that, can we review her review??? what an absolute plonker no wonder shits going down the toilet 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Montclare Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 https://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wireStory/music-review-green-day-political-pop-punk-saviors-106611551 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.