So a new format, and a rant.

I was looking at my blog today and realized it looked kind of lame. So I decide to get myself a new template that looks a little cooler and not so corporate. I hope you like, if not then DWI.

So, being the music lover that I am, I do read Pitchfork from time to time, but I have come across the conclusion that Pitchfork totally sucks. The main criticism that I have, along with many others, are their elitist reviews and narrow sense of knowledge outside of their own little indie rock circle. Now there are good bands that they heap praise on (Radiohead is a good example), but if you fall outside the element of cool then they will savage you. The critics complain often about pretentious music, which is really code for "these guys are too serious of musicians for me to like them, and then dump their reviews with pretentious talk about why said artist is uncool. Mostly these criticisms leveled at said bands are simply because their popular, or not indie, and don't fit the profile. Rarely anything is mentioned about the music which for a music site should be a major detail.

I could give examples here but really you know the bands that they are gonna hate and gonna like. Personally I think the whole album review thing has gone a little far to tell you the truth. In this day and age it is easy to find out for yourself through various devices both legal and illegal about band x. I think reviews need to be a balanced view of an album and more of a discussion about what is being presented than this pushing of an agenda. I guess people are insecure and want to be where the cool kids are, it's just too bad that 90% of music gets short shrift because of it.

This is a brief example for an album that recieve a 1.6 review.

These clusterfuck all-the-cooks experiments, more often than not, add up to way, way less than the sum of their parts. It might look great on paper to get weirdo visionaries like Kool Keith and Tom Waits on the same track, but if you actually do it, you’ll probably end up with Keith blathering non-sequiturs all over the beat while Waits makes sandpapery fart noises. And as for the impression of Donald Duck busting a nut that someone does at the end of “O Pato”, I can’t imagine that even looked good on paper.”

So what was this horrible album? Well it was non other that NASA's "Spirit of Apollo" that was released last year to almost unanimous critical aclaim everywhere else.

So for me and reviews. Look, I understand that i'm not gonna like everything out there, but there is such a thing as tact which pitchfork strangely lacks. I will weigh the positives and the negatives and if the band is not my thing, I will say so. I don't like Nickelback at all, but i'm not gonna insult the intelligence of my readers by dumping on. To each his own is my policy, and too many people get caught up in this clique mentality that they miss some amazing stuff right in front of their noses.

Anyways, if you like groups like the Arcade Fire (Pretty Good), Vampire Weekend (OK), and millions of other indie type groups that appear and dissapear on a daily basis then pitchfork is your site. If you like any band with a degree of mainstream success (other than Radiohead), then your in trouble.......last albums ratings for U2 4.2/10, Kings of Leon 3.8/10, Bloc Party 5.8/10, and Muse 5.9/10. Latest review for some band you've never heard of Broken Bells 7.2, XX (which I have heard and is an intriquing one song idea spread out over 10) 8.7. Ted Leo and the Pharmacists 7.9.

So if ptichfork media is a dud and your looking for something a little more open minded then I have two sites that are interesting. The first is www.adriandenning.co.uk that has very well written reviews over there. The other site is www.iso50.com where he posts up his music he likes instead of bashing the music he hates. I think it's much better for the love vibe anyways.