I'm not one of those people who hate Pitchfork, I in truth check it once a day. This is mainly for keeping up with the news in music, as I feel not working in a record store has really chipped my new music knowledge.
I decided to see what Pitchfork had to say about one of my favourite albums of the year so far. I don't normally subscribe to their reviews, but after I've formulated my own opinion on an album, i don't see any harm in looking into what the hardest indie critics think about it. I was not surprised, The Black Keys had been given a high seven grade. I however am stunned that they were kicked in the ass for the amount of great material on the album.
Pitchfork writer Larry Fitzmaurice writes: "If there's one thing that keeps Brothers from jumping the gap between a "very good" album and a "great" album, it's the running time. When it's all said and done, the 15-track set runs almost an hour long, causing one to think that the Keys might have done the best material here a disservice by shoving so much onto one album when they could've easily saved some up for their next release."
I think his response and justification is ridiculous. Something i've come to terms with is that songs today, unlike fifty years before songs are much longer. I am conscious of song length but if it's a solid release like 'Brothers,' I say the more the merrier.
In reading the review, I really jumped in excitement for listening to the tune "Everlasting Light" upon reading its title. A solid indicator that I'm pretty into the album.
No comments:
Post a Comment