Whether it's your first Bonnaroo or you’re a music festival veteran, we welcome you to Inforoo.
Here you'll find info about artists, rumors, camping tips, and the infamous Roo Clues. Have a look around then create an account and join in the fun. See you at Bonnaroo!!
personally I just saw the Stones last week in Seattle and I had an amazing time. They were a little slow to get going, first couple songs were a little rough but by the 4th song (Beast of Burden) I thought they hit their stride. They're still a really tight band. Mick obviously can't sing like he used to but he's got an impressive amount of energy and dances ridiculously well for his age. I think a headlining set from them would go over well
They didn't play Beast of Burden when I saw them a month ago. That would have made my night
My parents own a used record store in a college town. Relatively solid pulse of what old music is "cool" among young hipsters pretending they know the past. In Colorado so we can categorize this as "West" side of the country even though the demo is pretty far from CA.
They can't keep Fleetwood on the shelf. Nor AC/DC. Nor the Stones. Nor Zeppelin. ~$20 for most of their records.
I swear they have ~50 copies of Born To Run sitting in the back room collecting dust at $6 a piece.
Your parents need better inventory planners if they always run out of stock that sells and have 50 copies of a record that doesn't move...
personally I just saw the Stones last week in Seattle and I had an amazing time. They were a little slow to get going, first couple songs were a little rough but by the 4th song (Beast of Burden) I thought they hit their stride. They're still a really tight band. Mick obviously can't sing like he used to but he's got an impressive amount of energy and dances ridiculously well for his age. I think a headlining set from them would go over well
Also I feel like her PR people payed P4K a lot of money to re-review her catalog. She’s had A TON of bad press over the past few years (especially with people who like Kanye) and a good way to get people to forget about that would be to have pitchfork say “you know what? we were wrong about some of this”
Also I feel like her PR people payed P4K a lot of money to re-review her catalog. She’s had A TON of bad press over the past few years (especially with people who like Kanye) and a good way to get people to forget about that would be to have pitchfork say “you know what? we were wrong about some of this”
I follow P4K pretty damn closely and I'm almost positive this was them covering their ass for all the bad press about them reviewing Ryan Adam's cover album of 1989 vs actually reviewing her record.
With all the allegations against him, a 2015 article calling them out for not paying any attention to her has resurfaced on Reddit and social media. They've pretty much ignored her for her entire career (somewhat justifiably), but now that they are constantly virtue signalling I see this as a "look we aren't sexist and we support female artists and Ryan Adams is bad." I'm sure some label/PR money is also making a difference. Personally I don't have a problem with them attempting to be equitable, even if it's misguided.
It's also pretty obvious when they get some money to review a pop record (EDIT: WELL. I meant to review a pop record WELL. As in a high score). Cardi comes to mind. I wouldn't be surprised if she (Taylor) gets BNM tomorrow.
personally I just saw the Stones last week in Seattle and I had an amazing time. They were a little slow to get going, first couple songs were a little rough but by the 4th song (Beast of Burden) I thought they hit their stride. They're still a really tight band. Mick obviously can't sing like he used to but he's got an impressive amount of energy and dances ridiculously well for his age. I think a headlining set from them would go over well
See this isn’t a very convincing review
I'm not here to convince anyone that the Rolling Stones in 2019 are just as good as the Rolling Stones in 1970s, also not here to convince people that they're as good as other potential modern bands currently in their prime, but I definitely would say it was a great headline-worthy show and I walked away satisfied. It certainly wasn't "sad" for me by any measure - like I said in that post, I had an amazing time.
Post by braundiggity on Aug 22, 2019 12:26:25 GMT -5
I was always pretty surprised they didn't care to offer reviews of her albums in the past. Based on the scores they've given the 6 albums so far it would seem they'll be honest about the new one. I wouldn't have a major argument against any of those scores. Maybe Reputation should be even lower, but 1989 should probably be a little higher.
Post by Delicious Meatball Sub on Aug 22, 2019 12:44:50 GMT -5
How is going back and reviewing TSwift’s catalog different than what they do every Sunday? Or (and this will blow some minds) going back and reviewing the whole Beatles catalog?
Sucks that Pitchfork is another pay for play mag now, but this isn’t a big deal in the context of how they’ve been running the site since it got bought out.
Also I feel like her PR people payed P4K a lot of money to re-review her catalog. She’s had A TON of bad press over the past few years (especially with people who like Kanye) and a good way to get people to forget about that would be to have pitchfork say “you know what? we were wrong about some of this”
It's also pretty obvious when they get some money to review a pop record. Cardi comes to mind.
What makes you think they got paid for the Cardi B review?
Holy shit Pitchfork gave T Swift's Red album a 9/10? Anyone here want to defend that or is it as ridiculous as it sounds?
EDIT: For reference that score makes it their highest rated pop album of the decade.
Red isn't my favorite by T Swift, but I think the reasons they pointed out about taking EDM head on, shifting the pop landscape, and moving her style of music forward is very on point.
Anyways - listened to her new album. High highs, but a few skippable tracks. She experiments a lot more with some of the sounds she's using - but none of the album sounds like Me! or You Need to Calm Down. Lover is also an outlier. The Archer is probably the closest? There is a very clear line from CRJ to her on some of the songs.
For anyone wanting to check out the pop highlights, IMO, check Cruel Summer (probably a future hit), Lover, False God, Afterglow and I Think He Knows.
There are a few other sad/slow songs that are also worth checking out.
Holy shit Pitchfork gave T Swift's Red album a 9/10? Anyone here want to defend that or is it as ridiculous as it sounds?
EDIT: For reference that score makes it their highest rated pop album of the decade.
Red is a phenomenal album, and I agree with that score.
Damn that's unexpected, I didn't even think it was considered a good album, much less the best pop album of the decade. The only mainstream pop album I know of that they've given a score that high is Like A Virgin by Madonna.
It would be fucking weird if Pitchfork didn't review Cardi B albums. Come on.
Ok let me clarify to the thread because I am definitely NOT saying they get paid to review female artists or anything awful like that.
Duh they will review Cardi's albums. But 8.7? Nuts. Bodak Yellow is THE BEST SONG OF 2017?!? Out of literally every song released, that entire year, they picked Bodak quacking Yellow. I highly doubt labels influence what they review, but how they review it can be questionable. They lean a little too hard into poptimism sometimes (especially when it comes to mainstream mumble rap). And if you read their reviews, sometimes the text doesn't match the score, i.e. giving solo Migos albums mid-6, then tearing them apart in the actual review. Same thing with The Big Day, where the score and review didn't match.
More importantly, I see nothing wrong with them taking a stance on issues in the music industry, gender inequality being one of them. They often cover things through a lens that some would consider political. They are definitely not afraid to bring race, gender, sex, etc into their reviews and articles. Personally, I nearly always agree with their stance on these issues, as I'm not an idiot. But you'd be foolish to think it isn't a "stance" that's part of their brand and is a conscious choice.
And if you read their reviews, sometimes the text doesn't match the score, i.e. giving solo Migos albums mid-6, then tearing them apart in the actual review. Same thing with The Big Day, where the score and review didn't match.
They've said plenty of times that this is because the number is the average of a bunch of different people's scores, but the words are only attributed to the author of the review. It's confusing, but that's why this happens.
Red is a phenomenal album, and I agree with that score.
Damn that's unexpected, I didn't even think it was considered a good album, much less the best pop album of the decade. The only mainstream pop album I know of that they've given a score that high is Like A Virgin by Madonna.
Give it a spin. For my money it's a perfect transitionary record between her country and pop leanings, and I wish she'd have stayed in that more interesting middle ground. "State of Grace" is the best U2 song in at least a decade and probably my favorite song of hers; "All Too Well" is her at her confessional best, full of lovely little observations and details; "We Are Never Ever Getting Back Together" was annoying the first time I heard it but I now think is a pretty perfect pop tune; "I Knew You Were Trouble" is far weirder than she has the right to get away with but somehow hangs together. In general the album tries to do a lot more in my opinion than her other stuff, and generally succeeds hugely.
Post by braundiggity on Aug 22, 2019 14:34:30 GMT -5
Sidenote: she's re-recording all of her albums so she owns the masters? Will the originals will end up coming off the streaming services? Can Scooter continue to print the original versions for sale? I'm tempted to pick up a few hard copies in the event they become a collector's item of sorts one day haha.
And if you read their reviews, sometimes the text doesn't match the score, i.e. giving solo Migos albums mid-6, then tearing them apart in the actual review. Same thing with The Big Day, where the score and review didn't match.
They've said plenty of times that this is because the number is the average of a bunch of different people's scores, but the words are only attributed to the author of the review. It's confusing, but that's why this happens.
Not gonna lie, I read their website daily and did not know this.
Sidenote: she's re-recording all of her albums so she owns the masters? Will the originals will end up coming off the streaming services? Can Scooter continue to print the original versions for sale? I'm tempted to pick up a few hard copies in the event they become a collector's item of sorts one day haha.
For at least 70 years it's been standard that artists can't release re-recorded old hits(or within a decade) if they switch labels and Swift should be no different.
Her earliest stuff might be fair game but the the last couple albums should be legally off limits to re-do.
IMO, it's a high school drama click bait war with Scooter and she won't spend several months actually re-record everything. IIRC, Def Leppard is the only acts to re-record their entire catalog while a half dozen others have done 10-15 major songs for various licensing reasons.
Red is a phenomenal album, and I agree with that score.
Damn that's unexpected, I didn't even think it was considered a good album, much less the best pop album of the decade. The only mainstream pop album I know of that they've given a score that high is Like A Virgin by Madonna.
Damn that's unexpected, I didn't even think it was considered a good album, much less the best pop album of the decade. The only mainstream pop album I know of that they've given a score that high is Like A Virgin by Madonna.