How to respond to a Pitchfork review

How to respond to a Pitchfork review
Decrease Font Size Increase Font Size Text Size Print This Page

By Andrew Falkous

Editor’s note: I was tipped off to this on Facebook by one of our contributors:

How to respond to a Pitchfork review 101. In this lesson, Falco from Future Of The Left destroys Pitchfork’s Ian Cohen.

Lucid, informed, motivated … I wish more music critics were like this. The following is reprinted with permission.

Here’s a link to the original Pitchfork review.


TUESDAY, MAY 29, 2012

based on a novel of the same name

A pre-script – rebuttals of unfavourable album reviews are lame, self-serving and immature – this one is no different. Cries of bias, confusion and vanilla lack of taste are every day and I care for them not a fuck. But sometimes, one-times, a man may feel compelled to stand up (or sit, in my case) against what he feels is a great injustice and exhibit his right to reply – well, this is my time and I hope it’s not my last because, to be quite honest, I’ve really enjoyed it. Please read whilst accepting the implicit understanding that any forum-based comments of the nature of ‘if you can’t take the criticism then don’t release the record’ are even more passé than this piece itself which is to say – very passé indeed.

Dear Mr.Cohen

Many things occurred to me on reading your review of the new future of the left record ‘the plot against common sense’ and I would like to take this opportunity to debate with you some of the points you raise in the piece, although of course by ‘debate’ I mean ‘shut up and listen to me’.

According to the opening line of your review I am ‘something of a hero to you’. I would almost be flattered by this sentence if it were not for the level of qualification obliquely provided by the use of ‘something’ but will choose to skip over the ham-fisted arse-kissing of your opening and move on to deal with some of the more pertinent matters of the day.

Allow me to efuckidate in an easy-to-understand fuck-by-point manner –

As we approach the bottom of your first paragraph you refer to the ‘corporate slick production on future of the left’s third album’ (*1) – a question, my dear friend – would this be the kind of corporate slickness you get through recording an album in 16 days (using the same methods as ever) over a six month period in studio downtime and friend-financed to the tune of £2,000 (whilst we work in temporary jobs and with credit, when available, to support our habit) or instead the kind of corporate-slickness (since, as tone indicates, we’re using the term pejoratively) a person could get from writing for a site which has run the adverts of a variety of corporations, big and small, for many years? I may not be wearing my eyeglasses at this particular moment, but I can definitely see a lovely shiny one sitting atop your review at this very moment.

Oh … it has moving pictorials and everything – quite lovely!

It must indeed be tough to attempt to write from the perspective of the anti-corporate outsider when you are, apart from the mastering engineer (Sean, who did a really good job) probably (*2) the first person involved in the whole process of making and releasing the album to get paid because of it’s existence. Following your lead, I’m going to let that one ‘sink in’.

Now we’ve summed up, albeit with a tenuous nod to reality, the sound of the album, it’s probably time to move onto the other aesthetic signifiers of the record in order to establish our burgeoning theorem more thoroughly …

… what about the cover and the goddamn title of The Plot Against Common Sense? What in god’s name is the author of “Fuck This Band” doing stealing ideas from unpublished John Stossel books?’

I can only assume that ‘John Stossel’ is the kind of peculiarly North American reference that pervades the reviews which sit about websites of this type, acting as smug and impenetrable signifiers of absolutely nothing at all. I, the ‘author’, googled ‘Mr Stossel’ and can find no absolute evidence of a monopoly of commonsense on his part let alone any indication that he and I could agree that the term has any unified or even loosely defined meaning. I do, however, detect the ascribing to us of the safe, conservative values which are exhibited far more freely within your own work and again, applaud you for attempting to deal with your complicity and guilt in such a public forum.

As for the cover, well, there’s a penguin on it you stupid cunt.

In short(ish) – it is of incredible interest to me and, indeed, surprise to find out that ‘polymers are forever’ is about plastic surgery (it isn’t – it’s about the environmental/marine impact of plastic waste, in a customarily indirect way) that ‘anchor’ is in some way an unfair fight visited upon Alcoholics Anonymous (it isn’t, although you got the word ‘alcohol’ right (*3) and that ‘a guide to men’, is ‘another song about pagan orgies’ (wrong again, although I can understand the mere use of the word ‘orgy’ setting off your second grade arousal/memory triggers). Admittedly ‘sorry dad, I was late for the riots’ IS a song about trustafarian rioters, those fucking rotters, and is a pretty bloody funny Half Man Half Biscuit tribute at that, replete with lyrics that apparently haven’t so much gone over your head as clean through it. One out of four correct is a pretty bad return for a writer on a website with so much conscious sway over the opinions of thousands of people – a simple email may have disabused you of some of these assumptions though perhaps would have only led you to other ‘facts’ on which to hang your naked bones.

On ‘robocop 4 – fuck off robocop’ (incidentally, for the cynical and/or interested reader I post a live video recorded at a guitar shop of the song near the end of this response, complete with full lyrics) we will simply have to agree to disagree. However, if it is truly amongst the worst songs of the year then I am a giant bat and Pitchfork a cave into which I will shit golden effigies of your face.

Sorry – too much ginger beer.

In twelve years of releasing records I have only twice felt compelled to respond, privately in those cases, and was reasonably set on a similarly benign course until two bells (figuratively speaking) resonated in the heart of the sodden internet. Firstly, obviously satisfied with the ebb and cod-ebb of your piece you tweeted a link to the review. In fine repose you sat, and introduced ‘I suppose the problem is that most touring funk bands had to get sober’. Well, I see you that and raise you ‘I suppose the problem is that Ian Cohen is effectively reviewing an album from ten years ago by a band that no longer exists. His burning nostalgia for a lost teenage love has been replaced by an uncontrollable hatred for her and her new, happy life even though she went to college (Masters in Ancient History, specialising in the early to mid Roman Republic) and grew into those tits like you wouldn’t believe. In fact, he hates her so hard (yet helplessly) that he once applied for a Visa card in her name, badly, in order to somehow affect her credit rating and thus deny her the home she had dreamed about for so many years’.

Secondly, and rather more importantly, I was browsing a forum I occasionally visit today, a one filled with gen-u-ine music fans, the kind who wouldn’t be easily swayed by invective, praise or otherwise, when I came upon the following quote in a discussion of this review –

‘Still looking forward to the album, but some of those lyrics he quotes are pretty shocking. Pitchfork in well written review shocker.’

Influence laid bare, I think. A comment made in good(ish) faith on the basis of two whole quoted lines and several calamitous misinterpretations, which you’ll remember that we covered in an earlier, simple module. The opposite of the truth – a construct on which to hang a glib hypothesis. I can honestly say that, whatever you think of the music, that the lyrics on ‘the plot against common sense’ are the best I’ve written (and yes – in either band) by a factor of FUCK LOADS(*4). And Ian, I don’t address that last sentence to you, I address it to anybody with the good grace and faith to describe themselves as a ‘fan’ in as much as they trust that we love our band and know exactly what we are doing even when it doesn’t tally exactly with their tastes.

Sadly, (or not as the case may be) I suppose that this group of people does not include you but, hey, we both need to be comfortable with this. I am – are you? It’s like we’ve reached the end of a line, you and I … a line we walked together when I never even knew that you existed. I’m sorry. I hope you find solace in the ten-year anniversary re-release.


Andrew Falkous

ps. In reference to a couple of songs you say that I can ‘barely muster the effort’, implying, I suppose, that my heart really isn’t in the whole enterprise. Let me assure you, in the strongest possible terms, that it is.

pps. Oh, and I’m sorry that you feel so much regret for buying those Bad Religion records – that’s too bad. Still when the relevance of this tragic tale to our new album crops up, give me a shout, yeah?

ppps. Robocop 4 link up. Lyrics follow below notes.

(*1) always in lower case, mrsupernumberonefan.

(*2) I use the word ‘probably’ because I only assume that you are paid for your work, such as it is.

(*3) and who in the name of clunking fuck chooses Alcoholics Annonymous as a target? You really must try harder if you want to set me up as your ‘lunkhead’. Try and write more realistic characters, for a start.

(*4) don’t be scared to embrace the jargon, kids.

robocop 4 – fuck off robocop

more jaws?
or jaws rebooted?
please – let’s take a second to think about a future
of love
and bliss
brought to you by
wish lists
of eight year old boys who only crave explosions
being eight
they have an excuse –
they are eight!
and giant robots cannot distract them from their fate

middle aged men on a movie date
committed to mortal shame

in fact- they left improved
if Michael Bay wants a bigger house, let’s help him
where you from?
where you been?
he said –
I went to Cannes once and and really did not have much
being French
they talk too much
and all those pages of subtitles kept getting stuck

1 becomes 2, 2 becomes 3
1 becomes 2, 2 becomes 3

pirates of the caribbean 47
johnny depp stars as the robot pirate
who (loses) his wife in a game of poker
and tries to win her back with hilarious consequences
at least Harry Potter has a proper story
in the sense that the characters crave an ending
if (only) to release poor Billy Corgan
from his role as the titular character’s nemesis
robocop 4 is in pre-production
like robocop 3 wasn’t bad enough
and George Lucas won’t be kicking his heels
til he makes some money from Howard the Duck
robocop 4 is in pre-production
like robocop 3 wasn’t bad enough
i hope the projectionist likes his action
motion tracked and medicated

(the first director died)

25 Responses to How to respond to a Pitchfork review

  1. wha May 30, 2012 at 10:45 pm


  2. Ceil May 31, 2012 at 3:46 am

    I’m not sure what’s so “gold” about his response. He’s just pissed off that it got a mediocre review. If Pitchfork had written a 9.2 review of the album and labeled it “best new music,” I doubt Andrew Falkous would have said a word of protest against Pitchfork, but would happily hope to see the positive review pay off in higher album sales.

    And given how much this site (and Mr. True) demands respect for the work of music “critics” I don’t get this constant animosity here to any and all things Pitchfork. It’s like you’re saying “critics do important work — except for Pitchfork which has gotten too powerful and influential so we are required to hate that site.” I’ve seen as much pretentious, pompous, vicious criticism here as at Pitchfork or anywhere else. And of course some very good music writing here and at Pitchfork, too.

  3. Everett True May 31, 2012 at 6:08 am

    I resent the implication that musicians, or critics, shouldn’t be allowed to answer back to critics, or musicians.

    Art, and criticism, is not a one-way flow.

  4. Conan Neutron May 31, 2012 at 6:42 am

    Masterful stuff.
    How is Pitchfork considered a viable critical resource again?
    Oh right, it’s just music writing.

    Writing that gets it wrong more than not and champions the worst shit.

    For the record: Robocop 4 is a great song. Thought so from the first I heard it.

  5. Princess Stomper May 31, 2012 at 6:49 am

    @ Ceil – I’ve seen musicians whinge about positive reviews if they’re ill-informed.

    You’re not required to hate Pitchfork because it’s big and influential. You’re required to hate it because it’s the music-mag equivalent of The Sun: powerful and influential poisonous rubbish.

    Look at its top albums of the 2000s list … Interpol (inoffensively bland), Kanye West (overhyped and mediocre), LCD Soundsystem (not terrible, but hardly noteworthy), Sufjan Stevens (the somnambulant frumpy knitwear phase, not the gloriously whacked-out psychedelic phase), Animal Collective (*shakes head*), The White Stripes (a pub tribute band who got lucky), The Strokes (that’s in your top 10 of the decade? Are you fucking kidding me?), Arcade Fire (I did actually try to like them – mostly to annoy ET – but couldn’t find a single song I enjoyed right the way through), and Radiohead’s Kid A.

    Pitchfork’s number one album of the entire decade is the one album by Radiohead that I can’t stand to listen to. I paid £17 for it on the day of release. I played it three or four times but gave up, feeling cheated. It’s absolute bollocks. There’s one good song and even that isn’t that good. Apparently it’s enjoyable if you listen to the album while stoned, but I refuse to applaud an album that requires me to alter my state in order to appreciate it. A good album will alter my state for me.

    Pretentious, pompous, vicious criticism is fine by me – but ignorance is offensive. I’ll take your word for it that there’s some good word use on Pitchfork, but when they literally don’t know good music when they hear it, I can’t take them seriously enough to appreciate it.

  6. Dzz May 31, 2012 at 8:23 am

    Think of Falkous’ response as similar to a comment reply from an angry band/fan/random stranger. It’s perfectly fine to to do that on sites like here and Mess and Noise and a thousand other music blogs or magazine, but you can’t do that at Pitchfork. So fuck them.

  7. Scott Creney May 31, 2012 at 9:05 am

    I would like to say that I agree with everyone, including Ceil. I think Ian Cohen’s entitled to his opinion. And so is Andrew Falkous. And so am I. And so are you. I’ve read stuff I thought was good/bad/lame on P4K, and I’ve read the same on this site. I think because P4K is SO influential, and wields such a disproportionate amount of power, it deserves to be monitored more closely than say middleboopmag.com. But even that’s just my personal opinion regarding power & playing fields.

    No one should ever have to keep silent when they feel compelled to say something. All ideas are welcome in the arena.

    Of course having said all that, I always find it fascinating when people who feel they were unfairly attacked in a review respond by attacking the writer personally.

    Critic: I don’t like your new album because of X,Y, and Z.
    Artist (or fan): Well you’re a stupid cunt. (as Falkous calls Cohen)

  8. Princess Stomper May 31, 2012 at 5:48 pm

    Hey, as artist meltdowns go, it was at least lucid and entertaining. I mean, on a scale of that to this?

  9. Princess Stomper May 31, 2012 at 5:53 pm

    (And no, I wouldn’t call it a “meltdown” so much as an explosion of snark)

  10. Daniel June 1, 2012 at 2:21 am

    P4k should be criticized. Critics should be criticized. It’s a fucking artform. Their symphonies have a comments thread. You can leave a reply.

    CB reviewers go to the mat for their opinion. Criticism (like music) is a dialog between the present, the past, the living and dead, the tasteful and tasteless. Even when the argument sounds like a Magnus Lindberg piece, it’s worth having.

    Bashing P4k is like bashing the Borg from Star Trek. It’s an undemocratic entity devoid of personality, wrapped in a drab gray cube, quantifying artistic expression in an algorithm.

    I see nothing exceptional about Falkous’ response. I’m sure there are a lot of people who would like to issue a rebuttle to p4k’s reviews.

  11. the voice of weeding. June 1, 2012 at 10:46 am

    the reason that the anti-pitchfork wailings –think: of montreal, stars, father john misty, etc– have grown so persistent are that it’s simple economics and viability.

    a ‘best new music’ review is a guarantee of imminent exposure and opportunities; you are bound to be booked on a host of outdoor rock festivals (see: laneway) based solely on that. i often wonder where girls would be without their string of 9.whatevers; to me they seem very, very forgettable and not particularly good.

    a withering criticism, on the other hand, can bury a band. so, in turn, musicians have the fates of their careers, in many ways, in the hands of one entity.

    but having the grist of the debate be ‘one man’s opinion’ and having the response be directed solely at the writer doesn’t seem quite right for pitchfork; all those scores are a collective decision as thought out as most company’s third-quarter projections. father john misty addressing them as “supercomputer” seemed much more in the spirit of it.

  12. Ceil June 1, 2012 at 11:49 pm

    I never said Andrew Falkous didn’t have a right to express his opinion. Of course he does. I just didn’t view his response as “gold.” I get the impression from his comment that he only likes “positive feedback,” and over-reacts to anything the least bit negative. His response struck me as more of a temper tantrum than anything. But that’s just my opinion, I don’t know the man.

    I’m not convinced Pitchfork would be improved by allowing comments. In my experience working for Web sites, those with small traffic usually attract “good” commenters who might be acerbic or silly but usually offer constructive, thoughtful comments, and respect other people’s opinions. But the moment any site gets “popular” and starts to generate heavy traffic, the proportion of thoughtful commenters to trolls becomes 1 to 10. Look at AV Club comments, for example. The vast majority of comments on any column on AV Club are not worth reading. But that site allows a wealth of stupid, sexist, racist, juvenile comments not because they are so into a free exchange of views but because they want the traffic.

    I think it would be interesting if Pitchfork — given its obvious and enormous influence on the marketplace — would publish a “counter-review” of albums, especially when it gives something a particularly high or particularly low rating. The counter-review could be written by the artist or by another critic. That would be a valuable exchange.

    But I don’t think allowing 300 comments on every Pitchfork review — 60% of which would be “Andrew Falkous RULES” or “Andrew Falkous SUCKS” and another 30% of which would be jokes like “shouldn’t his name be spelled Andrew Fuck-Us” — adds much to the debate.

  13. Erika June 2, 2012 at 12:14 am

    I disagree, Ceil, about allowing comments on Pitchfork. There is no reason comments couldn’t be moderated, just as they are on CB. If you look at Pitchfork’s facebook page, there are comments, and I’d say they are worthy. Many, however, are critical of the reviews or reviewers and sometimes the publication itself.

    Sometimes I think there is a backlash to the way the internet flattens hierarchies and allows the unwashed masses a voice. The backlash comes in the form of refusing to give those voices a platform, and refusing to respond to them when they are heard. To my mind, a website that regularly posts content and opinion, but will not post reader comments, is the epitome of Internet-age arrogance.

  14. laura June 2, 2012 at 5:36 am

    Well, that’s a much better result than the time The Airborne Toxic Event tried it. I really like the last FOTL record and now I’m more excited to actually to buy their new record than before (or at least to buy it sooner), so mission accomplished.

    Personally, my only objection to the whole telling-off-the-reviewer business is that it suggests the problem with P4K is that they are too mean and negative to bands. Exactly the opposite is true. P4K are a thoroughly gutless organization who approve of just about everything (their average score is about a 7/10 for chrissakes) except for the 50 or so bands on their shit list who typically get passed off to the reviewers (Ian Cohen is one) who specialize in writing funny withering reviews (the scores of which, of course, have been pre-decided by the committee but whatevs).

    P4K knows perfectly well that it can damage bands, especially young bands, by putting them on the shit list and so the (few, strategic) negative reviews all have this very explicit undertone of “you’re displeasing us… that’s very dangerous, just sayin'” and I can absolutely see why that tone pissed off Falkous. The other grating thing (besides P4K’s obvious bitterness toward bands it didn’t “discover”) is that the very-few-and-far-between negative reviews usually come wrapped up in a “this album captures THE PROBLEM with modern pop/folk/etc.” as if the artist in question epitomizes an epidemic of bad music. Of course, Pitchfork’s own scoring system, in which only a few select losers aren’t worth at least 6.5 out of 10, suggests that no such epidemic exists or, if so, P4K is not going to risk anything to tell us about since it would mean angering a large group of fans and decreasing page views. Safer to throw the occasional spitball at the smaller nerds on the playground.

    I also agree they have pretty bad taste in music but that’s a more subjective criticism.

  15. Princess Stomper June 2, 2012 at 5:45 am

    My friend posted two amusingly appropriate links on Facebook earlier:

    Journalist Robert Webb on idiotic feedback:

    Why did I read this stuff? Because it was a centimetre’s scroll down from the thing I’d spent a day trying to make perfect. Surely this week they were going to get it. This week I would please all the people. Saying to some writers “Just don’t read it” is like putting a bottle of vodka in front of an alcoholic and saying, “Just don’t drink it.”

    Suggestions for “banned words” for user comments on Torygraph site:

    ConDemNation: Funny for half an hour in May 2010
    sheeple: see ConDemNation, but change date to 1997
    eco-Nazis, eco-fascists, PC Nazis: Godwin!
    troll: This has a specific meaning – someone who is deliberately trying to offend or aggravate. Not just someone who disagrees

    I’m thinking our own list would start with “hipster”.

    The comments above are pretty spot on both ways, though I don’t think it’s the lack of feedback that’s the problem with P4K. It’s that they’re the Stock Aitken Waterman of websites – the McDonalds, the Primark – a cold, cynical lowest-common-denominator catering to the basest of needs. It’s the ultimate commodification of music, to have it packaged up neatly into eight-point-four-out-of-ten – all of it bland but tasteful, like an Ikea catalogue or one of those awful concrete cubes they have on house programmes furnished like a tacky hotel room and lauded as the epitome of desirability. There’s no fucking character. What’s bad about Pitchfork – what’s really, really offensive is that they’re regarded as tastemakers and people buy this cheap, plastic “alternative” music with an instant badge of credibility, like Miley fucking Cyrus in a Husker Du t-shirt.

    Future of the Left might be a whimsical folly, but at least they’re the real deal. Not some MDF shoebox with quarter-sized furniture that will keel over before you’ve had a chance to move your eight-hundred-pound chrome wastebin into the black granite kitchen. Pitchfork hate them? Fuck it – they should be proud.

  16. Drew June 2, 2012 at 6:31 am

    Why do I have this image of Princess Stomper, fists raised in the air, shouting with rage: “Pitchfork is EVIL! Evil I say!! It must be stopped. Bwah ha hah!”?

    Personally I think Pitchfork has some excellent reviews and some poor reviews, just like any other music site I’ve ever visited. And I don’t see Pitchfork’s power as any different from that of a Christgau or of Rolling Stone or of NME — at their peak 30 or 40 years ago. In fact, you could argue that a bad review at RS and NME was far more damaging to people’s careers back then (than a weak Pitchfork reviews is now) at a time when people actually bought CD’s and there was far more money at stake.

  17. Princess Stomper June 3, 2012 at 1:00 am


    Yeah, but it would be like if the NME was full of the most insipid, weak and unoriginal … wait. What was I saying?

  18. Derek June 4, 2012 at 10:55 pm

    @Ceil – I don´t think that it’s actually the case that Falkous is simply responding to criticism per se, more that he feels some of the points Cohen made (or the basis for his judgement) were misinformed / factually inaccurate / garbled nonsense, such as the comment about production values (and the implied slight contained within). On the one point where Cohen truly simply expresses an opinion – the robocop song – Falkous is happy to say we just have to agree to disagree. I can see why such uninformed criticism pisses artists off – it goes beyond saying “i don’t like it” to subscribing a whole set of values to an album or song which simply aren’t there, and yet people may take as gospel.

    Regarding Pitchfork generally, i think they do have some informed, intelligent reviews – the problem is, too many of their writers (of which Cohen is by far the worst culprit) are way too fond of their own voice and arch smugness, giving reviews which are at least 500 words too long and packed full of aren’t-i-in-the-know, arcane, too-cool-for-school references – such as the John Stossel reference. And as Princess Stomper alludes to, the general tone of it all is to curate what it means to be a fan, what people should be listening to in order to be down with the cool kids. They are involved in the ultimate “what’s on your iPod?” game, snidely looking down their nose at (ie everyone else) who doesn’t share their immaculate taste.

    I think artists are right to call them out on this. I mean, just look at the line in their review that Father John Misty took exception to – “The arrangements entertain a rhythmic stiffness that sticks strictly to the beat, without any syncopation to suggest the messy experiences Tillman’s lyrics evoke” – hackery at it’s worse. Ever noticed that, since it went all corporate slick, they seem very reluctant to judge second and third albums on their merits? With a few notably exceptions, scores head south for follow ups – they don’t award a “Best Music”, it has to be NEW i.e. we found it first.

    I also find it interesting that they generally have a policy of only printing reviews once the album is actually available to the public, sometimes days later. I’ve always wondered why.

  19. Chigboy June 5, 2012 at 12:38 am

    Pitchfork is simply “Revenge Of The Nerds” reviewing, a chance for the unpopular and alienated to finally kick sand back in the face of all those high school bullies and scream “I AM IMPORTANT!” It’s their redemption for the all the abuse they took as misunderstood loners and for liking obscure and alternative music. They have arrived at the top of their particular tree, and they ain’t gonna let the jocks and the cheerleaders forget it. That sneering, smug tone, their obsession with white, middle-class, college guitar indie…not for nothing have plimsoles, thick rimmed glasses, and terrible haircuts become the epitome of hipster chic. Hell, look at how they review festivals now – http://pitchfork.com/news/46720-photos-primavera-sound-2012-portraits-and-candids/ – hanging out with the bands backstage, photos from the side of the stage, lazing in artists’ hotel rooms….how self-indulgent, obnoxious, and utterly irrelevant to whether the bands, and the festival in general, were any good. It’s all about insider access, power, and influence, and stopped being about the music some time ago. “The slave begins by demanding justice and ends by wanting to wear a crown.”

  20. Joseph Kyle June 6, 2012 at 3:19 am

    “Hey, look at me, this is one of the year’s most important releases, and I haven’t even listened to almost all of it, and what I did listen to was very hard for me to listen to!”

  21. Joseph Kyle June 14, 2012 at 5:08 am

    So, Everett, what do you think of their take on the Dexys record?

  22. Everett True June 14, 2012 at 1:16 pm

    reads more like a 9.2 to me.

  23. Michael Hinojosa July 13, 2012 at 1:05 pm

    First sentence after the first paragraph: “As it turns out, those fears aren’t fully realized on The Plot Against Common Sense, though they are definitely warranted.”

    I’m I the only one that sees this?

  24. Jason Adolf September 27, 2012 at 1:09 am

    I’ve been reading pitchfork for years and even remember when they had an old school message board. The tone has gotten even more negative in recent times and that is a shame. The Future of the Left’s new record IS one of the best things Falkous has ever been involved with. I found this thread by trying to figure out who this reviewer is and why he was comparing James Iha to The Pains of Being Pure at Heart in his recent review of the new James Iha record (he mis-interprets lyrics and generally trashes the record for reasons that do not really make sense). All that negative energy will catch up to Pitchfork / Mr. Cohen.

  25. Pingback: Nada Mucho » “Volume is a Sexy Crutch,” a Q&A with Future of the Left’s Andy Falkous

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.