Pitchfork Ravages Weezer

Pagoda · **Posted:** Mon May 09, 2005 10:46 am

Weezer
Make Believe
[Interscope; 2005]
Rating: 0.4

C'mon a point fucking 4. It cannot possibly be this terrible.

robotboy · **Posted:** Mon May 09, 2005 10:50 am

have you heard the single

scottycash99 · **Joined:** Fri Dec 10, 2004 1:46 am **Posts:** 1149

its a generous rating

Sketch · **Posted:** Mon May 09, 2005 10:55 am

robotboy Wrote:

have you heard the single

No, but I know it's #9 on the UK chart. That means absolutely nothing.

robotboy · **Posted:** Mon May 09, 2005 10:55 am

Sketch Wrote:

robotboy Wrote:

have you heard the single

No, but I know it's #9 on the UK chart. That means absolutely nothing.

listen to it. then the rating will make perfect sense.

andyfest · **Posted:** Mon May 09, 2005 11:07 am

I was just going to post about this. I'm going to wait for some other reviews but I'm not really that surprised. Pitchfork tends to be the extreme with its ratings so if this CD gets a Metascore above 60, there's still hope for the album. I have a feeling Pitchfork isn't that far off though...

Yail Bloor · **Posted:** Mon May 09, 2005 11:13 am

Yeah, and Rob Mitchum is probably the most sane of the P-fork reviewers. That's pretty harsh....

Timis · **Posted:** Mon May 09, 2005 11:32 am

i don't think its all that good either , but NOT a .4

i would give it a rating in the range of 5.0-6.0

Odds Bodkins · **Posted:** Mon May 09, 2005 11:39 am

I was expecting a 0.3.

Evil Dr. K · **Joined:** Mon Oct 25, 2004 11:51 am **Posts:** 6327

The fact that they bothered to learn instruments and record it in the first place had got to be worth a rating of 2 at least.

I don't have much time for Weezer but the reviewer is obviously a drama queen. Please, we get that you don't like it from reading the review.

0.4! I feel insulted!

saint · **Joined:** Mon Oct 25, 2004 1:28 pm **Posts:** 4271

Still...that "beverly hills" crap merits a .2 in my opinion.

Balls Mahoney · **Posted:** Mon May 09, 2005 12:42 pm

Based on hearing that Beverly Hills song, I think it's 0.4 too high. Weezer sucks, always have.

jayarr · **Posted:** Mon May 09, 2005 12:47 pm

Well written review. Very accurate.

I tend to agree. The song that he sorta liked is the song I sorta like.

du&sku · **Posted:** Mon May 09, 2005 2:47 pm

I'm certain that the "0.4" makes perfect sense, but that review is pretentious crap:

Quote:

Weezer have been given a lot of breaks in their second era-- both The Green Album and Maladroit were cut miles of slack despite consisting of little more than slightly above-average power-pop. The obvious reason for this lenience has to do with the mean age of rock critics, and the fact that most of these mid-20s scribes were at their absolute peak for bias-forming melodrama when The Blue Album and Pinkerton were released. Even for someone like me, who came late to the Weezer appreciation club, it was impossible to hear these "comeback" albums without the echoes of the earlier alt-rock pillars ringing in our ears.

Thank you, Pitchfork, for knowing EVERYTHING. The mean-age of rock critics? WTF does that have to do with anything? Why would rock critics all the sudden become that exact age?

Radcliffe · **Posted:** Mon May 09, 2005 4:23 pm

du&sku Wrote:

The mean-age of rock critics? WTF does that have to do with anything? Why would rock critics all the sudden become that exact age?

You do understand the definition of mean, right?

puma · **Posted:** Mon May 09, 2005 4:45 pm

ha ha ha.

i'm actually quite entertained by this. there was one point in time where i LOVED weezer. so disappointing.

Balls Mahoney · **Posted:** Mon May 09, 2005 5:43 pm

OK, after my lunchtime discussion of this record and the PFM review, I have to weigh in one more time here.

1. People obviously read PFM, too many strident opinions to be otherwise.

2. Generally, there are few surprises on that site.

3. They show you the "score" for the record as soon as you open the review.

4. If it's a record you really like, and you know they are going to rip it, why put yourself through reading the review just to be mad about it later?

Diggity Dawg · **Posted:** Mon May 09, 2005 6:00 pm

I'm not gonna read the review, cuz I think Pitchfork is staffed by a bunch of hipster doofus jerkoffs...but I'm listening to the album right now, & I think it's OK. I mean, it's WEEZER fer Chrissakes...they've always been overrated. And I LIKE them ( own all the albums, & all that ) .

no guru · **Posted:** Mon May 09, 2005 6:03 pm

WEEN WEEN WEEN WEEN WEEN WEEN WEEN
WEEN WEEN WEEN WEEH WEEN WEEN WEEN

Twilightkid · **Posted:** Mon May 09, 2005 6:06 pm

I'm over pitchfork.

now i just glance at their news headlines and that bout it.

Elvis Fu · **Posted:** Mon May 09, 2005 6:19 pm

Radcliffe Wrote:

du&sku Wrote:

The mean-age of rock critics? WTF does that have to do with anything? Why would rock critics all the sudden become that exact age?

You do understand the definition of mean, right?

Haha. And here I was thinking that the mean age argument was a good point in the review.

du&sku · **Posted:** Mon May 09, 2005 6:21 pm

Radcliffe Wrote:

du&sku Wrote:

The mean-age of rock critics? WTF does that have to do with anything? Why would rock critics all the sudden become that exact age?

You do understand the definition of mean, right?

Uh, duh.

Yeah, my point is how does liking a band that was popular 6 years ago reflect on your age. Maybe if they in high school, but were most rock critics in 2001 between the ages of 18-23? Do you retire as a rock critic at age 24?

KPH · **Posted:** Mon May 09, 2005 6:24 pm

In less boring news, the interview with James Murphy was pretty cool. I found myself agreeing with a lot of his perspectives on things, particularly the difficulty of even coming close to being well-rounded musically. Sure makes sense to me these days, as I find myself more excited with groups like the Band than I do with most of the re-tread fashionistas out there making the hits.

I'm sure there's some sort of ironic "but doesn't he realize..." thing in there that I don't see.

KPH

HaqDiesel · **Posted:** Mon May 09, 2005 6:35 pm

du&sku Wrote:

Radcliffe Wrote:

du&sku Wrote:

The mean-age of rock critics? WTF does that have to do with anything? Why would rock critics all the sudden become that exact age?

You do understand the definition of mean, right?

Uh, duh.

Yeah, my point is how does liking a band that was popular 6 years ago reflect on your age. Maybe if they in high school, but were most rock critics in 2001 between the ages of 18-23? Do you retire as a rock critic at age 24?

Maybe he meant "mode."

shiv · **Posted:** Mon May 09, 2005 6:35 pm

i hope weezer calls it quits because of that review.

Pitchfork Ravages Weezer

Who is online