http://www.confabulators.com/2005/review-of-pitchforks-review-of-sufjan-stevens-illinois-2 Tue, 16 Mar 2010 05:54:05 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0 http://www.confabulators.com/2005/review-of-pitchforks-review-of-sufjan-stevens-illinois-2#comment-61 Thu, 11 Aug 2005 17:12:15 +0000 http://www.confabulators.com/2005/review-of-pitchforks-review-of-sufjan-stevens-illinois-2#comment-61 Thanks, I think I am going to do some other review sites next. ]]> http://www.confabulators.com/2005/review-of-pitchforks-review-of-sufjan-stevens-illinois-2#comment-56 Thu, 11 Aug 2005 02:11:44 +0000 http://www.confabulators.com/2005/review-of-pitchforks-review-of-sufjan-stevens-illinois-2#comment-56 I love Predatory Wasp and Zombies, as well as that extended note song and the final track. I like the whole thing together, myself. I mean, Chicago is easily my favorite, followed by Predatory Wasp, and then every other track is nearly equal with Casimir and John Wayne Gacy Jr. being my other two standouts. ]]> http://www.confabulators.com/2005/review-of-pitchforks-review-of-sufjan-stevens-illinois-2#comment-52 Wed, 10 Aug 2005 22:59:47 +0000 http://www.confabulators.com/2005/review-of-pitchforks-review-of-sufjan-stevens-illinois-2#comment-52 Stop the Presses! Amanda P. gave the new Holopaw a 8.4 today... She's an excellent writer, but I totally agree that she glossed over the last half of the album-especially the one-two punch of the "The Predatory Wasp..." and "...Zombies...". Excellent idea by the way. Keep it up! ]]> http://www.confabulators.com/2005/review-of-pitchforks-review-of-sufjan-stevens-illinois-2#comment-47 Wed, 10 Aug 2005 20:45:42 +0000 http://www.confabulators.com/2005/review-of-pitchforks-review-of-sufjan-stevens-illinois-2#comment-47 This is awesome! Keep on reviewing those reviews. Actually, I'm looking forward to the other big releases of the summer -- death cab for example? are you reviewing TMT and Stylus reviews, too? Excellent... ]]> http://www.confabulators.com/2005/review-of-pitchforks-review-of-sufjan-stevens-illinois-2#comment-44 Wed, 10 Aug 2005 19:19:23 +0000 http://www.confabulators.com/2005/review-of-pitchforks-review-of-sufjan-stevens-illinois-2#comment-44 Oh yes, I remember that review of Intonation. That was a good one. ]]> http://www.confabulators.com/2005/review-of-pitchforks-review-of-sufjan-stevens-illinois-2#comment-42 Wed, 10 Aug 2005 17:09:23 +0000 http://www.confabulators.com/2005/review-of-pitchforks-review-of-sufjan-stevens-illinois-2#comment-42 My comment came off as snarkier than I meant. I intended only partial snark, delivered from behind a veil of anonymity. Sanneh works for the NY Times, and gave a numerical review to the Intonation Fest. You're right, they didn't specifically review reviews, but they did mock Pitchfork effectively. ]]> http://www.confabulators.com/2005/review-of-pitchforks-review-of-sufjan-stevens-illinois-2#comment-41 Wed, 10 Aug 2005 15:59:39 +0000 http://www.confabulators.com/2005/review-of-pitchforks-review-of-sufjan-stevens-illinois-2#comment-41 Apologies on the spelling, it was 3 in morning when I wrote this, and I put it up without any editing (this was also prior to the installment of any spell check feature). I'm fixing things as I notice them, and promise to not put up any more hasty, unedited posts. Also, David Cross' reviews were parodies, not reviews of reviews. A vastly different concept. Haven't heard of Kelefa Sanneh, though. ]]> http://www.confabulators.com/2005/review-of-pitchforks-review-of-sufjan-stevens-illinois-2#comment-39 Wed, 10 Aug 2005 13:18:30 +0000 http://www.confabulators.com/2005/review-of-pitchforks-review-of-sufjan-stevens-illinois-2#comment-39 Hey, your comment tool has a spell check function. Care to run that on the review? Otherwise, good concept, but David Cross and Kelefa Sanneh kinda beat you to it. ]]> http://www.confabulators.com/2005/review-of-pitchforks-review-of-sufjan-stevens-illinois-2#comment-37 Wed, 10 Aug 2005 06:27:25 +0000 http://www.confabulators.com/2005/review-of-pitchforks-review-of-sufjan-stevens-illinois-2#comment-37 I agree with Brooks; the first half of "Illinois" is so much stronger than the second. I usually get only about 3/4 of the way through the whole thing before I start it over again. Unless you're listening intently the whole second side just runs together and becomes forgettable. Maybe that's something to do with why Petrusich left out any specific mention of those songs. Though, I agree; that makes a poor review. I remember not thinking much of that review when I first read it a month or so ago. ]]> http://www.confabulators.com/2005/review-of-pitchforks-review-of-sufjan-stevens-illinois-2#comment-21 Tue, 09 Aug 2005 06:51:55 +0000 http://www.confabulators.com/2005/review-of-pitchforks-review-of-sufjan-stevens-illinois-2#comment-21 All I'm asking for is a little background on the artist, and a complete listen to the album. Even if the songs are inferior, they deserve at least a passing mention. Fine, let's grant that maybe an entire half of an album isn't worth mentioning. Possibly the C and D sides of the album just aren't worth the listen. But then it probably doesn't deserve a 9.2. Also, just because the review is positive (which is a good thing in this case, I agree) doesn't mean it's a good one. ]]>