#1
Contrary to popular belief, there are no members of the female gender in this band. Rather, it consists of two dudes making catchy-ass lo-fi tunage.

They just released their first LP, creatively titled Album, like, today.

Who else is a fan?
There's only one girl in the world for you
and she probably lives in Tahiti.
#2
Lust for Life is catchy as all hellllllll....

Other than that, sunny california pop is fun but I haven't really gotten into the rest of the album :\
#3
had it for a bit. it is really up and down. i can't say that i find myself drawn to listening to it much.
#5
"I wish I had a lovinnnn' man in my life!"

Hm. I can slightly relate to that.

Anyway. I've had my hands on the album for a week or so - we got a promo copy of it at work, so I borrowed it. And by borrowed I mean kept.
There's only one girl in the world for you
and she probably lives in Tahiti.
#9
Quote by derektrainwreck
theyre pretty good. pitchfork gave em a really good review


Pitchfork'll give anyone who strums the same chord a million times with distortion a decent review.

They're ****e songwriters, their album's average at best, too much hype makes them look ****e.
#10
I've heard 'Hellhole Ratrace' and 'Lust for life' and thought they were pretty good, haven't heard much else.


Is this the guy who was a former member of the Children of God cult?
#11
Quote by Libertine..
Pitchfork'll give anyone who strums the same chord a million times with distortion a decent review.

They're ****e songwriters, their album's average at best, too much hype makes them look ****e.

i'm afraid all of this is true.

there's nothing even remotely original about this band. how anyone would rate it 9.0/10 is unexplainable. i mean, it might be a "fun album", but when the hype is over in a few months, no one will give a fuck. then again, i stopped caring about pitchfork and their ridiculous hypes long ago.
#12
Originality is not one of my main priorities when I'm listening to music. I'll listen to a jillion bands that sound the same if I like the sound. Immature? Yes. Damaging to my indie cred? Of course. Do I care? Not really.

"Morning Light" is one of the most delicious tracks I've heard from this year.
There's only one girl in the world for you
and she probably lives in Tahiti.
#13
Quote by K-Lizzle
Originality is not one of my main priorities when I'm listening to music. I'll listen to a jillion bands that sound the same if I like the sound. Immature? Yes. Damaging to my indie cred? Of course. Do I care? Not really.

"Morning Light" is one of the most delicious tracks I've heard from this year.

i'm not denying you the right to listen to whatever you want. of course people should listen to the music they enjoy, that's the whole point of listening to the music in the first place. but in order to recieve a 9/10 rating i think you need to offer something new and fairly original. and girls do not in any way. at least not for me, and not for anyone else with decently broad knowledge of indie pop/rock music. they are exactly like 90% of the quirky, noisy bands out there today.

i've never tried to be the originality police in any way (trust me, i listen to tons of bands with zero originality) and it's not the unoriginality in itself that bothers me, but the tons of hype these bands get. it's so obvious that pitchfork aren't capable of writing a decently objective/sober review anymore, and i think it's sad to witness how the pedantic trendiness and extreme elitism of that website is becoming the status quo in an indie world that used to be an independant and challenging island in a buissness otherwise mostly consisting of greedy record labels and style police.

i'm not sure i wanna submit this, because i know i'll come off as a new brand of angsty, pissed off 14 yo classic rockers who are complain because people at their school listen to rap. but you know, i just can't stand pitchfork magazine and i think they are tearing down everything indie once stood for. that's my take on the whole thing. feel free to answer or free to ignore this whole post if you can't be bothered.
#14
dude, please, shut the **** up. we can all agree that music journalism in general is pretty stupid, when you think about it. pitchfork is definitely not one of the worst publications, though. they give a lot of small bands exposure and give tons of people a chance to listen to music they might not have heard otherwise. don't get so caught up in their numbers, that's one guy who listened to the exact same album you did -- it's dumb to get so worked up over his assessment when you could just be content with your own.

Quote by derektrainwreck
theyre pretty good. pitchfork gave em a really good review


likewise, why use pitchfork's review to qualify your own opinion?
Last edited by Arthur Curry at Oct 26, 2009,
#15
Quote by Arthur Curry
dude, please, shut the **** up. we can all agree that music journalism in general is pretty stupid, when you think about it. pitchfork is definitely not one of the worst publications, though. they give a lot of small bands exposure and give tons of people a chance to listen to music they might not have heard otherwise. don't get so caught up in their numbers, that's one guy who listened to the exact same album you did -- it's dumb to get so worked up over his assessment when you could just be content with your own.

i understand what you are saying, but i disagree. other people's opinions matter. or else we wouldn't be on forums like this one. and we wouldn't need music websites at all (that's the main source from where i get my bands anyway). and sure, musicians play music mainly because they love music, but also becuase they want recognition (i know i'm generalizing, but in most cases it's true). therefore completely ignoring what other people think is an impossible task.

what music journalists write matter as well. you said it yourself, "they [in this case pitchfork] give a lot of small bands exposure and give tons of people a chance to listen to music they might not have heard otherwise". a lot of people are influenced by what music journalists write, me included, and i'm sure you are as well, even though you might not want to admit it. so me getting upset over something someone with such big influence on people's taste in music writes isn't really that strange. especially if i think it's dishonest, biased and focused on irrelevancies.
#16
the difference between discussing music on a forum and reading someone's review of an album is that the former is active. so really, they aren't all that alike.

and yeah, p4k can make or break a band. we've all known this since like 2004. nothing new. don't get worked up about it. it isn't going to change the general consensus about that website, or music journalism in general. it is silly to rely on, or entirely dismiss, any one source for such superficial reasons as that it can influence other people's opinions. in doing that, you are being just as sheepish as people who go out and buy everything that gets Best New Music.

on topic: relistening to the album. catchy, not ground-breaking, but better than i remember it being.
#17
Quote by Arthur Curry
pitchfork is definitely not one of the worst publications, though.


I would say it was the worst, makes all listeners of indie look like pretentious shites by giving rave reviews to unknown inaccessible bands and shitting on more decent 'pop' music.

Back to the band I just think they're riding on the wave of noise bands coming out all ends these days, personally detest the stuff but each to their own. My only problem was the 9/10 review which is a ****ing joke, but then again bitchfork lost all credibility pretty much as soon as they got off the ground.
#18
why should we assume any music publication is "credible"? what is "credible" in this case? all i'm trying to say, or all that needs to be said here, is that we all relate differently to a song or artist. no review by some guy hired to write review after review should influence anyone's opinion about the music that a band is making. i don't care how "objective" it is, it won't embody the exact response of every listener. and that's why it doesn't matter, because when it comes down to it, it's just you and the sounds coming out your speaker.

don't get me wrong, i do hate the way pitchfork makes peoples' taste, and that's why i wish more people saw it for what it is. butttt i tend to hate music fans in general anyways, and if they weren't conforming to pitchfork's shit they'd probably be adhering to some other magazine that promotes even shittier bands.
#19
p4k is worth what you make of it. i didn't really dig the girls record or the wavves record or whatever they've been aping this year, but they had a pretty complimentary port o'brien review a while back and i checked em out and liked it. pitchfork isn't really so bad as long as it's used as a reference point rather than an opinion-maker.
#20
thats what i see it as. and a lot of their news can be interesting as well.

album reviews are overrated anyways.


oh and girls is alright but i don't know if they're really deserving of the pitchfork score or whatever. decent enough though
Last edited by Monkeygone2hvn at Oct 27, 2009,
#24
after listening to lust for life, i just had to download the album, and it didn't disappoint. really good stuff.
#25
Quote by abluesman100
did anyone see the lust for life porn video?

a chunk. i turned it off when the one fella was singing into the other fella's penis.

upon repeated listens, this could crack into my top ten for the year. just really enjoyable stuff.
#26
Quote by Libertine..
I would say it was the worst, makes all listeners of indie look like pretentious shites by giving rave reviews to unknown inaccessible bands and shitting on more decent 'pop' music.


Imma disagree here. Half of their top 20 for the P2k list was 'pop' music. I just hate how people actually base opinions off it and the whole hipster following.
| (• ◡•)| (❍ᴥ❍ʋ
Last edited by Cianyx at Nov 12, 2009,
#27
see i don't think that's the case. i hear too much of how people are somehow forging their taste in music just to conform to this super cool "hipster" thing everyone wants to be apart of. i've only ever heard the term used derogatively. i think the initial attraction to the whole scene could be superficial, sure, just like anything else, but i don't believe for a second that anyone pretends to like music they don't, and i think the craze can be attributed to something more organic, more contextual.

anyway, fads/trends will always exist. it sucks, but that's how it is. we all conform and we're all subject to societal pressures. when you look at it like that, why is this surge of indie culture such a bad thing? a group that generally seems to value positive things like individuality and artistic integrity.

then again, maybe i'm not meeting the right "hipsters" to know exactly what everyone means. for now though, they seem no more than a social construct WITHIN the alternative community, ironically.
Last edited by Arthur Curry at Nov 13, 2009,