Death to . . . er, on Pitchfork!

I think I need a few minutes and a bottle of Pepto to digest Pitchfork's review of Death's . . . For the Whole World To See. (One critique that springs immediately to mind: in order for an album to be a "re-issue," doesn't it have to have been "issued" first? Granted, some of these tunes were pressed to vinyl as singles, but they were never presented together before now.)

I'll try and weigh in on this later. But for now, check out the review and let's hear what you think . . .

Comments

[Joanna]

"The album falls short of a diamond-in-the-rough-caliber discovery"

WTF

Go see Rough Francis play the songs of Death this Friday night at the Monkey and then decide. These songs are every bit as original now as they were in 1974.

[pluto]

so i read the review the other day and here is what i have come up with...at times i disagree with pitchfork, and its' ideas. i have been reading pitchfork/bv and others for years as a beacon for new music. yet, often i feel dissalusioned by the temporary nature of pitchfork. i mean it would be naive to say that all fads in music aren't temporary, but what i often find is a latch to a band from brooklyn that is a buzz because no one has yet heard of them. but it is so quick to move on to something new, something more "in". example: the pains of being pure at heart. i saw them warm up at the monkey, and yeah they are a solid band, they have catchy songs. but they are doing what a lot of other bands are doing right now in the city. i don't mean any disrespect to them as people or musicians. i guess what i am really trying to say is yes it is great to see what is "in" right now, and burlington music is full of stuff like that, but a lot of my favorite music comes from bands who have played for years, making music they like to play, regardless of what pitchfork, or any other critic thinks is the right thing to be playing at that particular time. to me, death/rough francis has done this. and that says something. and even more important, if you really like something, than it doesn't matter what pitchfork has to say about. like i said, it's all temporary...

[burlingtonmusicfan]

What a great post Pluto!!! I completely agree with you. I often feel like 7 Days (music section) also goes way out of its way to try to be hip to what's "right now" and rips on solid local artists in a mean-spirited way that does nothing to enhance the "community" and everything to polarize it. Would love to see more music writers with varying tastes be more involved in the paper rather than only one writer that's desperately trying to remain relevant.

[Notbeingrude]

Well, I have to agree with the pitchfork review. I honestly don't understand the hype of Death or Rough Francis? Why the hype so quickly? Big deal. You played someone else's songs to a room full of your friends. It's great to see the members of Rough Francis respect and enjoy the music of Death. But in the end, it's simply a mediocre record from the 70's that clearly isn't on par with its contemporaries, and Rough Francis is nothing more than a cover band that can get their friends to show up for gigs. Where's the story?