Apr 20, 2010. Rival Schools - II - shelved album (leaked) 83. Ryan Adams – Suicide Handbook, 48 Hours, Destroyer, Elizabethtown Demos, Pinkheart Sessions - 4 albums abandoned by Ryan (leaked) 84. Ryan Adams – Darkbreaker, Black Hole, The Strokes' Is This It - rumored to exist 85. RZA – The Cure - shelved.

20:20 by Released Unreleased Various 20:20 was a planned release by, rumored to have a scheduled release in late 2007. Adams stated that the box set would include albums that he ' really wanted to be records.' Background [ ] According to Adams, the box set was to include five unreleased albums: The Suicide Handbook, 48 Hours, Pink Hearts, Darkbreaker and Black Hole. Adams stated that the five albums would be: 'collected into a box-set called 20:20. There'll also be a couple of disks, one of rare stuff that nobody has heard and one of b-sides from all the singles that we made.

It will be interesting to get all that stuff in one place.' Member and frequent collaborator, James Candiloro, was said to be compiling the box set, while author wrote the liner notes. As of February 2017 the boxset remains unreleased. The albums [ ] Ryan has stated that The Suicide Handbook was made for as the follow-up to and called it his 'most majestic piece ever.' 48 Hours was recorded after in forty-eight hours, hence the title, and is in the genre. Pink Hearts, or The Pink Hearts Sessions, is named for his 'Nashville Punk' band The Pink Hearts with whom he toured Gold. Darkbreaker was made in after (2005) and is, according to Adams, the sound of him 'falling apart.'

The album contains songs that were recorded for the movie but not used. The final album to be included was Black Hole which Adams called 'a real serious effort to make a rock record' and confirms that it was the last album he recorded 'in the last days of the drugs.' Adams told the in 2014 that the album was a 'really cool' composite of two recorded versions of the album and was considering releasing it for 2015. In the end Adams did not follow this plan through, re-releasing 'Come Pick Me Up' instead.

References [ ].

Is he actually trying to prove a point? He just makes himself sound like a complete fuckwad The Pitchfork bashing is so juvenile. People act as if they do something other than present themselves as a bunch of opinionated music lovers.

This review is just that, an opinion by someone that loves music. Beyond that, it's actually a fairly articulate one. You might not agree, but he does manage to contextualize the album within the artists career, and he even embeds Adams' own self-referential mythology into the bunch in a fairly humorous way.

All of this is more accomplished than your vapid post and waste of a new thread, which doesn't even address where you find the reviewer to be falling short of. I'm not sure what of. I find myself irritated by reviews on occasion as well, but I don't feel compelled to scream mindlessly into a black hole when it happens. At least present some kind of counter opinion or argument, then maybe you would have a JUSTIFIED POST on your hands. Initial release.And You Will Know Us by the Trail of Dead – Source Tags & Codes 12 Rods – gay? (EP) Bonnie 'Prince' Billy – I See a Darkness Bob Dylan – The Bootleg Series Vol. Pitchfork does the job it sets out to do.

Take it for what it is, and with a pinch of salt, it does the trick. I do think it's influence is massively overstated though. I mean, I think most people look at it the way I do, a handy way to keep tabs on good new bands.

They're useful for giving a heads-up on a good band, but once that band gets rolling and they have that initial exposure, Pitchfork's no longer important to that band's fortune really. They're good or they aren't. I don't think Pitchfork could ever artificially sustain a shit band's career, which is what they're frequently accused of. Certainly not outside of North America. Dear critics, Record reviews of 'ok' or 'pretty good' or 'nothing new from them' albums are so fucking boring. On a scale of 1 to 10, if anything falls between 4 or seven, don't go in-depth about it. If something is absolute shite, then please warn us.

If it's so good you can't believe it, then let us know. You don't need to justify a position that is basically you shrugging your shoulders and saying 'eh, it's alright'. I actually disagree. A lot of the time, records that are just shy of the mark, especially in the 6-7 range, are the cause for the most interesting discussion in a good band's lifetime. Especially since they can often be the most divisive when placed into serious discussion. Outside of good bands though, it's difficult, because there are so many albums worth listening to for various components that I would put in that 5-7 range as a whole. Sometimes I like to hear about the gem or two that shines through on that record, seek those out, and then look for more if those really stick.

There are a lot of albums that fit that absolutely bland criteria that you are referring to that would make a review boring, but Pitchfork does a good job of staying away from a lot of them (unless they are really hyped or popular in the hipster circles). Pitchfork does the job it sets out to do. Take it for what it is, and with a pinch of salt, it does the trick. I agree with this and with your notion that most people just take it at face value, as a website that reviews music. Sometimes well and sometimes terribly, but no matter how scathing or how lauding, you can usually bet there's some hipster in his kid sister's GrrAnimals sitting at his delightfully retro big grey Pac-Man sticker-covered monitor who has been moved nearly to tears by a dead-on review that captures his exact feelings in a way he thought nobody else could. With his ringed lip trembling and his covert brown mascara starting to run.

God, look at that guy. What a pantywaist. For the most part, though, with opinions as varied as most music fans or fans of anything or people who live and breathe tend to have, there's no way any opinion website can be gospel unless the person reading it lacks the ability to form their own opinions and needs someone else to tell them what to like.

Most people get this. And those who don't are probably the ones I'm describing. Pitchfork's a good place to go to hear about an album, but it's not necessarily a good place to go to hear whether or not you're going to like it. It works, though.

It's good to occasionally be offended by a lousy review. Sometimes it confirms how much you liked the contested album in the first place. The fact that you guys bitch about the reviews and still actually even bother reading future reviews pains me.

It's like bitching about fox news being partisan but you still watch it because you just cant resist criticizing it. Although the bitching can be annoying, I can't really fault someone for bother to read/watch a news source with significantly differing opinions than their own. Knowing the other side of the story will help you to formulate your own opinions and argue them more intelligibly. I'm partial to Pitchfork's Jet review: I love this. I think I might have started a thread for it when it came out.

Pitchfork reviews are fine by me. Have you looked around other review sites?

The majority of them are awful. Pitchfork has written some reviews that have compelled me to check out a band/act that I now enjoy.

They have also written some things I thought pretentious. But overall the site works for me. Also just because a band/act receives a 6.6 review doesn't mean that the album is crap. Usually if you read the review they make the case right there, the good with the bad, and most of the time it makes sense. I would have rated the new Beck album a 6.6 too.

It's a record that didn't push too far, or go anywhere too special, but still somewhat enjoyable. Plus pitchfork's news is legit, the articles/interviews are fun, and pitchfork.tv has got some really cool shit on there. I think it is important to take any review with a grain of salt.

If you start to trust certain sites or people, that is great. But at the end of the day, you are the final word on whether you like something or not. For example, I am a big, big fan of allmusic. They have a couple of reviewers who I really trust (Stephen Thomas Erlewine, Thom Jurek), and I also trust most of their album picks.

Their ratings system is good as well (they use the 5 star system.) But just because they say something is wonderful doesn't mean it is. And just because they give something 2 stars doesn't necessarily mean it sucks. They are a helpful way to delve into a band's back catalog and learn about a group. But at the end of the day, I am the only critic that really matters because I am the one actually listening to something. Same deal with Pitchfork.

Use them as a helpful guide, which they are. Yes, the writing is pretentious sometimes. Yes, they are terribly biased in some cases. Don't let them be the end-all be-all music authority. But they can help you make choices when there are far too many bands/albums out there to listen to them all. The Pitchfork bashing is so juvenile. People act as if they do something other than present themselves as a bunch of opinionated music lovers.

This review is just that, an opinion by someone that loves music. Beyond that, it's actually a fairly articulate one.

You might not agree, but he does manage to contextualize the album within the artists career, and he even embeds Adams' own self-referential mythology into the bunch in a fairly humorous way. All of this is more accomplished than your vapid post and waste of a new thread, which doesn't even address where you find the reviewer to be falling short of. I'm not sure what of. I find myself irritated by reviews on occasion as well, but I don't feel compelled to scream mindlessly into a black hole when it happens. At least present some kind of counter opinion or argument, then maybe you would have a JUSTIFIED POST on your hands. I agree with this statement. I just spent the last half hour or so reading different pitchfork reviews.

What the fuck is wrong with them? I've never been on this site before and I dont see myself coming back. They're writing about music, and writing about it with individual passion. That's what's wrong with them. Initial release.And You Will Know Us by the Trail of Dead – Source Tags & Codes 12 Rods – gay?

(EP) Bonnie 'Prince' Billy – I See a Darkness Bob Dylan – The Bootleg Series Vol. I can't remember the last time I read more than one paragraph of a richdork review. Therefore you are clearly a superior person. Look, as several other people have pointed out, Pitchfork's reviews present one way of looking at and listening to music. If you like it, use it.

If you don't, look elsewhere and quit complaining. I like Pitchfork, and I generally like their reviews. This doesn't, however, mean I agree with them all the time. I think they're well-written, contextually accurate, and are usually thought-provoking. More importantly, the reviewers are passionate about their subject, and I think that's essential to quality criticism.

I don't want to read something that's the equivalent of oatmeal; I want to read something that's fiery and exciting. When I find myself violently disagreeing with a review – and it happens with Pitchfork a lot – it helps me to clarify my own thinking about the music I like. Sometimes this means listening to something I wouldn't normally listen to, or listening to something I really enjoy in a new light. I think it's a shame that people look to music criticism not to see an unusual and provocative stance on music, but seemingly only to validate their own taste. I completely agree with Andrew that the only critic who really matters is yourself, but I also think reading critics whose opinions we trust can afford us a fuller, more comprehensive listening experience. I like Pitchfork, and I generally like their reviews. This doesn't, however, mean I agree with them all the time.

I think they're well-written, contextually accurate, and are usually thought-provoking. More importantly, the reviewers are passionate about their subject, and I think that's essential to quality criticism. I don't want to read something that's the equivalent of oatmeal; I want to read something that's fiery and exciting. When I find myself violently disagreeing with a review – and it happens with Pitchfork a lot – it helps me to clarify my own thinking about the music I like. Sometimes this means listening to something I wouldn't normally listen to, or listening to something I really enjoy in a new light. I think it's a shame that people look to music criticism not to see an unusual and provocative stance on music, but seemingly only to validate their own taste.

I completely agree with Andrew that the only critic who really matters is yourself, but I also think reading critics whose opinions we trust can afford us a fuller, more comprehensive listening experience. Right back at you. The funny thing is, I made a very similar comment about your own criticism in another thread a few days ago. Something to the effect of, 'I don't always agree with what Jared has to say, but I understand and appreciate his perspective.' How does it feel to be someone's personal Pitchfork? Creepy, I'd imagine.

If you are expecting a TV station soon, I wouldn't hold my breath. But seriously, that's why I hang out on this board. There are some choice people with greatly different attitudes about music from mine that are able to articulate it in a way that challenges the way that I think about my own opinons. Bug, I would love to see a 12 Rods discography.

I only have a couple things. Is he actually trying to prove a point? He just makes himself sound like a complete fuckwad you created the same thread some time ago (if you are that annoyed, stop fucking reading pitchfork and go to another site. Or subscribe to blender. I really enjoyed reading that thread directly after reading this one. The sides remain the same and the same things are being said.

People are who they are, I guess. I considered quoting what I said over there but the others on my team (Jared, Andrew, Bryan and Roberto all get gold stars) are doing well as it is.

Though this thread has more 12 Rods so that's cool. 'We can only hope that [music] will begin to grow with its fans over the next few millennia,' Schreiber said. 'If it can stick to what it does well, namely the song 'Peg' by Steely Dan, and Tuvan throat singing, then a sophomore effort will indeed be something to get excited about.' Hahahah i love Steely Dan too. A friend of mine & i have a long standing argument.

Who are the better musicians: Steely Dan or Radiohead it can get pretty explosive. If you feel strongly one way or the other, open a new thread about it. Download Free Illbleed Dreamcast Iso Burn. Hahahah i love Steely Dan too. A friend of mine & i have a long standing argument.

Who are the better musicians: Steely Dan or Radiohead it can get pretty explosive. If you feel strongly one way or the other, open a new thread about it That's not even a competition. As Steely Dan were primarily Fagan/Becker and the best studio musicians one could buy in L.A., the 'musicianship' on the Steely Dan albums far surpasses that which Radiohead provides. Not a question of who wrote/writes the better songs, just a statement on musical prowess. The Smiths' discography is small and already well-compiled. In fact, collections that emerged during the band's lifetime, like Louder Than Bombs and Hatful of Hollow, are more or less part of the group's canon. So while it's slightly baffling that a really good one-volume introduction hasn't appeared yet, it's not exactly frustrating.

Does this release do the job? The first disc is fine, containing most of the band's singles and a few key album tracks. The second is messier: Halfway between a rarities collection and a deeper investigation of the group's work, it doesn't satisfy on either level.

B-Side mavens will wonder where minor tracks like 'I Keep Mine Hidden' are, while new fans hoping to hear a band at their peak won't bother coming back to pleasant spacefillers like 'Oscillate Wildly'. And with each disc sequenced chronologically, The Sound. Ends up telling the same story twice. Seems like the first paragraph of the review clears that up. You know it's about the reissue.

I'll give Pitchfork this; they will review the hell out of packaging, cd/dvd extra's, etc. Thats the weird thing - because every Smiths comp is surrounded by the same discussions whether it was needed, whether the track listing is the best possible, does a comp truly represent their short career?

The difference this time around is Morrissey and Johnny Marr picked this comp themselves, thus making all other hits packages and comps void in my opinion. Plus the tracks got a much needed re-master from what I've read. Song selection can be debated till the cows come home - but come next week if someone wants a smiths comp - this is the one I'll point them to. As far as a one disc version disc 1 is amazing, and for fans who have previous efforts there are some jewels in disc 2 worth the complete-ist mindset. Hand In Glove 2.

This Charming Man 3. What Difference Does It Make(Peel Session Version) 4. Heaven Knows I'm Miserable Now 6.

William, It Was Really Nothing 7. How Soon Is Now?

Nowhere Fast 9. Shakespeare's Sister 10. Barbarism Begins At Home 11. That Joke Isn't Funny Anymore 12. The Headmaster Ritual 13. The Boy With The Thorn In His Side 14. Bigmouth Strikes Again 15.

There Is A Light That Never Goes Out 16. You Just Haven't Earned It Yet Baby 19. Shoplifters Of The World Unite 20.

Sheila Take A Bow 21. Girlfriend In A Coma 22. I Started Something I Couldn't Finish 23. Last Night I Dreamt That Somebody Loved Me Disc: 2 1. Handsome Devil (Live) 3. Adobe Master Collection Cs6 X Force Keygen Invalid Request Code. This Charming Man (New York vocal) 4. Wonderful Woman 5.

Back To The Old House 6. These Things Take Time 7. Girl Afraid 8. Please, Please Please Let Me Get What I Want 9. Stretch Out And Wait 10. Oscillate Wildly 11. Meat Is Murder (Live in Oxford) 12.

Money Changes Everything 14. The Queen Is Dead 15. Vicar In A Tutu 16. Cemetry Gates 17. Half A Person 18. Sweet And Tender Hooligan 19. I Keep Mine Hidden 20.

Pretty Girls Make Graves(Troy Tate version) 21. Stop Me If You Think You've Heard This One Before 22. What's The World (Live in Glasgow) 23. London (live in London). I don't understand today's SMITHS review.

Is a review of the latest 'unwanted' Smiths compilation, just about that fact, or are they saying the music doesn't deserve more than a 7.5??? Either way they are retarded. It seems pretty clear to me why it didn't score higher. To wit: 'The first disc is fine, containing most of the band's singles and a few key album tracks. The second is messier: Halfway between a rarities collection and a deeper investigation of the group's work, it doesn't satisfy on either level.

B-Side mavens will wonder where minor tracks like 'I Keep Mine Hidden' are, while new fans hoping to hear a band at their peak won't bother coming back to pleasant spacefillers like 'Oscillate Wildly'. And with each disc sequenced chronologically, The Sound. Ends up telling the same story twice.'

Having seen the tracklist (which is of absolute importance when considering the value of a compilation like this one), this argument makes sense to me. I wouldn't buy this collection because A) I have almost everything on it already, and B) the rarities are too few and too easy to find elsewhere. It can't be seen as a rating of the music as a whole, but the music as it appears in this incarnation. So give the first disc a 9 or a 10 and the second a 5 or a 6.

There's your 7.5. It seems pretty clear to me why it didn't score higher. To wit: 'The first disc is fine, containing most of the band's singles and a few key album tracks. The second is messier: Halfway between a rarities collection and a deeper investigation of the group's work, it doesn't satisfy on either level. B-Side mavens will wonder where minor tracks like 'I Keep Mine Hidden' are, while new fans hoping to hear a band at their peak won't bother coming back to pleasant spacefillers like 'Oscillate Wildly'. And with each disc sequenced chronologically, The Sound.

Ends up telling the same story twice.' Having seen the tracklist (which is of absolute importance when considering the value of a compilation like this one), this argument makes sense to me.

I wouldn't buy this collection because A) I have almost everything on it already, and B) the rarities are too few and too easy to find elsewhere. It can't be seen as a rating of the music as a whole, but the music as it appears in this incarnation. So give the first disc a 9 or a 10 and the second a 5 or a 6. There's your 7.5. That's fine but to you and me, this comp (might be) is a 7.5, but you can't review things based on whether a certain group have already established opinion on the product.

If we are basing on the music alone then imo The Smiths are better and a better band than a 7.5. Even in this format. Take any 3 songs off this comp and you got a far better music experience than say. Annie or whatever scored 9.5 or higher. I also look at it from someone who doesn't own any Smiths records.

Is this good for them, yes. A big factor will be how it sounds.

I feel like the review makes it very clear that the music is almost all excellent. As Rob pointed out, they also make it clear how they came to this score based on how they review each disc and their function and playlist. More importantly, I don't see the score itself really mattering. Without the score, do you agree with the review and the way it discusses the music? Personally, I do. I have no arguement with that. But no I don't, not completely agree with the way it discusses the music.

I don't feel anything in the 84-85 period was spacefiller (Oscillate Wildly). And I Keep Mine Hidden is a touch over-rated (as mentioned by Morrissey) and also amongst the most hardcore Smiths fans, just as Work is a Four Letter Word is prolly not worthy of inclusion. Point is the tracklist is ALWAYS going to be ridiculed, but if the people who created the music feel this is the best of what they did, then surely that counts for something? If not it is merely a discussion on what they (again, MORRISSEY and MARR) should or should not have included, which is hard to quantify by a 7.5 I am just bias and super defense of my band. I was going to write a passionate critique about how compilations can't be reviewed in isolation, but seriously: Who wants to read that? Instead, I'll say this: Bryan brings up the great point that we should ignore the rating and read the review. Roger Ebert complains about this a lot with his own movie reviews.

People fixate on how many stars he gave a movie and ignore the (usually) thoughtful review he wrote. Stars and numerical ratings are gimmicks, and don't, in my opinion, have much correlation with what's actually been written in the review. Back when I had my own personal website I started writing up movie reviews. I think they were called Mad dog's Funny & Heartwarming Movie Reviews. I would rate each movie on three criteria, how funny it was, how heartwarming it was and then a scale unique to each movie. Also for each criteria the scale was -1 to 9.

Sometimes I'd pick something pertinent for the wildcard scale but generally not. I am going to make this example up but this is the sort of thing I did: I rated Casablanca. I gave it a 7 for Funny, a 5 for Heartwarming and a 1 for Color.

In my explanation I noted that it only had black, white and a variety of greys and that's not near as colorful as, say, The Empire Strikes Back. So Casablanca got a 13 (on a 27 point scale.) My review of it was glowing because I love that movie. My point - other than acting absurdly - was that numerical ratings, even from professional reviewers, don't mean shit. One of the reasons I ran out of steam on that movie review thing was that I started reviewing fake movies.

That was far more fun - but far more difficult - than reviewing real movies. Also I think that review of the new Smiths comp is great.

A discerning person can read that and make a more informed decision with regard to purchasing. And, hell, with regard to listening approach if the purchase is eventually or already has been made. I like that the review mentions other compilations and collections as this might inspire the reader to look into those and see if those are more appropriate. This isn't, I'd say, the best comp for someone that has heard one or two songs and is interested in the Smiths. And there's no point to this for someone like me that has all their albums and another comp or two. And I'd never be happy selling what I have and paring down to this; there'd be far too many songs I'd miss. This new comp might make sense to someone who already knows their music well enough to want a 2 disc set with all the b-sides and whatnot but who isn't enough of a fan (right now, at least) to actually just buy the albums.

That is to say someone who has an album or two on vinyl (or cassette) and wants something on CD. Or someone who had an old roommate/friend that would play their albums and ya liked them enough but aren't going to die from joy if they reunite or somesuch.

This isn't a perfect comp by any means. This isn't something that every fan of the Smiths needs to or even should have. And for a band that has, what, half a dozen other compilations (more?). This is nothing to get excited about. I was going to write a passionate critique about how compilations can't be reviewed in isolation, but seriously: Who wants to read that? Instead, I'll say this: Bryan brings up the great point that we should ignore the rating and read the review.

Roger Ebert complains about this a lot with his own movie reviews. People fixate on how many stars he gave a movie and ignore the (usually) thoughtful review he wrote. Stars and numerical ratings are gimmicks, and don't, in my opinion, have much correlation with what's actually been written in the review I would agree with this.

The stars are just a way to draw you in. Again, the most important and best critic is yourself. Other criticism should function as signposts. Also I think that review of the new Smiths comp is great. A discerning person can read that and make a more informed decision with regard to purchasing. And, hell, with regard to listening approach if the purchase is eventually or already has been made. I like that the review mentions other compilations and collections as this might inspire the reader to look into those and see if those are more appropriate.

This isn't, I'd say, the best comp for someone that has heard one or two songs and is interested in the Smiths. And there's no point to this for someone like me that has all their albums and another comp or two. And I'd never be happy selling what I have and paring down to this; there'd be far too many songs I'd miss. This new comp might make sense to someone who already knows their music well enough to want a 2 disc set with all the b-sides and whatnot but who isn't enough of a fan (right now, at least) to actually just buy the albums. That is to say someone who has an album or two on vinyl (or cassette) and wants something on CD.

Or someone who had an old roommate/friend that would play their albums and ya liked them enough but aren't going to die from joy if they reunite or somesuch. This isn't a perfect comp by any means.

This isn't something that every fan of the Smiths needs to or even should have. And for a band that has, what, half a dozen other compilations (more?). This is nothing to get excited about. I'm excited to know that Moz and Marr oversaw the REMASTERING of these tunes though. Just to chime in briefly, because I know you guys all read it, did anyone find the Microcastle review pretty unusually dry and lacking direction/point? Coming from someone who is a daily reader of pitchfork, and repsects & enjoys the way they write their reviews but quite often disagrees with their scoring. This time it was reversed.

Microcastle certainly meritted a 9.2, but. That damn review! They were saving it up for 5 months and their was absolutely not one interesting sentence in it. Just kind of rambles, and barely talks about what makes it the best album of the year. Its possible, though, that I had just read 1,000 other Microcastle reviews up until its release and by then I was completely burned out on them. I don't know. Kind of a rare low point for them I thought.

Not to make myself out to be a wuss, but. Their review of You Forgot it in People, my #1 favorite album of the 21st century, did indeed not only sum up everything I already knew I loved about that band and that album, but further helped me realize what makes it the greatest album ever that was only subconscious to me. It was one of the first Pitchfork reviews I have ever read and I have been a reader (mostly just their news, though) ever since. And its funny, they passionately hate my other favorite modern group, the Mars Volta (flame all ya want!) but I am highly, HIGHLY entertained by their reviews of them. Instead of just pointing out the minor flaws I would agree with, they literally sum up everything I love about the band, and then say why it sucks.

It's perfect! Yeah, I'm thinking about doing San Diego as well as Los Angeles. I need to see what the dates are. The Phoenix date is a Saturday night, November 29th.

They are playing at Modified arts. I live at a place that has an extra room with a futon.

[photos from their last show at Modified, April 2007]. Haha I'm loving the Cramps shirt! I am also loving how this got derailed into the Deerhunter thread. Yeah so I was checking out the Modified Arts website, its really cool how small it is.

But the El Rey is relatively small too? Like 600-700? So I am thinking about going all the way out there instead because it is both a Saturday night (I have classes in San Diego Wednesday morning) and I wouldn't mind seeing a new city, never been to Phoenix, and I happen to love long desert drives. Particularly in the winter.

The major drawback though is that I would be spending 200 bucks on gas, I need a place to stay, and I was really hoping to make it to the Smashing Pumpkins again that Sunday night.