The urine drinking primate had prior commitments...

they gave O 5.4, it didn't hurt that wonder if a 1.9 will hurt this?
I haven't been bothered to listen to it yet as I've never been much of a fan but i suppose i should just so I can have my opinion on this one.

The first paragraphs are enough to tell me how seriously that review should be taken. It's a good example of all that's wrong with Pitchfork, I think eyebrowy should give them a namecheck real soon ;-)

It's a bit of a chore to read tbh, makes some good points, but is overly harsh.

Pitchfork can be so off mark sometimes yet I have to say I take them more seriously musically wise than anyother media format. But they are spot on here, although I think trhey like to sensationalise every review to cause contraversy

Whats unfair or harsh about it, the guy didnt like the record ? Grow up.

Exactly: he didn't like it and that's his right. His writing style is confrontational, that's all.

They like to be a bit off the wall, some times the reviews are great, sometimes they are trying to be too clever by half. Their biggest redeeming feature though is some of the stuff they dig up is pure gold, like a perfect little slice of Swedish Italdisco:

http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/page/track_reviews/39765/Sally_Shapiro_I_Know#39765

I heard bits and bobs of the album and it sounds pretty decent.

review reeks of someone who thinks the world owes him a living. if you've something worth saying, say it. if you've something missing, be confrontational..give them a bit of attention for the love of god

PQ