Pitchfork! At The Disco

[Rohan Kohli]

Pitchfork Media (http://www.pitchforkmedia.com) recently reviewed (http://pitchforkmedia.com/record-reviews/p/panic-at-the-disco/a-fever-you-cant-sweat-out.shtml) Panic! at the Disco (http://www.panicatthedisco.com)'s A Fever You Can't Sweat Out.

Submitted by: FeynmanWannabe

[shane hennessey]

1.5. dead on hahaha

[boogolay]

it would be harsh to say that i agree...
but i definitely didn't like this album for a second.

i didn't get what people were bugging out about.

[DroppedUrPocket]

Why do you guys even bother posting stuff about PFM? They pretty much hate everything that is covered on this site.

[number2alien]

I'd say that's a pretty accurate review.

[DroppedUrPocket]

I'd say that's a pretty accurate review.

Did you get banned?

[Jared Kaufman]

Why do you guys even bother posting stuff about PFM? They pretty much hate everything that is covered on this site.
Funny thing is, I love pretty much everything they cover. Btw, I'm listening to Rogue Wave right this second -- so should you (as in everyone that reads this, not just you Dropped).

[last light]

haha yikes.

[karmaportrait]

1.5. dead on hahaha


agreed (=

[DroppedUrPocket]

Funny thing is, I love pretty much everything they cover. Btw, I'm listening to Rogue Wave right this second -- so should you (as in everyone that reads this, not just you Dropped).

While that may be the case, you also enjoy a lot of stuff covered on this site as well, and don't write it off as garbage within one listen.

And you're sexy.

[shane hennessey]

Funny thing is, I love pretty much everything they cover. Btw, I'm listening to Rogue Wave right this second -- so should you (as in everyone that reads this, not just you Dropped).
im seein them on dec 1. i know you're jealous

[GAD_guy]

i love pitchfork. i swear i agree with like 90% of the reviews they write. i prefer the punknews.org trashing of this album over this one, though. i wouldn't even begin to call this band worthy of a comparison to rites of spring, even in the way it used.

[getupkid53]

Those who can..... play music, those who can't ...........write for pitchfork.

I think the story writes itself. Anyway, I was impressed with some of Panic's stuff. Nothing ground breaking, but not quite as stale as alot of the garbage thats out these days. I think they aren't too bad for a bunch of kids. Pitchfork would hate Sufjan Stevens if he blew up. They are all about the anti trend.

[The Revisionist]

While this album wasn't horrible, it was definitely NOT worth all the accolades that people around here seemed to be giving it. It was mediocre at best.

[DroppedUrPocket]

Those who can..... play music, those who can't ...........write for pitchfork.

I think the story writes itself. Anyway, I was impressed with some of Panic's stuff. Nothing ground breaking, but not quite as stale as alot of the garbage thats out these days. I think they aren't too bad for a bunch of kids. Pitchfork would hate Sufjan Stevens if he blew up. They are all about the anti trend.

Word, Sonny Jim.

Your sig is giving me a woody.

[Kelley Nicole]

Why do you guys even bother posting stuff about PFM? They pretty much hate everything that is covered on this site.
because lots of people feel good about themselves when they get to say for the millionth time that the pitchfork staff is a bunch of pretentious assholes.
i've never listened to this band, so i can't say whether i agree or not, but people sure seem to love them here...i'd imagine people will be going just as crazy over this as they did the recent green day review.

[Jared Kaufman]

While that may be the case, you also enjoy a lot of stuff covered on this site as well, and don't write it off as garbage within one listen.
And you're sexy.
Well, their taste and what they cover more so fits mine, if I had to pick one, than the majority of what this site covers. However, I do enjoy myself some Panic! At The Disco or stuff like that once in awhile. I look at music like food -- there's really good stuff for you and then there's junk (which we all love and induldge in from time to time, if not all the time). Not that Panic!'s music is junk, but I listen to it to have fun, just want something enjoyable, am not in the mood for anything artsy, unique, etc. I can love Neutral Milk Hotel, Iron & Wine, Clap Your Hands Say Yeah! and so forth and still love the new Hawthorne Heights song or Panic! At The Disco record. People try to prove too much and take their taste in music way too seriously.

[zbrmike79]

so...im assuming this is a New Jersey baised website...
being that they gave Bruce Springsteen a perfect 10

[Jared Kaufman]

im seein them on dec 1. i know you're jealous
Very much so. I could listen to "Every Moment" five hundred times in a row -- beautiful.

[thewebguy]

finally someone on the internet with some balls.

p.s. yes, i am getting paid to do the content management system for their new site launching later this week. conflict of interests? yes, i think so :D

[last light]

Very much so. I could listen to "Every Moment" five hundred times in a row -- beautiful.

your sig makes me wet and not listen to anything else, everytime i see it i get the immediate urge to listen to bonerexplosions in the sky

[ace_emo]

I dont think it deserves that much of slating, it's one of my records of the year.

[Jared Kaufman]

your sig makes me wet and not listen to anything else, everytime i see it i get the immediate urge to listen to bonerexplosions in the sky
"Magic Hours", ahhhh, another song I can listen to hundreds of times in a row. Seriously, everyone should listen to this band -- if you can't get into them, then there's something wrong with you in the head.

[steve-0]

ten bucks says that if sufjan stevens played the banjo on 2 songs theyd give this album an 8. i dont even really like Panic!, but half the shit pitchfork praises is absolutely awful.

[last light]

"Magic Hours", ahhhh, another song I can listen to hundreds of times in a row. Seriously, everyone should listen to this band -- if you can't get into them, then there's something wrong with you in the head.

that is a fact.

i enjoyed friday night lights, but the second i realized the soundtrack was EITS i loved it haha.

[GAD_guy]

Well, their taste and what they cover more so fits mine, if I had to pick one, than the majority of what this site covers. However, I do enjoy myself some Panic! At The Disco or stuff like that once in awhile. I look at music like food -- there's really good stuff for you and then there's junk (which we all love and induldge in from time to time, if not all the time). Not that Panic!'s music is junk, but I listen to it to have fun, just want something enjoyable, am not in the mood for anything artsy, unique, etc. I can love Neutral Milk Hotel, Iron & Wine, Clap Your Hands Say Yeah! and so forth and still love the new Hawthorne Heights song or Panic! At The Disco record. People try to prove too much and take their taste in music way too seriously.

good analogy. i do have a few "guilty pleasures" (jacks mannequin and mae come to mind), even though i'm not exactly guilty about them. i'm not always in the mood to listen to really GOOD music, which what is pitchfork tends to cover. however, the albums that stick with me and have true staying power are the ones that show true artistic originality (like in the aeroplane over the sea), while the ones with a few catchy but disposable tunes never last. i haven't touched the everglow in months.

[Kelley Nicole]

Pitchfork would hate Sufjan Stevens if he blew up. They are all about the anti trend.
yeah, except not because they like plenty of mainstream bands. they fucking love franz ferdinand and they gave modest mouse, yeah yeah yeahs, and green day good/decent reviews when all of their latest albums came out (well, in green day's case, american idiot). i'm not going to sit here and name any more bands, but the ones i mentioned were all obviously pretty big when those albums came out.

and it's not like sufjan was some obscure artist when illinois came out anyway.

[FeynmanWannabe]

Why do you guys even bother posting stuff about PFM? They pretty much hate everything that is covered on this site.

I can think of at least one counterexample: Denison Witmer who got 7.2 if I recall correctly. Not to mention, of course, people like Iron & Wine, Sufjan Stevens, etc etc that are covered here simply because a lot of the people who frequent ap also dig it. Just sayin'

[FeynmanWannabe]

yeah, except not because they like plenty of mainstream bands. they fucking love franz ferdinand and they gave modest mouse, yeah yeah yeahs, and green day good/decent reviews when all of their latest albums came out (well, in green day's case, american idiot). i'm not going to sit here and name any more bands, but the ones i mentioned were all obviously pretty big when those albums came out.

and it's not like sufjan was some obscure artist when illinois came out anyway.

dead-on

[DroppedUrPocket]

someone, quick mention ashlee simpson so tate makes an appearance.


pitchfork also makes an attempt to cover more than just one genre. their hip hop coverage is borderline respectable.

They may make an attempt to cover lots of genres, but if they're gonna cover them and just spew crap most of the time, what's the point?

[DeathCabForCoon]

Haha good review. I think now that the hype about them is over people are starting to be like, "wait, why did we like them in the first place?"

[FeynmanWannabe]

haha yup

[SECRETaction]

i like this

[SECRETaction]

karate chop tp the neck while he is singing....i like pitchfork

[thewebguy]

another review proving they don't jump ship whenever bands go big : http://pitchforkmedia.com/record-reviews/d/death-cab-for-cutie/plans.shtml

i would say the whole thread was dead-on except for the fbr street team

lolllllllllllllllll

karate chop tp the neck while he is singing....i like pitchfork

yeah that part made me lol at work

[brutusUbastard]

that is a fact.

i enjoyed friday night lights, but the second i realized the soundtrack was EITS i loved it haha.

Friday night lights was the first EITS I heard. Then I heard Earth is Not A Cold Dead Place...

...so yeah I pretty much had to change my pants everytime I heard the full version of Your Hand In Mine.

[HashHolly]

but, but Panic! > FOB, so what does this mean?

[Darren McLeod]

Funny thing is, I love pretty much everything they cover. Btw, I'm listening to Rogue Wave right this second -- so should you (as in everyone that reads this, not just you Dropped).
Rogue Wave's not too bad, eh? I've been listening to it a lot lately, trying to think of what to write in my review for it.

Also, Pitchfork can be trusted for Indie, and maybe hip-hop. That's about it. Check out their review of Thrice's Illusion of Safety, commonly seen as a modern classic around here, but only a 6.0 for them: http://pitchforkmedia.com/record-reviews/t/thrice/illusion-of-safety.shtml

Meh. P!ATD don't deserve a high score, but I'd say 1.5 is too low, nonetheless. At least they make catchy music... sometimes people ignore that as a talent.

[GAD_guy]

another review proving they don't jump ship whenever bands go big : http://pitchforkmedia.com/record-reviews/d/death-cab-for-cutie/plans.shtml



not to mention http://pitchforkmedia.com/record-reviews/b/blood-brothers/crimes.shtml

and http://pitchforkmedia.com/record-reviews/m/modest-mouse/good-news-for-people-who-love-bad-news.shtml

[Adeniz19]

that was funny.

panic! lost my respect from their live show

[brutusUbastard]

They may make an attempt to cover lots of genres, but if they're gonna cover them and just spew crap most of the time, what's the point?

It's kinda funny becuase reviews for The Red Chord, Converge, and Dillinger Escape Plan are all generally positive. They give the good parts of genre's their dues and the bad ones the review they deserve. As is the case with PATD!. If your used to hearing good emo, when you pick up what is called emo today you would probably think it's complete garbage also.

http://pitchforkmedia.com/record-reviews/r/red-chord/clients.shtml

http://pitchforkmedia.com/record-reviews/c/converge/jane-doe.shtml

http://pitchforkmedia.com/record-reviews/c/converge/you-fail-me.shtml

http://pitchforkmedia.com/record-reviews/d/dillinger-escape-plan/irony-is-a-dead-scene.shtml

[BrandFuckingNew]

It was mediocre at best.
medioXcore?

[astarlighthreat]

good review

[Paul Tao]

Those who can..... play music, those who can't ...........write for pitchfork.

I think the story writes itself. Anyway, I was impressed with some of Panic's stuff. Nothing ground breaking, but not quite as stale as alot of the garbage thats out these days. I think they aren't too bad for a bunch of kids. Pitchfork would hate Sufjan Stevens if he blew up. They are all about the anti trend.
did you ever think that pitchfork possibly creates the trend? it's a lot bigger website than you would think and gets a LOT more hits than ap does.

[JunkBondTrader]

i love pitchfork media. period. they are honest, and thats the bottom line. they say what is on their mind and they have made a reputation for being strick when it comes to an album review......they take every album and compare it to the greatest album of all time, and thats how they review....so in Pitchfork's case every album they review is going to be compared to Radiohead's OK Computer, Dismemberment Plan's Emergency & I, Wilco's Yankee Hotel Foxtrot, and Neutral Milk Hotels In The Aeroplane Over The Sea..... if you understand this concept then you will see why they write alot of bad reviews.....think about it, when everyone was bitching about Green Day's Bullet In A Bible.....does it really compare to Wilco's Kicking Television or Bruce Springsteens Born To Run 30th Anniversary......Pitchfork just puts shit in prospective, bottom line.....


...and to the jackass who think they start giving a band bad reviews after they get big.....jump off something and check out the reviews for both of The Strokes albums...fuck, The Strokes were bigger than any band on this website before their debut album even came out and both Is This It? and Room on Fire got extremely good reviews.

[1Roth4]

this review is not going to halt any sort of hype this band is going to get. the amount they've grown since they've been signed is astronomical.

fuck the reviews, and fuck everyone who puts this band down.... you all were saying 2 months ago before this cd came out how good it was.... when something becomes popular everyone bails and claims its to trendy, or mainstream. my chemical romance was the fucking shit when they opened for face 2 face.... but christ... as soon as im not okay gets play on mtv, they blow.

i say let the numbers speak louder than this review

.. its catchy shit, and everyone ive introduced it too has fallen in love with it.

[thexflamesxburn]

damn that sucks for them. i haven't heard them before so i don't really have an opinion, except that i don't like their band name. but hey, one person's opinion doesn't ruin everything...

[Paul Tao]

damn that sucks for them. i haven't heard them before so i don't really have an opinion, except that i don't like their band name. but hey, one person's opinion doesn't ruin everything...
haha and that's what jfk was saying to himself as he was riding in his motorcade

[Adeniz19]

this review is not going to halt any sort of hype this band is going to get. the amount they've grown since they've been signed is astronomical.

fuck the reviews, and fuck everyone who puts this band down.... you all were saying 2 months ago before this cd came out how good it was.... when something becomes popular everyone bails and claims its to trendy, or mainstream. my chemical romance was the fucking shit when they opened for face 2 face.... but christ... as soon as im not okay gets play on mtv, they blow.

i say let the numbers speak louder than this review

.. its catchy shit, and everyone ive introduced it too has fallen in love with it.i never liked them. and its not like they are real popular anyways

[Drew Beringer]

lol

[ThriceBoy]

looks about right
waits for the teen angst patrol to attack

i agree

[adozenroses]

whats everyone's problem with this record? its actually pretty good if u take the chance to listen to it...and people at pitchfork are mostly music snobs who probably got their ass beat like crazy in highschool. yup.

[Nate_RAWKS]

This cd is fun, i listen to it every once in awhile. I don't think it deserves a score as low as 1.5....but whatever no skin off my back.

[Jason Tate]

Pitchfork Media (http://www.pitchforkmedia.com) recently reviewed (http://pitchforkmedia.com/record-reviews/p/panic-at-the-disco/a-fever-you-cant-sweat-out.shtml) Panic! at the Disco (http://www.panicatthedisco.com)'s A Fever You Can't Sweat Out.

Submitted by: FeynmanWannabe
You know for a zine that prides itself on its pseudo-intelligence, I would have at least expected them to get the song title references.

[Jason Tate]

While this album wasn't horrible, it was definitely NOT worth all the accolades that people around here seemed to be giving it. It was mediocre at best.
I don't think anyone's really been giving them huge accolades, I think most people have flat out said it's a mediocre artistic album - but a REALLY addicting and fun one. At least that's how I've always looked at it.

[jimboj917]

personally, i've grown to like this band. i don't see why they're considered "emo" and why every band coming out nowadays is automatically labeled such. i don't consider gym class heroes, who are also on the same label to be emo, yet when they came out, they're pure volume and myspace pages said just that. with that said, i think this reviewer is a total douche who spent too much time criticizing with his poorly made points than actually analyzing the music itself. total idiot.

[GettingBold]

Generally, pitchfork loves obscure artists. When they get big, they hate them, then eventually warm up to them again.

[GettingBold]

personally, i've grown to like this band. i don't see why they're considered "emo" and why every band coming out nowadays is automatically labeled such. i don't consider gym class heroes, who are also on the same label to be emo, yet when they came out, they're pure volume and myspace pages said just that. with that said, i think this reviewer is a total douche who spent too much time criticizing with his poorly made points than actually analyzing the music itself. total idiot.
I didn't think it was very well written, either.

[GAD_guy]

this review is not going to halt any sort of hype this band is going to get. the amount they've grown since they've been signed is astronomical.

fuck the reviews, and fuck everyone who puts this band down.... you all were saying 2 months ago before this cd came out how good it was.... when something becomes popular everyone bails and claims its to trendy, or mainstream. my chemical romance was the fucking shit when they opened for face 2 face.... but christ... as soon as im not okay gets play on mtv, they blow.

i say let the numbers speak louder than this review

.. its catchy shit, and everyone ive introduced it too has fallen in love with it.

my chemical romance is and always has been one of the worst live bands EVER. read some old threads here. i remember people trashing them for having such a fucking terrible live show like 3, 4 years ago.

[Jason Tate]

my chemical romance is and always has been one of the worst live bands EVER. read some old threads here. i remember people trashing them for having such a fucking terrible live show like 3, 4 years ago.
I think even you would see the difference between trashing a live show, and hating the band.

[Paul Tao]

Generally, pitchfork loves obscure artists. When they get big, they hate them, then eventually warm up to them again.
ahhh yes, seeing as how they hate kanye, radiohead, franz ferdinand, the strokes, modest mouse, etc.

[Jason Tate]

ahhh yes, seeing as how they hate kanye, radiohead, franz ferdinand, the strokes, modest mouse, etc.
It's easy to find exceptions to every rule, I think the general gist of his point is true however. We cover Neil Diamond, Johnny Cash, The Beatles, and The Beach Boys; yet, I wouldn't call us an oldies website. Sometimes you have to call a spade, a spade; you know what they are and what they do .. it's not really even a bad thing. What bothers me most is that they always seem to spend more time looking through their thesaurus than actually listening to the CDs they review.

[GAD_guy]

I think even you would see the difference between trashing a live show, and hating the band.

even me? what's that supposed to mean? i do see the difference, my point was just that people have been trashing mcr since the beginning. and i always have stood by the fact that if a band can't perform live, they shouldn't be making music. anyone can get the right right producer and pour enough money into production (ahem, ashley simpson) to sound decent on record, but it takes actual TALENT to have a good live show. and when i say terrible live show, i don't mean they are boring, they are just flat out incapable of doing what they do on their albums.

[Jason Tate]

even me? what's that supposed to mean? i do see the difference, my point was just that people have been trashing mcr since the beginning. and i always have stood by the fact that if a band can't perform live, they shouldn't be making music. anyone can get the right right producer and pour enough money into production (ahem, ashley simpson) to sound decent on record, but it takes actual TALENT to have a good live show. and when i say terrible live show, i don't mean they are boring, they are just flat out incapable of doing what they do on their albums.
Guess we saw different bands live then, I saw them once and thought they sounded pretty good. And I'm not even that big of a fan of the band.

[aminorthreat55]

They got this one right.

[Jason Tate]

do the references make them better? chuck isn't a very good author anyway.
Did I say they made them better? Nope. Seems like your stretching here to find something to argue about. Arguing about music is ALMOST as stupid as arguing about literature.

[thewebguy]

fuck the reviews, and fuck everyone who puts this band down.... you all were saying 2 months ago before this cd came out how good it was.... when something becomes popular everyone bails and claims its to trendy, or mainstream. my chemical romance was the fucking shit when they opened for face 2 face.... but christ... as soon as im not okay gets play on mtv, they blow.

i say let the numbers speak louder than this review

.. its catchy shit, and everyone ive introduced it too has fallen in love with it.

instead of saying we all said it was great 2 months ago, use the search feature and find some quotes. i think you'll have a hard time finding ppl on this thread trashing them now, saying the album was great before.

as for the numbers, i believe it had the best first week of any of fbr's stuff. i wonder why.. (not really)

I don't think anyone's really been giving them huge accolades, I think most people have flat out said it's a mediocre artistic album - but a REALLY addicting and fun one. At least that's how I've always looked at it.

heroin is also addictive

Generally, pitchfork loves obscure artists. When they get big, they hate them, then eventually warm up to them again.

read the previous pages in this thread to see that you are wrong

it might not stop fans who are susceptible to the pete wentz hype machine. people who realize repetetive themes, rehashed sound, and redundancy a catchy band does not make probably never fell for the hype in the first place.

sometimes i think you are the coolest person on the internet

[Jason Tate]

it might not stop fans who are susceptible to the pete wentz hype machine. people who realize repetetive themes, rehashed sound, and redundancy a catchy band does not make probably never fell for the hype in the first place.
There are two equally horrible extremes in the music world.

1) The kid who only listens to what others hype and tell him to listen to.
2) The kid who never listens to what's hyped and recommended.

If you take either of the two extremes you're missing out on about 1/2 of what you could be discovering. Telling someone off for what they like, is wrong. It's no one's fault for liking a certain genre of music; it's personal taste. If you have an issue with what other people listen to, and feel the need to talk so vehemently on the matter ... I'm afraid you're wasting your breath.

I've seen the terms, "when I want to listen to good music" and "this music is better than that" tossed around in this thread. You people are idiots. The moment you attempt to quantify music, and quantify human emotion ... is the day we're no better off then robots.

[PunkDrums182]

Okay, I really really enjoy panic! at the disco, and some of that review is just stupid. Specifically, the part making fun of the song title "The Only Difference Between Martyrdom and Suicide is Press Coverage"
Which is from Survivor by Chuck Palahniuk and it's a clever phrase/song name. But whatever, i don't really care, I like the cd, doesn't matter what pitchfork says.

[daang]

ive developed a theory about pitchfork and music in general. They generally write overly pretentious reviews and are music elitists, and this is generally blasted around here by pointing out that music is subjective and they have no right to think that they listen to better music than anyone else. I dont necissarily think this is true. There is some degree of quality in music regardless of if you like it. There is a good reason Bach, Beethoven and Mozart's music outlived those of their contemporaries. Its the same reason that some art is in museums compared to art that isn't. This is where pitchfork's cockyness about music comes into play. The music that pitchfork loves is generally better music than the music around here. To say that something like Panic! is on the same level as someone like sufjan is ridiculous. Subjectivity comes into play when you decide what you personally like. People are welcome to like whatever they want, regardless of its actual quality as music. I don't mean to bash all the stuff that ap.net covers because i think it has some merit on its own right, but i dont necissarily think that it is equal musically to most of the pitchfork stuff. Like someone said earlier, its just musical junk food.

[Jason Tate]

you've got it all wrong. i dont have any desire to argue, im content to drop one-liners then keep it moving. i just didn't understand what them getting the song title references had to do with whether they thought they were terrible.

chuck palahniuk is charles bukowski with synths.
Myself, and this entire community, is well aware of your "role" here. If all you're going to do is cause problems, I'd rather you not even visit my website.

And, while I blame myself for even justifying your baits with responses, I didn't say the titles had anything to do with the review. I just pointed out that for a group of hipsters who go out of their way to sound brilliant to miss the pop-culture references in the titles is funny.

[thewebguy]

Myself, and this entire community, is well aware of your "role" here. If all you're going to do is cause problems, I'd rather you not even visit my website.

i hope you're not planning on banning him

[Melie]

that review pretty much stunk. no one is saying that the guys from panic have monumental talent in their instruments, but they did a great job making fun music for a group of guys who are all under 20. and emo? half the songs on that cd are fiction. if people want emo, they listen to dashboard; panic is fun, catchy music.

[Sureshot182]

looks about right
waits for the teen angst patrol to attack
haha, i'm with you bro

[Jason Tate]

ive developed a theory about pitchfork and music in general. They generally write overly pretentious reviews and are music elitists, and this is generally blasted around here by pointing out that music is subjective and they have no right to think that they listen to better music than anyone else. I dont necissarily think this is true. There is some degree of quality in music regardless of if you like it. There is a good reason Bach, Beethoven and Mozart's music outlived those of their contemporaries. Its the same reason that some art is in museums compared to art that isn't. This is where pitchfork's cockyness about music comes into play. The music that pitchfork loves is generally better music than the music around here. To say that something like Panic! is on the same level as someone like sufjan is ridiculous. Subjectivity comes into play when you decide what you personally like. People are welcome to like whatever they want, regardless of its actual quality as music. I don't mean to bash all the stuff that ap.net covers because i think it has some merit on its own right, but i dont necissarily think that it is equal musically to most of the pitchfork stuff. Like someone said earlier, its just musical junk food.
And to attempt to point out which "artists" will be looked back upon in 20 years as "classics" is simply pretentious. Let's not forget that everyone in the "in music scene" called The Beatles a flash in the pan band with no staying power. I'm not saying P!ATD is ever going to reach iconic status, but I am saying that for anyone in the right mind to judge or say what bands WILL reach that status and are "worthy" of listening to right now - are fucking crazy.

Call AP.net musical junk food, and call my musical loves candy. It doesn't matter to me. The thing is when I die; I WILL have found my Mozart and my personal classics. Thrice, Brand New, Saves the Day, and Jimmy Eat World may not be Sufjan and may be "junk" food to some ... but should I really give a shit what others think as long as I'm happy?

When you go to a museum and look at the art, you're told it's good and it's a classic and you accept that as fact. That's bullshit. Understand the art, THEN make a decision. It should be about how the art and the music effects you. It's of no relevance to me how a piece has changed 300 people before me or 300 people after me. Art should be selfish.

[Jason Tate]

which side of those two extremes do you feel the majority of panic! fans fall at?

i can't imagine ever wasting my breath while trying to have a serious discussion about music. i love it like that i guess. the things i say aren't because i feel im superior in my musical tastes, its just because i believe them to be true.

you really dont believe that some music is good and some music is bad? or that something can be better than something else?


miss, dashboard is not emo
The things you say, by your own admission, are one-liners in an attempt to spur drama. I'm not responding to your baitings anymore, I have better things to do.

[youareallfreaks]

Dear Cory D. Byrom,

Get over yourself.

Love,

The Internet

[thewebguy]

re: jason and insertseason

i don't know why you guys think i don't like panic, but here's the reason:
when i listen to panic, i feel like pete wentz and bill becket had a baby and patrick stump taught it to sing, gave it a casio, dressed it up real nice, and shoved it down everyone's throat. it's not the worst music on earth or anything, and it's kinda catchy, but it sounds like remix of a fob cd to me.

it's nothing special to me, nothing new, and it feels fake, which bothers me.

it's the same thing as finding out 'hit writers' wrote your favorite single, or that the label made your favorite band up. it doesn't change the music itself, but it sucks! nobody wants fake music!

isn't that what punk music is all about?

[FeynmanWannabe]

Geez, what did I start? I just found this amusing.

[last light]

Dear Cory D. Byrom,

Get over yourself.

Love,

The Internet

wow if it isnt sexy mcsex himself.

[youareallfreaks]

wow if it isnt sexy mcsex himself.


yeahhhhh boyyyyyyyyyeeeeeeeeeeeeeee


how's your donger hangin?

[Jason Tate]

re: jason and insertseason

i don't know why you guys think i don't like panic, but here's the reason:
when i listen to panic, i feel like pete wentz and bill becket had a baby and patrick stump taught it to sing, gave it a casio, dressed it up real nice, and shoved it down everyone's throat. it's not the worst music on earth or anything, and it's kinda catchy, but it sounds like remix of a fob cd to me.

it's nothing special to me, nothing new, and it feels fake, which bothers me.

it's the same thing as finding out 'hit writers' wrote your favorite single, or that the label made your favorite band up. it doesn't change the music itself, but it sucks! nobody wants fake music!

isn't that what punk music is all about?
That's fine, everybody should discover what they like for themselves and leave it at that. No one needs to justify themselves to me why they like/don't like a particular band. However, here's what grinds my gears: If you don't like the music, and you know you don't like the music - why are you hanging around a thread 100% based on the band's music? You serve no purpose other than to bait, trash, troll, and bring down others for not sharing the same musical tastes as you. Spend your time somewhere else .. I mean, I realize AP.net is addicting, but I would rather NOT have you visiting right now if all you're going to do is spend your time trashing on music you already know you don't like. It's a waste of everyone's time.

[last light]

yeahhhhh boyyyyyyyyyeeeeeeeeeeeeeee


how's your donger hangin?

hahah oh the ol' donger is doing just fine.

[GAD_guy]

Guess we saw different bands live then, I saw them once and thought they sounded pretty good. And I'm not even that big of a fan of the band.

well i guess i can't argue your personal opinion, but the point is there was definietely an outspoken group of people around here who thought my chemical romance sucked long before they were famous. the whole "you just hate them becuase they are famous" bit is so played the fuck out. did anyone who uses this argument stop to think that major label bands often change their sound to recieve mainstream play? or that some become sickeningly affected by fame (i am talking about you pete from fall out boy)? or maybe that some people realize the error of their old ways and finally understand that the band sucked all along? people's tastes to generally mature over time. it's called growing.

[youareallfreaks]

hahah oh the ol' donger is doing just fine.



solid, gotta run to class but we need a new underoath thread or maybe lets just use this thread. lemme know, i'll be back later.

[daang]

[quote=Jason Tate

Call AP.net musical junk food, and call my musical loves candy. It doesn't matter to me. The thing is when I die; I WILL have found my Mozart and my personal classics. Thrice, Brand New, Saves the Day, and Jimmy Eat World may not be Sufjan and may be "junk" food to some ... but should I really give a shit what others think as long as I'm happy?

When you go to a museum and look at the art, you're told it's good and it's a classic and you accept that as fact. That's bullshit. Understand the art, THEN make a decision. It should be about how the art and the music effects you. It's of no relevance to me how a piece has changed 300 people before me or 300 people after me. Art should be selfish.[/quote]

i agree completely. I think your personal perception is the most important thing to you. I love brand new and jimmy eat world as well as the stuff that pitchfork reviews. The fact that something like the mona lisa is famous is irrelevant if it doesn'd do anything for you. My point is the fact that you don't like it doesn't mean that its not a great painting. The same thing goes music. I keep using sufjan as my example because its the album that really blew me away musically this year, but if you don't like it, thats fine, but it doesn't mean that its not better musically than someone like Panic!. Its up to people to decide what they like based on taste, not necissarily talent.

[last light]

solid, gotta run to class but we need a new underoath thread or maybe lets just use this thread. lemme know, i'll be back later.

we have one, ill PM you

[Jason Tate]

well i guess i can't argue your personal opinion, but the point is there was definietely an outspoken group of people around here who thought my chemical romance sucked long before they were famous. the whole "you just hate them becuase they are famous" bit is so played the fuck out. did anyone who uses this argument stop to think that major label bands often change their sound to recieve mainstream play? or that some become sickeningly affected by fame (i am talking about you pete from fall out boy)? or maybe that some people realize the error of their old ways and finally understand that the band sucked all along? people's tastes to generally mature over time. it's called growing.
I think you'd be describing 5% of the population who do that, or maybe searching for a justification. You can't say people stop liking a band when they get popular, because I think that's an undebatable fact. While what you've said may be true for a small percentage; I think we both know how fickle kids are these days.

[Jason Tate]

maybe at one point it was. but that doesn't seem to be the case anymore. if it's catchy it gets a free pass.
ashlee simpson is catchy, the shins are catchy, mc hammer is catchy, art brut is catchy, kelly clarkson is catchy, minus the bear is catchy. you can be catchy without sacrificing creativity or you can be manufactured catchy.
When did Minus the Bear get a free pass?

[deja andyroo]

Haha, awesome. I love the Panic! record, but I read Pitchfork everyday... reviews like that used to annoy me, but now they just crack me up. I actually laughed out loud when I saw the 1.5 rating. I just hope I don't become that jaded about anything when I'm writing for a living.

[Never Last]

re: jason and insertseason

i don't know why you guys think i don't like panic, but here's the reason:
when i listen to panic, i feel like pete wentz and bill becket had a baby and patrick stump taught it to sing, gave it a casio, dressed it up real nice, and shoved it down everyone's throat. it's not the worst music on earth or anything, and it's kinda catchy, but it sounds like remix of a fob cd to me.

it's nothing special to me, nothing new, and it feels fake, which bothers me.

it's the same thing as finding out 'hit writers' wrote your favorite single, or that the label made your favorite band up. it doesn't change the music itself, but it sucks! nobody wants fake music!

How can you say their music sounds like FOB? Sure the vocalist does, but instrumentally? Come on. Even lyrically they're different then FOB. The only song that sounds like anything FOB would do (and really does even come close to) is number two. If you're referring to the forumla of Verse/Chorus/Verse/Chorus/Bridge/Outro then that's what every mainstream band uses. If you can't differentiate between their's and FOB's music, then you must not be paying attention or you're hearing want you want to hear. I can think of a couple bands that people praise around here (even some of the people in this thread that our sticking up for Panic) that only use guitar, bass, and drums, sound like every other band, but people think they're great. And I remember reading posts in old Panic! threads when their songs were being posted on Purevolume, and 90% of those posts were praising them. Now either people just flock to their threads just to hate them and never posted in them, or now those fans have turned into haters. Sure they're not big as in FOB, but for the number of time they've been out, they're huge. Sure, the "Another stupid teen girl who thinks she's being cool and/or creative by putting their name in front of! at the disco! at the disco'' bothers me, but it doesn't affect the music.

And this wasn't directed towards you, just towards anyone. I forget why I quoted you lol.

[1Roth4]

That's fine, everybody should discover what they like for themselves and leave it at that. No one needs to justify themselves to me why they like/don't like a particular band. However, here's what grinds my gears: If you don't like the music, and you know you don't like the music - why are you hanging around a thread 100% based on the band's music? You serve no purpose other than to bait, trash, troll, and bring down others for not sharing the same musical tastes as you. Spend your time somewhere else .. I mean, I realize AP.net is addicting, but I would rather NOT have you visiting right now if all you're going to do is spend your time trashing on music you already know you don't like. It's a waste of everyone's time.

Finally someone is agreeing with what ive been saying forever.

read some of my old threads.. im pretty sure i stood up for my chem in every single thread people trashed them in (which was the majority of them)

sites like these i gain musical knowledge, because i dont think my musical taste, and knowledge is superior to anyone elses. i learn so much from people on these messageboards... its the negativity that kills me about this place.. if you dont like the band, then dont comment on it... its not a difficult concept... its something i was taught when i was 5.. if you have nothing nice to say.. dont say it at all.....

as for the dude that thinks that people have been saying for years my chem has an awful live show, i agree with tater (which doesnt happen often) that we saw different bands. Ive seen them 5 times, and i've only been disappionted once, and it was because they opened for greenday... not much of a comparison.

[brutusUbastard]

That's fine, everybody should discover what they like for themselves and leave it at that. No one needs to justify themselves to me why they like/don't like a particular band. However, here's what grinds my gears: If you don't like the music, and you know you don't like the music - why are you hanging around a thread 100% based on the band's music? You serve no purpose other than to bait, trash, troll, and bring down others for not sharing the same musical tastes as you. Spend your time somewhere else .. I mean, I realize AP.net is addicting, but I would rather NOT have you visiting right now if all you're going to do is spend your time trashing on music you already know you don't like. It's a waste of everyone's time.

But it seems to me that this whole thread is about the bashing of a band at the hands of Pitchfork. I thought this whole site was about opinion, and he was merely stating his opinion. If you think that people who trash other people need to leave this site maybe you need to be looking at threads more like this one: http://www.absolutepunk.net/showthread.php?t=62752&highlight=My+Chemical+romance

there is a huge difference between trashing and opinion.

[Jason Tate]

But it seems to me that this whole thread is about the bashing of a band at the hands of Pitchfork. I thought this whole site was about opinion, and he was merely stating his opinion. If you think that people who trash other people need to leave this site maybe you need to be looking at threads more like this one: http://www.absolutepunk.net/showthread.php?t=62752&highlight=My+Chemical+romance

there is a huge difference between trashing and opinion.
There is a huge difference, I'm assuming you'd see that difference after reading the PF review.

And if you really want me to police every thread on this website; I'd have to shut down just about everything else we do.

[Azwethinkweiz]

I don't think Pitchfork did a good job on this review for a couple of reasons.

First off, I wouldn't call Panic emo given the lyrical content of the song. A lot of the lyrics especially in the demos and such are Chuck Palahniuk references, not that most people didn't already know that, yet Pitchfork does not point this out. They're criticizing Palahniuk more than they are Panic.

Second of all, this may be just a reiteration, but I believe that a reviewer should research before they criticize. And this is not just talking about Pitchfork. Probably the most frustrating thing is to be misunderstood and then defend yourself, when people have already made up their mind. It's almost embarrassing reading a review like this or one in Rolling Stone where they just don't quite get it. The most emo songs are the ones where they quote Chuck. The songs that they actually wrote ("Martyrdom and Suicide", "London Beckoned...", "Sins Not Tragedies", "Better If You Do") are out of the spectrum of what I'd call emo lyrics, which is the main classification used presently of emo, at least in this article.

And on the subject, I don't think I would go to Pitchfork for an objective review of the music that's displayed on AP.net, and the other way around as well. Actually, personally, I don't care about reviews, but for people who do I wouldn't go to either site. Of course Pitchfork is going to give this album a bad review, I could have told you that before opening the link. And of course AP.net is going to give it a good review. It's very predictable and because of the natural biases I don't blame them. The point is, listen to the music and make your own reviews in your mind. Reviews are ridiculous, in my opinion, just because they limit imagination and objectivity.

Dashboard is very emo, in my opinion, by the way.

You can't define good music. Music is the most difficult thing to talk about in the world, and it's even harder to convince someone of you beliefs on the subject because of it's... well... subjectivity. Not to mention, people are way too stubborn and uptight about it. Although I don't absolutely love FOB, I must agree with them that the songs you grow to like never stick at first. With that in mind, elitists should open their eyes up to Sufjan, and scenesters should open their eyes to Fall Out Boy. And then, if they get past their convictions and decide that they still don't like the music, then so be it.

P.S. Rogue Wave is amazing. Moving Units is amazinger, though.

[Big_Guy]

that review seems about right

[GAD_guy]

I think you'd be describing 5% of the population who do that, or maybe searching for a justification. You can't say people stop liking a band when they get popular, because I think that's an undebatable fact. While what you've said may be true for a small percentage; I think we both know how fickle kids are these days.

you're right. i just hate generalizing and assuming arguments like "you just hate them becuase they're famous," "you are just jealous becuase they are better musicians than you," "if you can't play it, you can't criticize it," etc.

edit: my last example does apply to me, personally becuase i admittedly did used to like fall out boy, but then one day i woke up and realized they had no substance, had forced lyrics and trite song titles, and that "awesome" show i saw of theirs was actually terrible. this was before they got famous. i do support alot of bands that i used to love who are now famous.

[duffe]

I'm so hype, i bought this album.

[LPMagic]

I rate the album at more than a 1.5 and "Time to Dance" is definitely a guilty pleasure, but I have no problem with this review. Considering who's reviewing it and the points made, that score seemed appropriate. I'm just not sure why Panic! At the Disco has to be emo or compared to Rites of Spring though. I always thought they were a punkno band (yeah I said it).

Oh and Rogue Wave really is awesome. I have to 3rd or 4th or whatever that.

- Jeff

[Jason Tate]

I rate the album at more than a 1.5 and "Time to Dance" is definitely a guilty pleasure, but I have no problem with this review. Considering who's reviewing it and the points made, that score seemed appropriate. I'm just not sure why Panic! At the Disco has to be emo or compared to Rites of Spring though. I always thought they were a punkno band (yeah I said it).

Oh and Rogue Wave really is awesome. I have to 3rd or 4th or whatever that.

- Jeff
It bothers me when people call music they listen to "guilty pleasures" - it's as if you have to justify that you listen to pop music (or want to call attention to the fact it's not what you usually listening to). If you like it, you like it .. who cares.

[LPMagic]

It bothers me when people call music they listen to "guilty pleasures" - it's as if you have to justify that you listen to pop music (or want to call attention to the fact it's not what you usually listening to). If you like it, you like it .. who cares.
I'm sorry Jason, I'll let the scene kids know right away.

- Jeff

[brutusUbastard]

There is a huge difference, I'm assuming you'd see that difference after reading the PF review.

And if you really want me to police every thread on this website; I'd have to shut down just about everything else we do.

I'm not saying police the site. i'm simply saying that this isn't trashing at all. Yes the pitchfork review was harsh, but that's pitchfork and that's how they handle their reviews. This thread just begs for discussion and differing opinions, based on what it was about. If there's a problem with that, then a link to this review should have never been put on the main page. Otherwise this seems very civil. I love it's okay to bash a band when they do something wrong, but a civil negative opinion of a band (in a thread that is all about a negative opinion) is seen as inappropriate and hostile towards other peoples opinions. Or at least it seems that these comments are being treated that way.

[Jason Tate]

I'm not saying police the site. i'm simply saying that this isn't trashing at all. Yes the pitchfork review was harsh, but that's pitchfork and that's how they handle their reviews. This thread just begs for discussion and differing opinions, based on what it was about. If there's a problem with that, then a link to this review should have never been put on the main page. Otherwise this seems very civil. I love it's okay to bash a band when they do something wrong, but a civil negative opinion of a band (in a thread that is all about a negative opinion) is seen as inappropriate and hostile towards other peoples opinions. Or at least it seems that these comments are being treated that way.
I guess I just don't have a clue what you're talking about ....

[Jason Tate]

I'm sorry Jason, I'll let the scene kids know right away.

- Jeff
Thanks, Jeff.

[Sureshot182]

re: jason and insertseason

i don't know why you guys think i don't like panic, but here's the reason:
when i listen to panic, i feel like pete wentz and bill becket had a baby and patrick stump taught it to sing, gave it a casio, dressed it up real nice, and shoved it down everyone's throat. it's not the worst music on earth or anything, and it's kinda catchy, but it sounds like remix of a fob cd to me.

it's nothing special to me, nothing new, and it feels fake, which bothers me.

it's the same thing as finding out 'hit writers' wrote your favorite single, or that the label made your favorite band up. it doesn't change the music itself, but it sucks! nobody wants fake music!

isn't that what punk music is all about?
nothing about any of the fob scene is "punk rock". let's throw that asociation out right now.

[70x7]

Those who can..... play music, those who can't ...........write for pitchfork.

I think the story writes itself. Anyway, I was impressed with some of Panic's stuff. Nothing ground breaking, but not quite as stale as alot of the garbage thats out these days. I think they aren't too bad for a bunch of kids. Pitchfork would hate Sufjan Stevens if he blew up. They are all about the anti trend.
Not so, they give plenty of bands good reviews once they've blown up. Panic! at the Disco isn't good. And when you refer to a band as Panic, 99% of people will think you are talking about Widespread Panic.

Side note, when I saw Rogue Wave last year they were really good live, but had the unfortunate duty of following up Two Gallants

[brutusUbastard]

I guess I just don't have a clue what you're talking about ....

Haha. I word things really badly (I had a crazy 11th grade gifted english teacher). I'm really just saying I saw no bashing in this thread and seemed that you came in here guns balzing looking to pick a fight yourself. The slightest negative opinion of the band seemed to set you off, even though this whole thread is over a negative opinion of the band.

I also don't believe the site should be policed, though I do think that some bashing are far out of hand. I was merely showing that other thread as a comparison, saying that everything in this thread was handled in a very civil manner.

I hope that makes more sense.

[Jason Tate]

Not so, they give plenty of bands good reviews once they've blown up. Panic! at the Disco isn't good. And when you refer to a band as Panic, 99% of people will think you are talking about Widespread Panic.

Side note, when I saw Rogue Wave last year they were really good live, but had the unfortunate duty of following up Two Gallants
And just about every previous post I made was ignored in one bold swoop. I am shocked by the gall and elitist nature that creeps through the pores of some humans.

[Jason Tate]

Haha. I word things really badly (I had a crazy 11th grade gifted english teacher). I'm really just saying I saw no bashing in this thread and seemed that you came in here guns balzing looking to pick a fight yourself. The slightest negative opinion of the band seemed to set you off, even though this whole thread is over a negative opinion of the band.

I also don't believe the site should be policed, though I do think that some bashing are far out of hand. I was merely showing that other thread as a comparison, saying that everything in this thread was handled in a very civil manner.

I hope that makes more sense.
If that's what you think, then I can only tell you you're wrong. I came into this thread hoping to change one person's opinion that they shouldn't listen to anyone else about what not to listen to; check things out for yourself. It's easy.

[Sureshot182]

i'd rather be selective in choosing my music than listen to panic at the disco.

[Jason Tate]

i'd rather be selective in choosing my music than listen to panic at the disco.
Surprising from a Yellowcard/Blink182/Name Taken fan.

I would expected you to like them.

Prove positive that stereotypes in musical taste are completely bogus.

[youareallfreaks]

i just don't like how the review focuses on the electronic part of the record w/o even looking at the second half, which used an arsenal of classical instruments. most people don't even realize this fact because they were able to seamlessly intergrate the two halves so well, nukkahs.

[Sureshot182]

Surprising from a Yellowcard/Blink182/Name Taken fan.

I would expected you to like them.

Prove positive that stereotypes in musical taste are completely bogus.
first off...i started visiting this website 4 years ago. i realized yellowcard sucks massive black cock a long time ago, and name taken is far better/insightful than panic! at the disco..where did they get their name from again? oh yeah, they don't have an original bone in their bodies.

[brutusUbastard]

If that's what you think, then I can only tell you you're wrong. I came into this thread hoping to change one person's opinion that they shouldn't listen to anyone else about what not to listen to; check things out for yourself. It's easy.

My bad then. The first the thing I remember was the ensuing comments between you and insertseason. looking back i now see your other comments.

[Jason Tate]

first off...i started visiting this website 4 years ago. i realized yellowcard sucks massive black cock a long time ago, and name taken is far better/insightful than panic! at the disco..where did they get their name from again? oh yeah, they don't have an original bone in their bodies.
Jeezus, don't have to jump down my throat.

[brutusUbastard]

it has suddenly occurred to me that fueled by ramen is the new drive-thru records

Haha. It's true though.

[thebestkylever]

it has suddenly occurred to me that fueled by ramen is the new drive-thru records

yep, i still like drive thru bands much much better though.

[thewebguy]

nothing about any of the fob scene is "punk rock". let's throw that asociation out right now.

i'm hope you're saying that with me and not at me.. cuz that's what i'm saying

Jeezus, don't have to jump down my throat.

lol seriously

[Sureshot182]

i'm hope you're saying that with me and not at me.. cuz that's what i'm saying



lol seriously
i'm saying it with you, yes. and don't jump down mine and i won't have a statement to respond with.

[deecee85]

I liked this album A lot.

[closerthankyle]

You know for a zine that prides itself on its pseudo-intelligence, I would have at least expected them to get the song title references.


word.

[reductiondesign]

"In "Time to Dance", which utilizes some sort of poorly realized gun-as-a-camera metaphor..."

I guess they missed the fact it's a Palahniuk allusion.

[Lerok22]

This thread is ridiculous. It's the reviewer's opinion, if he doesn't like it, he doesn't like it. I don't see why something would even be deserving of over a 1 if you don't like it at all. It's one man's opinion. If he didn't know lyrics and titles were Palahniuk references, oh well. If they were good standalone lines than he would've approved.

And it's just hypocritical that people get mad at Pitchfork for bashing an album and saying that the opinion of music is subjective, but then those same people go ahead and call the music Pitchfork recommend shit.

[almandude]

This album was stuck in my head for over a month and a half, and this was only after like 3 listens. Damn, I loved it, lol.

[FASSWcore]

while the album may have deserved a 1.5 in some people's eyes, i don't think they should look to pitchfork for opinion....it's just a site full of pretentious bastards shelling out their opinion like it's fact

[makebelieve327]

The second I read this review this morning I knew someone would submit it to ap.net, and it would start a good 'ole fashioned message board quarrel.

I agree with those who have said that there is good music, then your own preference. You can like something for either reason.

[resUrectMe617]

hahahahah . thats great. i agree completely. i did't bother to read all the replies before me.. but i'm going to assume a lot of negativity towards this review. however... i'm sure, like with most trends, people will someday begin to dislike this band as much as i have from the start.

[JunkBondTrader]

i love how everyone is always saying "everyone is entitled to their own opinions blah blah blah" and soon as someone has one everyone jumps down their throat....

well go ahead and jump down mine because i think Pitchfork Media fucking pwns.......and their reviews are better than the ones here on Absolutepunk.net for a few reasons.

A. It has become almost pointless for me to even read an AP review because I know that if it is reviewed that it will not be scored below a 6.0

B. Pitchfork is strict when it comes to reviews, and thats how it should be in my opinion. If I was going to write a review for every album, then i would compare every album to my favorite album of all time....Doesnt that make sense. Your favorite album of all time is what you consider a 10.0.......The Beatles- Sgt. Peppers Lonely Hearts Club Band is my favorite.......so if i had to review Panic! At The Disco why would I give it higher than a 1.0..........it isnt a fraction of the album the Beatles put out. And thats how reviews should go in my opinion.

C. I just prefer there reviews becaseu they have some great writers.....alot of there reviews are humorous, and I find myself laughing out loud once in awhile.

And Jason, i dont understand why you ar getting mad if Pitchfork likes a different type of music when you even said yourself.....why should you care if someone doesnt like what you do as long as youre happy?.......i find all the bitching in this thread to be completely pointless. but whatever its fun.

.....and just because i prefer Pitchfork Media to AP.net does not mean i do not enjoy this site, because I do. Two completely different styles and demographics.

[JunkBondTrader]

though i often disagree with you mr. tate, i think its fucking awesome that we even have the chance to disagree and argue about music on these forums. and i thank you for that.

[starcrossdlovex]

I don't listen to Panic becuase they're revolutionary musicians.
I listen to them cause the music is fun, catchy, addicting & gets stuck in your head way too easily. They're not changing the world, or the music scene. They're just fun.
But, everyone can have their own opinion.

I enjoyed reading the review, especially when they didn't catch any references & referred to "lying is The Most Fun.." by itself, without acknowledging it's a quote, nor it's second part. ("but it's better if you do")
But, we don't have to agree with every single review

[[Mike]]

The fact that they (or anyone else for that matter) think that P!ATD is emo is just laughable.

I wouldn't say the album is a 1.5, but it's no 10 either. There's a handful of good songs on there, but the rest just don't stack up.

Head Automatica has still yet to be dethroned from the electronic/disco/punk kingdom.

[drivethru770]

I'm sure someone has already posted this, but I refuse to read six pages of posts to find it.

How is Panic! emo? Just curious. I'm pretty sure I have never heard anyone refer to them as emo. They're simply NOT. I really wish people would stop throwing that term around. It just doesn't mean what it used to anymore.

[YouGotScanned]

Finally someone else who realizes that this record is GARBAGE.
Produced-ass uncreative bullshit! NOT WORTHY OF THE NAME PANIC! AT THE DISCO
the music has no disco influence whatsoever! it doesnt even make me want to dance!!!
GARBAGE!!!!!
Good band name with clever lyrics and some good song titles...
But the music is soooooo lacking.

[nicolerork]

Those who can..... play music, those who can't ...........write for pitchfork.

Not quite.



In other news, I like Wilco.

[JunkBondTrader]

']Head Automatica has still yet to be dethroned from the electronic/disco/punk kingdom.

actually Men Women and Children has already "de-throned" them, if you didnt get the memo.

and yes in other news, I love Wilco like no other........the live version of "Misunderstood" is probably one of my favorite songs of all fucking time. BUY WILCO-KICKING TELEVISION!

[nicolerork]

and yes in other news, I love Wilco like no other........the live version of "Misunderstood" is probably one of my favorite songs of all fucking time. BUY WILCO-KICKING TELEVISION!


GREAT SONG! If I still had my scene points, I'd give them all to you!

[Bury Your Head]

are you kidding me?panic is better than half the emo shit out todayhawthorne hieghts?need i say moreand how bout them overrated my chemical romance.they are ok. but they get old especially when 14 yr old hot topic sluts sing im not ok.watch this band will be the new academy is...panic isnt anything greatbut they are ok to me.IMO

[ishotthepilot]

i like how he has NO FREAKING CLUE the pop culture references Panic uses, or what their lyrics mean.
at least try... god. i'm beginning to hate "journalism." reading reviews just makes me mad most of the time, because most of the time what people write is wholely illogical.
I'm not even going to touch "emo." That word is like its own foreign language.

im not sure what kind of problems i have caused. honest.
maybe they didn't miss them, and just didnt feel they were pertinent to the review.

they called the Palahnuik-inspired quotes 'asinine.'

personally becuase i admittedly did used to like fall out boy, but then one day i woke up and realized they had no substance, had forced lyrics and trite song titles, and that "awesome" show i saw of theirs was actually terrible. this was before they got famous. i do support alot of bands that i used to love who are now famous.

i really don't see how you can call lyrics that started as personal journal entries as 'forced'... or really, ANY lyrics. i mean, even Hawthorne Heights lyrics are from the heart. it's what the dude feels. so i guess he's really bad at expressing it, oh well. that doesn't mean it's not original.

like someone else said, they clearly didnt listen to the second half of Panic's album if Pitchfork's saying it lacks creativity and originality.

it has suddenly occurred to me that fueled by ramen is the new drive-thru records

you're a little late.

[Lerok22]

i love how everyone is always saying "everyone is entitled to their own opinions blah blah blah" and soon as someone has one everyone jumps down their throat....

well go ahead and jump down mine because i think Pitchfork Media fucking pwns.......and their reviews are better than the ones here on Absolutepunk.net for a few reasons.

A. It has become almost pointless for me to even read an AP review because I know that if it is reviewed that it will not be scored below a 6.0

B. Pitchfork is strict when it comes to reviews, and thats how it should be in my opinion. If I was going to write a review for every album, then i would compare every album to my favorite album of all time....Doesnt that make sense. Your favorite album of all time is what you consider a 10.0.......The Beatles- Sgt. Peppers Lonely Hearts Club Band is my favorite.......so if i had to review Panic! At The Disco why would I give it higher than a 1.0..........it isnt a fraction of the album the Beatles put out. And thats how reviews should go in my opinion.

C. I just prefer there reviews becaseu they have some great writers.....alot of there reviews are humorous, and I find myself laughing out loud once in awhile.

And Jason, i dont understand why you ar getting mad if Pitchfork likes a different type of music when you even said yourself.....why should you care if someone doesnt like what you do as long as youre happy?.......i find all the bitching in this thread to be completely pointless. but whatever its fun.

.....and just because i prefer Pitchfork Media to AP.net does not mean i do not enjoy this site, because I do. Two completely different styles and demographics.

You've summed up my thoughts perfectly.

[LPMagic]

You've summed up my thoughts perfectly.
Mine too.

- Jeff

[InaGreendase]

The review: A few funny analogies (Coke, karate), agreeable score, but really, really derivative argument.

you all were saying 2 months ago before this cd came out how good it was

::raises hand:: I never liked this band. And I'm sure everyone in the thread bashing the band never has as well.

chuck palahniuk is charles bukowski with synths.

Palahniuk is probably my favorite author, and I know of maybe one Bukowski verse, but that was hilarious.

miss, dashboard is not emo

Eh, they're borderline third wave. I don't want to admit it either, but even Allmusic realizes (http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&token=ADFEAEE5781EDE4DA87E20C680364 5C79463E707D54DFF990D6E4547DBA9101A 8C2578D504EC95CCB0E577BD66ADFF2EA11 607D9CBEE5CFFD5765D40&sql=11:om861va2zzca) they may as well give the poster child of an initially misnamed, eventually begrudgingly accepted timeline-dictated musical style his due.

Even lyrically they're different then FOB.

I think for the FOB comparisons, their lyrics are one of the strongest points of contention behind the vocals.

it has suddenly occurred to me that fueled by ramen is the new drive-thru records

Basically, but fortunately for our generation our music tastes have likely developed at least a little since then so we're not hooked into picking up every single release of theirs.

[itsgotime]

Okay yeah, everyone needs to read some Roland Barthes and realise that art can be approached as a work or as a text and that they are two very different approaches.
I think a definite part of the the conflict here is that some people judge P!ATD's value in terms of being a work, others in terms of being a text. Everyone has a different conception of value or worth and so trading opinions is essentially a selfish and pointless act. All anyone wants out of this is for their opinion to be validated by others, by virtue of someone they respect agreeing or someone unsavory disagreeing. The same can be said of reading music reviews.

[resUrectMe617]

are you kidding me?panic is better than half the emo shit out todayhawthorne hieghts?need i say moreand how bout them overrated my chemical romance.they are ok. but they get old especially when 14 yr old hot topic sluts sing im not ok.watch this band will be the new academy is...panic isnt anything greatbut they are ok to me.IMO

as much as i dislike both panic and hawthorne, i have to give cred to hawthorne for being around as a band much longer, and making themselves popular (not really too sure how they are so popular, but that isn't whats at question here) by themselves. they didn't have the hand of "god" (pete wentz) come down and adopt them and pull strings to get them on big ass tours (tell me nintendo fusion wasn't one of the most popular tours of this year). i'm not saying one band has more talent than the other, i'm just voicing my opinion on the how each band has reached their popular status. in that respect, i give my hand to hawthorne.

overrated my chemical romance? were you around for their album prior to "Three Cheers..." bands like My Chemical Romance were playing shows way before Panic entered high school. I'd like to think MCR influenced PATD in some way. and i like how we judge a band's credibility on whether "hot topic sluts" sing their songs. let me just tell you... Saosin (in reference to your username) are quite eligible to be sung by "hot topic sluts" in the future.

[1Roth4]

::raises hand:: I never liked this band. And I'm sure everyone in the thread bashing the band never has as well.
.

you're that confident to speak for everyone?

you know damn well what happens on here, and how people think, and how their opinions change with each bit of fame these bands get... don't pretend to be clueless

[GAD_guy]

as much as i dislike both panic and hawthorne, i have to give cred to hawthorne for being around as a band much longer, and making themselves popular (not really too sure how they are so popular, but that isn't whats at question here) by themselves. they didn't have the hand of "god" (pete wentz) come down and adopt them and pull strings to get them on big ass tours (tell me nintendo fusion wasn't one of the most popular tours of this year). i'm not saying one band has more talent than the other, i'm just voicing my opinion on the how each band has reached their popular status. in that respect, i give my hand to hawthorne.
overrated my chemical romance? were you around for their album prior to "Three Cheers..." bands like My Chemical Romance were playing shows way before Panic entered high school. I'd like to think MCR influenced PATD in some way. and i like how we judge a band's credibility on whether "hot topic sluts" sing their songs. let me just tell you... Saosin (in reference to your username) are quite eligible to be sung by "hot topic sluts" in the future.

his name just makes me wonder why anybody would reference saosin at all post-translating the name.

[InaGreendase]

you're that confident to speak for everyone?

you know damn well what happens on here, and how people think, and how their opinions change with each bit of fame these bands get... don't pretend to be clueless

First mention of the band ever on the site -- January 2005 (http://www.absolutepunk.net/showthread.php?t=56846&highlight=Panic%21+at+the+disco). There hasn't even been enough time for "elitists" to alter their opinions on them.

[youareallfreaks]

First mention of the band ever on the site -- January 2005 (http://www.absolutepunk.net/showthread.php?t=56846&highlight=Panic%21+at+the+disco). There hasn't even been enough time for "elitists" to alter their opinions on them.


yeah, and if you read that thread you can already see sureshot182 (nice username btw :shake: ) start to hate because they alluded to a name taken song with their band name.


if a band takes their name from a song of a band they love, they do it because they love that band . . you tard.


now chill the fuck out, it's time to dance.

[1Roth4]

First mention of the band ever on the site -- January 2005 (http://www.absolutepunk.net/showthread.php?t=56846&highlight=Panic%21+at+the+disco). There hasn't even been enough time for "elitists" to alter their opinions on them.

keep watching for it... im telling you.. it's happend before, and it will happen again.

good detective work though, you've really taken your points validity to a new level.

[AlwaysPunkin45]

Well, their taste and what they cover more so fits mine, if I had to pick one, than the majority of what this site covers. However, I do enjoy myself some Panic! At The Disco or stuff like that once in awhile. I look at music like food -- there's really good stuff for you and then there's junk (which we all love and induldge in from time to time, if not all the time). Not that Panic!'s music is junk, but I listen to it to have fun, just want something enjoyable, am not in the mood for anything artsy, unique, etc. I can love Neutral Milk Hotel, Iron & Wine, Clap Your Hands Say Yeah! and so forth and still love the new Hawthorne Heights song or Panic! At The Disco record. People try to prove too much and take their taste in music way too seriously.
Jared, you should probably just leave absolutepunk.net and giving emoheads some sun in their lives.

[Rest_Easy]

One thing about reviews and reviewing is not to get lost in comparison. If you rate your reviews based on something as different as the Beatles then of course everything else will get a low rating. The best reviews I have found are those who rate the subject on what it is aspiring to be. Then, in the review say what you believe the album is trying to be because some bands are just trying to be listenable/likable and not the next beatles (see oasis).

and i actually like the song title "I Write Sins, Not Tragedies". It works.