<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Pitchfork&#8217;s Joanna Newsom Review</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.quarterlifeparty.com/pitchforks-joanna-newsom-review/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.quarterlifeparty.com/pitchforks-joanna-newsom-review/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 30 Jan 2012 15:29:06 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.4</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: fountain</title>
		<link>http://www.quarterlifeparty.com/pitchforks-joanna-newsom-review/comment-page-1/#comment-51269</link>
		<dc:creator>fountain</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 23 Feb 2010 19:02:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.quarterlifeparty.com/?p=4305#comment-51269</guid>
		<description>Pitchfork is predictable in their assignment of the &quot;best new music&quot; (BNM) tag; and you&#039;re right in that you could see the BNM tag coming for this album months ago (when P4K started writing about every rumor that surfaced regarding the album).  

I also agree with you regarding the quotes from the review itself.  How can an album - especially a bloated one like this - be a great album if you need to hit the &quot;skip&quot; button to get through it?

By comparison, how many songs did P4K recommend a listener skip on &quot;In Rainbows,&quot; or on &quot;The Joshua Tree&quot;?  Easy...none.  Hell, even their review of the unbelievably pretentious Dirty Projectors album didn&#039;t suggest the listener skip any songs.  

The conclusion here is skipping tracks is the first sign that - just maybe - the album you&#039;re listening to isn&#039;t great.  In fact, maybe P4K&#039;s review criteria is akin to &quot;the emperor&#039;s new clothes&quot; - a lot of great words talking about something that really isn&#039;t there.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Pitchfork is predictable in their assignment of the &#8220;best new music&#8221; (BNM) tag; and you&#8217;re right in that you could see the BNM tag coming for this album months ago (when P4K started writing about every rumor that surfaced regarding the album).  </p>
<p>I also agree with you regarding the quotes from the review itself.  How can an album &#8211; especially a bloated one like this &#8211; be a great album if you need to hit the &#8220;skip&#8221; button to get through it?</p>
<p>By comparison, how many songs did P4K recommend a listener skip on &#8220;In Rainbows,&#8221; or on &#8220;The Joshua Tree&#8221;?  Easy&#8230;none.  Hell, even their review of the unbelievably pretentious Dirty Projectors album didn&#8217;t suggest the listener skip any songs.  </p>
<p>The conclusion here is skipping tracks is the first sign that &#8211; just maybe &#8211; the album you&#8217;re listening to isn&#8217;t great.  In fact, maybe P4K&#8217;s review criteria is akin to &#8220;the emperor&#8217;s new clothes&#8221; &#8211; a lot of great words talking about something that really isn&#8217;t there.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

