10 years ago, Rolling Stone had this to say about Joanna Newsom being universally acclaimed, especially by Pitchfork.
Why are they constantly on the wrong side of history?
ought play em some current 93
Looks faked.
Source please.
>>63115379
find anything there that was wrong
>Ger music lacks melody, tonality
>>63115828
>lacks melody, tonality, humor
regardless of what you think of the album, this is all provably wrong
>>63115379
>lacks melody, tonality
lol this has to be fake, nice try
Fun fact: according to rolling stone, in the aeroplane is a 6/10 and every Kanye album is better than OK Computer.
Why the fuck are their reviews taken seriously at all
>>63116171
OK Computer is garbage though anon
>>63115379
>genuinely awesome tracks like Clipse, Hot Chip and TV on the Radio.
>>63115538
https://web.archive.org/web/20070214124052/http://www.rollingstone.com/artists/joannanewsom/albums/album/12006524/review/12020211/ys
this was their entire Ys review, it's real
>>63116230
>Makes bjork sound like kelly clarkson
Lost it.
>caring this much about what other people think
why?
>>63116230
>ep
>>63116230
Accurate af imo famalamadingdong
>>63116230
>one sentence
>>63116412
>5 songs = ep
how dumb are these people?
>>63115379
what the hell is the source?
this looks like the page you get when you're banned
>>63115379
Fucking hell. What a fucking stupid magazine. This is why I hate music journalists. No other faggots change their tune so fucking quickly.
>>63117917
there are a handful of posts online from ten years ago in reference to it, but it seems like Rolling Stone have tried to sweep their dismissal of her under the rug like they did for Led Zeppelin and Black Sabbath.
rolling stone is fucking horrible
i mean im not a pitchfork fan but rs is really fucking bad
Seems legit.
>>63115379
They're right that it is stupid to proclaim Newsom as "devoid of artifice" since it's pretty damn clear that she's a total master of artifice.
>>63118236
in a good way?
>>63116230
It is fake though, where is the comment about melody/tonality?
>>63118315
It was a separate article that came out a few months later you fucking mong
Rs has always been shit they have given lots of great acts debuts shit reviews then spend a decade blowing them after the market disagrees with their review
>>63118338
this
>>63118329
Then provide a source for it...
>>63118362
why don't you provide a source for these nuts nigga
>>63116171
They're right about ITAOTS though
>>63117958
Music journos are very fockle people.
>>63118292
Yes, of course.
Bob Dylan was way off the deep end, pulling glory out of thin air, in his golden age too, so it's kind of dumb for Rolling Stone to be bashing the idea of (art)ificiality.
