I think it was released in October of 2005. PF was a little late to this one...

oh my god if they don't tell us what's cool on time what good are they?

I don't care when they publish a review, but the review says "2006". That's all I meant. Maybe it was rereleased because it also says "Ibid".

it did come out in 2005, but yes, it's been re-issued.

as for the review, better late than never.

just saw them w/ Voxtrot last night, fantastic show.

ibid is actually the band's own record label. it was released in november 2005, and has yet to be rereleased...

yeah, just checked my copy actually and noticed that ;)

from the band's site"

28.2.2006
in the news today, the loon got a nice review on pitchfork. they said it was "best new music", and who are we to argue.

in other news: thanks to everyone who weathered the cold, and the monday's, and came out to the show last night. god bless you. the boys would also like thank voxtrot, for having them play the show. if you missed last night's show, and you live in the greater twin cities area, come on down and catch the boys play at the fine line this thursday (3/2) for the radio k listener appreciation part-ay (FREE for radio k music lovers card holders). it's an 18+ affair, and good times will be had by all.

well, that's all the news for now.

Disqualifed on a technicality? What a shame.

In related news, Arcade Fire is #1 on the NME charts this week with "Tunnels".

What the hell year is it?

October or November of 2005 is new enough for me!

Sheesh!

It's new. no argument. I WASN'T CRITICIZING PF FOR REVIEWING AN ALBUM THAT'S 3 MONTHS OLD.

It just wasn't released in 2006....

Amp Camp says:
BAND: Tapes 'n Tapes
RELEASE: Nov 11 2005
LABEL: Ibid

PITCHFORK says:
Tapes 'n Tapes The Loon
[Ibid; 2006]
Rating: 8.3

I'D criticize Pitchfork for reviewing an album that's three months old. After all, they're awfully eager to go hype-over-heels about CDs that haven't even been released yet.

Can't wait for their Light Footwork review.

Pass it on: Pitchfork is the new Village Voice is the new New York Times. By the time they notice something, it's already over.

I'D criticize Pitchfork for reviewing an album that's three months old. After all, they're awfully eager to go hype-over-heels about CDs that haven't even been released yet.

Can't wait for their Light Footwork review.

Pass it on: Pitchfork is the new Village Voice is the new New York Times. By the time they notice something, it's already over.

I'm with BV on this one. The reveiw should have at least mentioned that the album was released in 05 and could have said that ibid is the band's label.

Solution: stop covering Pitchfork.

Gack. I'm a double-poster. The shame, the shame.

Yeah, J, it really takes some of the rapier wit out of your post when I see it twice. No offense.

Yeah J I agree, Pitcfork has had absloutely nothing to do with the success of the Arcade Fire, Clap Your Hands, Fiery Furnaces, Wolf Parade, the Hold Steady, Devendra Banhart or any number of artists. Its influence is clearly waning.

J I agree, Pitchfork has had absloutely nothing to do with the success of the Arcade Fire, Broken Social Scene, Clap Your Hands, Fiery Furnaces, Wolf Parade, the Hold Steady, Devendra Banhart or any number of artists. Its influence is clearly waning.

Ouch, Dylan.

And Will, did I say that people don't slavishly follow the Pforkfolk?

Am happy for the # of CDs the TnT kids will sell due to this. I'm sure Broken Social Scene sold a bunch of product after being featured in the Times. Kelly Clarkson's numbers doubled after The Grammys. Press is press is press. Pitchfork is just another piece of press.

Pitchfork is powerful, maybe too powerful, but at least they're hyping really good bands! I haven't seen an "emporer's new indie band" out of them in a while.

I just pitched them a semi-fictional piece where Ben Gibbard takes on Colin Melloy in a no-holds-barred steel cage match on a Thursday Smackdown at the Peach Pit, I mean Crab Shack!

Seriously --
beyond BV, who has said anything about this band besides a few blogs and a shitty e-zine. They move much faster than a site like pitchfork. With release schedules dictating 90% of what they cover, what is wrong with them finding an opportunity to rave about a band (that is the indiest of the indiest) and maybe be a little late. Fucking a, the fact that Pitchfork still covers shit that tiny blogs like BV do is a testament to its importance. Take a deep breath, it's ok.

This could just a typo.

If you're jealous because PFork has a larger readership than your site, or wouldn't hire you, or whatever, just come out and say that.

Oh god, I don't know what's more pathetic, the fact that I just read this entire string, or that your geeks actually sat around and waxed philosophy on such a lame point. WhoTF cares if it's a typo? WhoTF cares if PF reviewed an album that's been out for 3 mos? You indier-than-indie GEEKS make me ashamed to be a music fan. Why not contenplate more imprtant things like WhyTF Cloud Cult arent at Sasquatch or Coachella?!!?!!!!

r-neg said what needed to be said. who the fuck cares. I have seen bv write nothing but love for this band (well, maybe a few times over the course of like 3 days) and the minute pfork says something good, they have something bad to say -- or at least elude to the only mistake that they made (because bv sure as hell didn't think that what the review SAID was a mistake!) All y'all on this comment board, and BV yourself, sit back and recognize that there is a website covering music that actually still means something to you, and regardless of what you think, it's a pretty good thing. Shit, someone said "press is press..." that means nothing, because Brooklyn Vegan (and Stereogum, for that matter) are hype machines -- just take a look at how many fancy contests go down. You think labels don't recognize press when they see it? Stop kidding yourselves, start recognizing that covering music is a thing, and covering music that is good is a better thing.

"Something bad to say"????

You think I'm not happy Pitchfork gave Tapes n Tapes a good review? I'm extremely happy about it. I'm sorry if what I wrote came off as a critcism of Pitchfork - it wasn't meant to be. I could care less when they post a review (see my comments above). Unlike many out there, I don't view this as a competition.

This post was meant to be positive, and the "I thought the album came out in 2005" part was just meant very 'matter of fact'. I have to learn how to express myself better because obviously a lot of people read into what I wrote. The naive person that I am, I thought this post would be filled with positive/congratulatory comments aimed at Tapes n Tapes.

It is awesome that Tapes n' Tapes got a good review. and it is awesome that Raising The Fawn also got a wonderful review yesterday. Pitchfork's attitude may often be annoying but the good press is great for the artists.

>>meant very 'matter of fact'.

It was. If they didn't read it like that, that's their problem. Don't let a few comments through you off your game.

three cheers for Tapes 'n Tapes.

Hip Hip ...

BV-
It's not that I don't think you're happy that a band that you've been behind for a while now is getting the exposure they deserve. It more follows suit with the overall attitude of the majority of people commenting in this section, and thus reading your site. This should have been filled with a bunch of "hell yeahs" for seeing a band that you have championed getting such a great review on Pitchfork, but instead, it's a bunch of people whining because Pitchfork reviewed a record 3 months after its release. Why is there a need to constantly highlight the negative side of things, regardless of how good the rest of it is? You may not be in direct competition with Pitchfork, but you do have the advantage of being able to do pretty much "anything" you want. And this allows you to cover bands the day after they play a show, or whatever. So if an actual "publication" like Pitchfork reviews something a bit later than the blogs are getting to it, who cares? You are doing the same thing as Pitchfork is -- helping to get bands that are actuallly good some exposure, and in a few cases, some huge popularity. You have the power to create a community of people out for what matters most -- getting the good word out. Instead, it's a bunch of people who pretend they don't read pitchfork/brooklyn vegan making sure they can let everyone know that they were there first. It's pathetic and depressing. whew!

we're missing the point:

that tapes n tapes album is really, really, REALLY quite BAD. and NOT bad meaning GOOD.

Just a note - Pitchfork changed the date to 2005, but still has it under "best new music." Also, their "news" today seems to imply that TnT booked the shows in light of the Pitchfork review...

Just a note - Pitchfork changed the date to 2005, but still has it under "best new music." Also, their "news" today seems to imply that TnT booked the shows in light of the Pitchfork review...