Posted in music on January 8, 2009

Animal Collective

[12:26] TheBeard4904: yeah, i think radiohead is an interesting comparison...in [Flavorwire's] review, we said that this record is animal collective's bid to take things to a radiohead-like level...this sort of class of acceptable weirdo groups that are allowed into the mainstream, people like bjork, radiohead, beck...do you think that's an overreach?

[12:28] Mark_Pitchfork-666: that is something I have wondered about with this one, whether it will cross over to people who don't follow music as closely...my initial thought is that I'm a little bit skeptical of it happening, because there are still a lot of things about A.C. that are pretty strange...one thing with Radiohead, is that every album had least a few tunes that could fairly be described as "rock songs." you could tell what all the instruments were, there are guitars, etc., but that's not really true with this record.

That's a segment from an interview with the AC-reviewer Mark Richardson. As already discussed, the album is out (on vinyl) and he (Pitchfork) gave it a 9.6. Did you get a copy?

You can listen to "My Girls" in the video below...

Animal Collective - My Girls

---

      

Comments (108)

I wish people would stop referring to them as AC. Everyone knows the real A.C. is the shit grind band Anal Cunt. Keep it straight guys.

Posted by Anonymous | January 8, 2009 12:22 PM

I really like the album but a 9.6? Come on now. People really like to jerk off over this band. Brothersport is an awesome track though.

Posted by Anonymous | January 8, 2009 12:26 PM

this album is incredible.

Posted by Anonymous | January 8, 2009 12:32 PM

4.2

Posted by Anonymous | January 8, 2009 12:34 PM

6.9

Posted by That guy | January 8, 2009 12:36 PM

6.2

Posted by Anonymous | January 8, 2009 12:39 PM

10.0

Posted by Anonymous | January 8, 2009 12:41 PM

I can't shake off the feeling that said score was a cold blooded calculation.

Like say, last year they gave TV on the Radio, Deerhunter and No Age a 9+. So, in a way they went ahead and said: "this album is really good, but in terms of score we need to put it above the rest"

It's not unheard of that numerical scores get tweaked to best serve a publication purpose.

Not dissing the album, just saying.

Posted by dee | January 8, 2009 12:44 PM

most people can't take pitchfork reviews seriously
so fuck the rating (its a dang old digit anyway. what does that even mean?)

The review was fairly accurate in the way he describes it.

Posted by Anonymous | January 8, 2009 12:45 PM

9.9

Posted by Anonymous | January 8, 2009 12:45 PM

Who?

Posted by Anonymous | January 8, 2009 12:47 PM

"that is something I have wondered about with this one, whether it will cross over to people who don't follow music as closely...my initial thought is that I'm a little bit skeptical of it happening, because there are still a lot of things about A.C. that are pretty strange...one thing with Radiohead, is that every album had least a few tunes that could fairly be described as "rock songs." you could tell what all the instruments were, there are guitars, etc., but that's not really true with this record."

another thing people don't mention is that radiohead built a following by putting out two VERY MAINSTREAM albums- pablo honey and the bends.

Posted by ben | January 8, 2009 12:47 PM

Corbra Hands!

Posted by Anonymous | January 8, 2009 12:48 PM

six minutes of a casio beat with vocals so effects laden you can't make out what they're saying is a 9.6???
this band is garbage, go listen to the residents instead.

Posted by Anonymous | January 8, 2009 12:53 PM

the only worthwhile review pitchfork's ever published:

http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/article/record_review/38853-shine-on

Posted by FRX | January 8, 2009 12:57 PM

Comparing Animal Collective to Radiohead is like comparing Basquiat to Dali. Seriously, think about it. Mind you, I really like both bands.

ps- AC should NEVER be compared to Radiohead!

Posted by Anonymous | January 8, 2009 1:00 PM

10.1

Posted by Regular reader | January 8, 2009 1:01 PM

Did anyone else realize that the day after AC got a 9.6, Black Rebel Motorcycle Club got a 0.4

The perfect 10! How clever you P4k d-bags!

Posted by Anonymous | January 8, 2009 1:03 PM

AC is for Alice Cooper

Posted by Anonymous | January 8, 2009 1:04 PM

New album is good, but "AC" is for Al Cowlings, as in:

"Cause I'm down with Dre like AC is down with OJ" - Ice Cube

Posted by Big Perm | January 8, 2009 1:09 PM

comparing Animal Collective to Radiohead is like comparing a turd to a booger.
Any idiot at guitar center could hook up a delay pedal and float some notes over a loop. hippie bullshit heralded as "art".

If you want a high rating from Pitchfork just run your mix through a reverb plug-in.

Posted by tired of loops | January 8, 2009 1:10 PM

What time does Daft Punk go on?

Posted by Anonymous | January 8, 2009 1:16 PM

Who gives a crap what some tool from pitchfork thinks? It's as good as you personally think it is.

Posted by Anonymous | January 8, 2009 1:18 PM

it's so fucking good.

Posted by slob | January 8, 2009 1:20 PM

"If you want a high rating from Pitchfork just run your mix through a reverb plug-in."

Hey pal, thanks for the tip...I just scored a cool 9.2 and I'm not even a musician!

Posted by Anonymous | January 8, 2009 1:20 PM

god, those harmonized vocals are annoying as fuck.

supposedly this is the material that they played during the SSS show two years ago. If so, Im not looking forward to it.

Posted by Anonymous | January 8, 2009 1:22 PM

AC is for Newman

Posted by Anonymous | January 8, 2009 1:25 PM

Comparing Basquiat to Dali is - HEY YOU SHUT THE FUCK UP MAN.

Posted by Anonymous | January 8, 2009 1:25 PM


AC is for AC Slater

Posted by Anonymous | January 8, 2009 1:34 PM

regardless of how amazing this album is, the nutso hype has got to stop. it was bad enough before they had to go and drop the RH comparison

Posted by sarah | January 8, 2009 1:37 PM

every track i hear from this band sucks worse than the last one...

you people are suckers...

Posted by Anonymous | January 8, 2009 1:43 PM

9.5245421354687452145477845632112354578965421354689754123145487

Posted by Anonymous | January 8, 2009 1:44 PM

9.6 seemed a little low to me. It will attract new fans, but won't cross over. Still, it's a bloody good record. Incidentally, does Mark Rcihardson have exclusive privledge to review Animal Collective? He's covered something like their last 7 releases. Might be nice to have another voice speak about them on that site.

Posted by Anonymous | January 8, 2009 1:47 PM

I truly hope that the oncoming Super Depression throws critics into the bread line. Rating music, art, or movies is like rating the wind.

That draft was a 9.7 folks. Get a life.

Posted by Anonymous | January 8, 2009 1:50 PM

Black Mountain's "In The Future" was a much better record than MPP and that didn't get a 9.6.

Do you think their record company gives Pitchfork a little money "under the table" for that review?

Posted by Anonymous | January 8, 2009 1:55 PM

OASIS > Animal Collective

Posted by Anonymous | January 8, 2009 1:58 PM

AC Newman got a 9.6?

Posted by Anonymous | January 8, 2009 1:59 PM

AC Newman got a 9.6?

Posted by Anonymous | January 8, 2009 2:00 PM

Are we talking about Anderson Cooper?

Posted by Anonymous | January 8, 2009 2:00 PM

"Do you think their record company gives Pitchfork a little money "under the table" for that review?"

I'm pretty sure the staff of Pitchfork is too busy blowing each other to accept payoffs.

Posted by Anonymous | January 8, 2009 2:01 PM

Alistair Crowley is the true AC....just ask Jimmy Page and Ozzy.

Posted by Anonymous | January 8, 2009 2:03 PM

Radiohead is a stupid comparison, but makes much more sense than all the grateful dead compasions I keep reading in reviews? Ok, they're both trippy, play long versions live, and people take drugs to them, but one band did one thing, reasonably well, that had been around before them and didn't exactly push many boundaries, and the other is constantly rethinking their craft, incorporating new instruments and new arrangements and always innovating. Oh, I guess the dead played at MPP, so, sure, they're the same band.

Posted by Anonymous | January 8, 2009 2:06 PM

grizzly bear will put out a better album and get a lower score.


Just say'n

Posted by Anonymous | January 8, 2009 2:07 PM

AC is for air conditioning

Posted by Anonymous | January 8, 2009 2:10 PM

Sucks

Boring

Dribble

Droning

Tedius

This band has NEVER been good.

You people are sheep!

Pitchfork say...you do.


Posted by Not Anonymous | January 8, 2009 2:12 PM

Its good.

the phillies won the world series.

Posted by mike | January 8, 2009 2:14 PM

It was going to be my first LP, and I couldn't get a copy :-/ LPs at Other Music sold out the first day. They said there will be more the day the CD comes out, Jan 20th.

Posted by Eduardo | January 8, 2009 2:36 PM

AC is for Alternating Current.

Nikola Tesla REPRESENT!

Posted by KC | January 8, 2009 2:40 PM

Eduardo, eBay that shit if you are desperate.

Posted by Anonymous | January 8, 2009 2:54 PM

tesla -- long live phish!

Posted by Anonymous | January 8, 2009 2:59 PM

12:22 thinks he knows shit. Anal Cunt's abbreviation of choice is AxCx. Get with the program, retard.

Posted by Anonymous | January 8, 2009 3:12 PM

This band is so GOOD!!!!!!!!

Haha, just kidding. What a shitty band.

Posted by Anonymous | January 8, 2009 3:14 PM

Pitchfork is quickly becoming a parody of itself.
Your reviewers continue to score albums by band name instead of by actual content.

Did you even give this record a listen??

Maybe the Pitchfork crew could just announce scores now the next five AC, Deerhunter, and No Age albums.

Posted by FrostBiteBoy | January 8, 2009 3:23 PM

Panda should go back to Portugal! yay, I love backlash!!!

Posted by Anonymous | January 8, 2009 3:28 PM

i did and it's so good!
i'm still on the fence though about some of the harmonizing on the actual record
i was so use to hearing these songs live
where aveys cries were much more upfront
i kind of miss it now
now his singing kind of just blends with panda

guys what review was it that i read where it compared panda and avey singing to one of a choir boy and the other a cantankerous child for strawberry jam?
that was really perfect
i kind of wish MPP had that effect vocally
it's my only qualm with this album
but even with that it's settling very nicely in my head and bones and beat
yeah so word sonically this album is definitely making a nice spot as one of the best for me

did anyone miss how they didn't have a jacket sleeve in this one for lyrics it was a nice suprise when i found in in strawberry even though it's the easiest album of theirs to make out

oh and the optical illision doesn't really show up anymore once on the album cover
do i have to put it really close up?

Posted by Anonymous | January 8, 2009 3:44 PM

yeah, go listen to boring, conventional bands from brooklyn instead of ac

Posted by Anonymous | January 8, 2009 3:58 PM

damn, i couldn't get "my girls" out of my head since they headlined pitchfork last summer. i knew the track would be on the new album (probably), but had no idea what the track was called.

ever had a song in your head for fucking 6 months? shite.

Posted by anon | January 8, 2009 4:15 PM

Atlantic City


3.14159265


Delicious pi.

Posted by Anonymous | January 8, 2009 4:15 PM

yeah i really don't get it
i can understand with flavor of the week bands
but animal collective have hard at work perfecting and morphing their sounds like way before i even ever started listening to music seriously
they definitely deserve all the praise they're getting right now
i think they're one of the most fufilling artist to listen to these days
and there really aren't many these days
not that their contemporaries aren't good
it's just that animal collective are really smart in their sounds and new and fresh
most bands who have 10 years under their belt sound stale
but they sound sonically new, i feel like they're even giving a nod to the air of the times musically how this album is more sonically dance heavy
but they aren't like ppl who are just following the dance sound of 07 who are following '86, but like how they would want dance music to sound

bottom line i just really really like them
and ppl shouldn't get caught in the hype
they should just buy the album and move to it
or not

Posted by Anonymous | January 8, 2009 4:15 PM

I hate how most music is moving towards an 80's-disco-ambient style.

I hate this type of music. And A.C. is Anal Cunt.

Posted by Aaron | January 8, 2009 4:24 PM

4:15
word!!!
but for me it was guys eyes
ever since panda played it it perked me up
then when i heard animal collective play it at sss
it's been itching my brain with that tune
i could only remember the tune that reminded me of muted sunction sound
i almost cried when it played on my record player yesterday

Posted by Anonymous | January 8, 2009 4:26 PM

this shit sounds FRESH to you?

reverby voices and samples and delay pedals?

god, just because they're not "rock" doesn't mean it's a new sound...

it's a shame because I looked the lyrics up and they're pretty good.

but the breathy vocals get lost, to me it sounds like shit.

if you like it, great, i'm not going to say your taste sucks. but new it isn't, fresh it isn't.

Posted by Anonymous | January 8, 2009 4:30 PM

so, is this out on CD or no? i can't find it anywhere.

Posted by Anonymous | January 8, 2009 4:31 PM

"grizzly bear will put out a better album and get a lower score."


ha. that is very, very, very doubtful. grizzly bear isn't half as good as animal collective. jus' stating the facts.

Posted by Anonymous | January 8, 2009 4:33 PM

i don't know maybe it's cuz i'm really driven towards deep beats
and i guess this album is closest to driving to really crazy beets and climaxes, so it sounds really fresh compared to the other alternatives i have to bassy beet music i go to listen to
but i think even in the noise catagory it seems fresh and new
i can't help but to think of (please excuse me for quoting this it probably seems obnoxious) but of the fountainhead when the aurthors and musicians would make a new style and really it was just jibberish. i think that is how it is for alot of acts these days but with animal collective i think there are really clear lines to their sound.

yeah you're really right the lyrics are amazing
and that's the one thing with this album that i think i'm gonna have to come to terms with in my continued listen
i could understand what they were saying at their live shows and was really prety
but the vocals can sound almost murky for mpp
maybe in being a bit more accessible (though i really can't see that) sonically they've leaned toward weirdness vocally

i probably sound really lame posting this
but damnit kids this album really moves me
and my friends won't let me talk about it anymore

Posted by Anonymous | January 8, 2009 4:40 PM

to 4:31
no just vinyl but you get a free mp3 code for the whole album

hey did anyone elses come out scratched during no more runnin
mine did
and the folder was all bent and stuff
so much for it's future as a collectors item
ha

Posted by Anonymous | January 8, 2009 4:43 PM

musicsnobbery gave MPP a 4.2

Posted by Anonymous | January 8, 2009 4:47 PM

boo bands that are constantly changing their sounds and being innovative. hooray for shitty guitar driven music abundant with boring hooks!

Posted by Anonymous | January 8, 2009 4:47 PM

well work is now over so i can go home and listen to it
and stop writing about it!

Posted by Anonymous | January 8, 2009 4:51 PM

Animal Collective don't give a damn about Pitchfork, what you think, or what is for dinner.

They just want to push the envelope, buddy.

Posted by Anonymous | January 8, 2009 5:42 PM

.000000000000000000000000000000009

Posted by Anonymous | January 8, 2009 5:44 PM

AC 360

Posted by Anonymous | January 8, 2009 5:52 PM

@ 4:47

they also have a ben kweller album in their "cd picks" section. yikes.

Posted by Anonymous | January 8, 2009 5:58 PM

hey 4:40
I'm assuming it was you who made the other 2 or 3 posts with the constant pushing of the enter button after every sentence. If so, please stop saying "sonic," "sonically," or any of its variations. You do not sound smart. Thank you.

Posted by Anonymous | January 8, 2009 5:58 PM

FrostBiteBoy - I thought P4K became a parody of themselves quite some time ago, and then seemed to move past it. They've been more genuine about their tastes in the last couple of years. And you know, while they pointed out that this is a higher score than any new release in 2008, it's also higher than anything from 2007. You'd have to go back a ways to find something this high. Which just goes to show that, as we've come to know what to expect from them, they're learning to temper their approval as well. Which Richardson addressed in the interview.

The record really deserves that at least, and plenty of other publications have gone beyond their rating. And, what's better than high praise from P4K is that Rolling Stone gave it a measly 3.5 stars. Guess it's no Dear Science...

Posted by Anonymous | January 8, 2009 6:03 PM

This band is not edgy, innovative, or experimental.

Posted by Anonymous | January 8, 2009 6:47 PM

6:47 - really? how do you figure?

Posted by Anonymous | January 8, 2009 6:50 PM

If you don't like A.C. fine, but god, after reading 200 comments on sterogum now 80 here, is just pure madness.

If you see anthing with Animal Collective on it then move on, like how i do when i see anything to do with TVOTR. Let the people who like the album discuss it and stop trying to be dicks.

Posted by Anonymous | January 8, 2009 9:14 PM

Tuck Animal Collective, they're too popular. And Pitchfork likes them, so the must be shit.

Posted by Anonymous | January 8, 2009 10:14 PM

Ian Cohen blows.

Posted by Anonymous | January 8, 2009 10:57 PM

""grizzly bear will put out a better album and get a lower score."


ha. that is very, very, very doubtful. grizzly bear isn't half as good as animal collective. jus' stating the facts."

You are just plain wrong


Grizzly Bear>>>>>Animal Collective

More interesting chord progressions and songs. ANimal collective=3 chords, tribal beats and Beach Boy rip off harmonies. Pretty at times, but nothing special .

Posted by Anonymous | January 8, 2009 11:03 PM

Pitchfork is great for hipsters. But for the real world Pitchfork sucks and so does Animal Collective. I saw them at All Points West and they were embarrassingly bad. If you were there and thought it was good please comment below as to what drugs you were on because I need that shit.

Posted by I Enjoy Actual Music | January 8, 2009 11:24 PM

them!

Posted by Anonymous | January 8, 2009 11:30 PM

hey i wasn't trying to sound smart
it was the only word that kept coming to my head to separate the album vocally from their musical back drops

Posted by Anonymous | January 8, 2009 11:33 PM

I liked them on All Points West and I was just a lil high on some good old fashioned American style marijuana

Posted by Anonymous | January 8, 2009 11:34 PM

Haha the album isnt even pop sounding in terms of mainstream music. in terms of animal collective its really poppy and i really dig the new sound. this album has a way different sound then the live performances. its really thick and layered. I love all their stuff, but this is a really cool step that they have taken in a really sonically awesome direction

Posted by Anonymous | January 8, 2009 11:43 PM

this new record does not sound like any other band making music out there. you cannot compare this to anything really, it is a new type of dance music. how some people say it's not original is beyond me

Posted by Anonymous | January 9, 2009 12:08 AM

"You people are sheep!

Pitchfork say...you do"

Or a shit ton of people like this album.

Including pitchfork.

Including me.

Posted by Anonymous | January 9, 2009 5:40 AM

"I'm pretty sure the staff of Pitchfork is too busy blowing each other to accept payoffs."

FTW.

Animal Collective I could leave or take. I think person pitch is the best thing from that camp.

Just wanted to replay that awesome comment for those who may not have had the opportunity to laugh at it.

okay, good bye.

Posted by MY NAME IS JUDGE | January 9, 2009 10:04 AM

i think the Radiohead comparisons are going to start coming up because of how well the record's mixed (ala Kid A). Ben Allen took the music to the next level.

ctrl + F "Pet Sounds" no text found wtf

Posted by Anonymous | January 9, 2009 11:16 AM

"go listen to The Residents instead"?

There's never been a bigger 'emperor's clothes' band than the Residents.
At least AC aren't a bunch of douchebags wasting money on costumes and at least AC's artsy gimmicks are interesting.

Thanks for the advice, Dad....who still works at a record store.

Posted by Anonymous | January 9, 2009 11:24 AM

when i was a kid i liked shitty music too, you'll all grow up. it's ok.

and when you're old like me (and you will be), and still rapturous over music, and the kids are hailing something that's a rehash of something you got over twenty years ago, you'll roll your eyes and remember this comment.

or will you?

Posted by Anonymous | January 9, 2009 4:33 PM

"when i was a kid i liked shitty music too, you'll all grow up. it's ok.

and when you're old like me (and you will be), and still rapturous over music, and the kids are hailing something that's a rehash of something you got over twenty years ago, you'll roll your eyes and remember this comment.

or will you?"

Probably not.

Posted by Anonymous | January 9, 2009 4:47 PM

then enjoy it, man.

Posted by Anonymous | January 9, 2009 11:02 PM

Art Cocksworth

Posted by Anonymous | January 10, 2009 11:24 PM

You actually get .wav file codes for the album.

Posted by Anonymous | January 10, 2009 11:27 PM

www.myspace.com/bobbyp7

Posted by Anonymous | January 10, 2009 11:29 PM

Andronicus Clitberry

Posted by Anonymous | January 10, 2009 11:31 PM

i really hate old ppl who can't let go of what coolness they had when they were younger
and then get bitter when kids don't really care what they have to say
maybe isntead of sounding like a geezer and showing your age and jealousy and talking about what we listen to sounds like a copy of what you listened to
just be cool and not care
or sit back and listen on a younger genrations take on similiar influences
yeesh

Posted by Anonymous | January 15, 2009 1:51 PM

i dont know how you can listen to those vocal harmonies and say this is good.

Posted by Anonymous | January 15, 2009 2:15 PM

"this album has a way different sound then the live performances. its really thick and layered." u r dumb

Posted by Anonymous | January 19, 2009 6:42 PM

Pitchfork gave Wilco's "Yankee Hotel Foxtrot" a 10.

Is this album really only 0.4 points below masterpieces such as YHF? I personally don't think so.

Oh yeah - and Pitchfork obviously has a thing for Animal Collective.

Posted by Anonymous | January 20, 2009 2:14 AM

I give this article a 9.6
I give these comments a 5.4
I give my reviews a 0.8

You're posting a in a troll thread.
-
-
THE GAME.

Posted by Anonymous | February 23, 2009 6:25 PM

AC is for Aaron Carter

Posted by Anonymous | May 21, 2009 8:49 AM

MPP is good, but doesn't stand up to Feels and Sung Tongs. Those were Animal Collective's true masterpieces. They should tone down the electronic influences and go back to their psych-folk style.

Posted by Anonymous | October 27, 2009 1:40 AM

People who have bad things to say about AnCo just havent taken the time to listen to them, or their brains are just not developed enough to interpret such great music. Animal Collective doesnt give a shit about what pitchfork or any of you people think. They make the kind of music they want, they arent trying to produce something that everyone will love. Pitchfork thinks MPP is a great album, and so do I. Everyone has their own opinions but don't make Animal out to be some foolish band catering to pitchfork for a good rating. giving pitchfork money under the table? What an idiotic comment.

ps Avey is a genious

Posted by Anonymous | December 29, 2009 3:14 PM

sung tongs is better

Posted by Anonymous | April 6, 2010 6:11 PM

Leave a Comment