Comments on: Oh No They Didn’t! Pitchfork gives N.A.S.A. a 1.6

By: BabyfartMcgeezachs

BabyfartMcgeezachs — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 02:57:16 +0000

They were right. That N.A.S.A. album is s**t.

By: Xian

Xian — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 17:07:01 +0000

I don’t see what’s wrong with giving it a 1.6 if that’s what the reviewer felt it should receive. Of course not everyone is going to agree with his decision but it doesn’t directly affect how you should feel about the album. That’s just one person’s opinion; what matters is how you felt about the album as you listened to it. There are no set standards as to what is “good music”, so why get angry when someone states their opinion. Personally, I don’t see what is wrong with Pitchfork at all; it’s just an outlet for shall we say “professional appreciators”. Agree or disagree, that’s the writer’s right to give it any rating they want.

By: B. Loney

B. Loney — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 17:37:16 +0000

F**k what numerical value those “more-tasteful-than-thou” elitists assigned to the album, I like how it sounds. The very idea of a large-scale collab is a big thing to take on, so you gotta give NASA a hand for their execution, let alone the attempt. The whole unity through music thing is a lofty goal, I’ll agree, but for me it boils down to the bare bones of the music itself. And I find each song gets better every listen- the number of artists on each track makes for more detail and intricacies to be discovered.

By: p.

p. — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 14:08:32 +0000

I think criteria is a very important part of reviews, you can’t just give Lil Wayne a 8.7 for his ‘Tha Carter III’ or Kanye a 7.6 for ’808s and Heartbreak’ and give the N.A.S.A. album a 1.6 even if you were expecting it to be much better…

By: dunst_the_dude

dunst_the_dude — Sat, 21 Feb 2009 13:25:43 +0000

backing up pitchfork as if it was part of oneself… priceless

By: Kristospherein

Kristospherein — Sat, 21 Feb 2009 05:42:34 +0000

Waits makes sandpapery fart noises…did he honestly just say that? I bet he’s one of those reviewers who thinks Bob Dylan has as terrific a singing voice as Britney Spears (for those of you not catching my sarcasm…i can’t stand Dylan’s voice). Yeah, ok, Waits isn’t much of a singer, however, he at the very least, uses his voice as an instrument…something Dylan couldn’t manage to do even if someone shoved a piccolo down his throat.

How can he not award the album at least a 5 (if he truly thought it was terrible) for the amazing “Gifted” not to mention the collaboration’s kickass name!

Breihan, I give your review a sparkling 0.01 for the mere effort of typing the thing up.

By: johnny

johnny — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 20:43:02 +0000

the album’s a mess, the review was right.

principles of design: focal point.

how are you supposed to get what a song is saying if there are 16 artists on it?

posse cuts have real limitations, so an album of them? 1.6

By: Jordan

Jordan — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 05:40:11 +0000

When I saw the 1.6, I shouted “Uh Uh, Honey!”, half joking, half pissed.
I scare myself sometimes.

By: Anon

Anon — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 22:41:53 +0000

“But thatâ€™s just my opinion- maybe writer Tom Breihan just really hated the album.”

I’m glad criticism is just a matter of opinion. Let’s just throw all objective standards out the window.

By: Oh Yes They Did! Pitchfork Gives Incredibad a 7.7 at Pretty Much Amazing!

Oh Yes They Did! Pitchfork Gives Incredibad a 7.7 at Pretty Much Amazing! — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 22:00:23 +0000

[...] Oh No They Didn’t! Pitchfork gives N.A.S.A. a 1.6 [...]

By: lynas

lynas — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 18:18:42 +0000

can’t comment on this particular review though… haven’t given the NASA album a fair shake. either way, critics gotta criticize something, right?

By: lynas

lynas — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 18:17:22 +0000

I’m always skeptical of pitchfork reviews… they often seem to be more the product of misplaced angst than a carefully considered review of the music. they recently called boy crisis “the worst band in the world right now”:
“Unfortunately, one of the delegations from our fair land happened to be Boy Crisis, who are the absolute worst band in the world right now. Seriously. Think of every awful clichÃ© about Williamsburg hipster douchebags, then multiply them by 100. Then take those clichÃ©s and have them play ironic “smoove” white boy electro r&b. There you have Boy Crisis.”
Of course, boy crisis reveled in their hatrix. Any press is good press, i guess. Especially being hated on by pitchfork….

By: brennan

brennan — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 11:34:52 +0000

@granger

you’re right, but then so is NASA…

By: Danger Granger

Danger Granger — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 05:30:24 +0000

F**k Pitchfork……They are part of whats wrong with music today.

By: Sean

Sean — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 05:15:40 +0000

I think Gifted totally ruined the hype. If we got 14 different Gifted’s on the album, I’d be heavily impressed. Otherwise I agree with Steven, it sounds like a giant jumblefuck of noises and old school beats. I think people are expecting that they deserve hype because they threw Karen O and ODB on the same track–whoop-dee-f*****g-do. Honestly, not even that track impressed me, as the chorus is rather annoying.

Maybe I was expecting a little more catchy-ness? I’m not sure. But everything else seems to be totally lacking in likeness and impression. Will they make it with another single?

By: badoism

badoism — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 02:50:02 +0000

It totally sucks. I wouldn’t have bothered saying more than that about it. Amazing how albums such as this get any play is because of dumb bloggers.

By: Ants in My Trance

Ants in My Trance — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 02:46:28 +0000

I only skimmed over the album, and I haven’t read the review, but I can’t get behind what I’ve heard. Most of the beats I’ve heard sound like circa-2004 underground hip-hop. It’s a tired sound with a star-studded cast.

By: Steven

Steven — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 01:29:43 +0000

In this case I completely agree with pitchfork. Its not so much a statement against the buzz, more a warning to NASA to cease and desist from production. With all this vocal talent, its ridiculous to think that anyone could ruin A song, let alone 17! Just put down a drum beat and let Lykke Li and MIA do their thing!
Instead, the heavy and noisy beats get in the way, and each song is just a giant mess of clashing styles, gimmicky breaks, and wannabe hipsterdom. NASA should go back to skateboarding or whatever it does best. I think it deserves a zero to be completely honest.

By: TJ

TJ — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 01:07:42 +0000

I haven’t heard the album and know little to nothing about the artist, but I’ve found myself having an inverse relationship with Pitchfork since I started paying attention to them. So I think this means I need to hear this album NOW.

By: Joshua

Joshua — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 00:50:59 +0000

Actually, I kind of agree. I probably wouldn’t have rated it any higher than 3.0/10.0 myself. I completely agree with the part where he states that some of these artists are wasting their valuable time. It’s sad but I just don’t feel this album either.

By: Jared

Jared — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 00:43:38 +0000

I’m usually on board with that guys reviews, or at least his hiphop album reviews. Here, not so much

By: Alexxx

Alexxx — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 00:26:04 +0000

Maybe the album didn’t live up to the hype, but a 1.6 is a complete slap in the face.

By: turbo

turbo — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 00:24:46 +0000

I personally loved the album, and I thought it was great just to hear the artists performing together on the same songs, even if the artists have done better on their own.

By: Randy

Randy — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 00:14:16 +0000

I think Bitchfork was just trying to be funny here. Maybe.