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 shit.

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

Fuck 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 [...]