Come on, Pitchfork. As Seth Myers would say, really?
Debate N.A.S.A.'s debut album, The Spirit of Apollo, all you want, but not even the harshest critics would go as low as a 1.6 for this PMAfave. To me, this is just another "statement review" that Pitchfork feels the need to make due to N.A.S.A.'s extremely positive buzz. But that's just my opinion- maybe writer Tom Breihan just really hated the album. Give your thoughts on Pitchfork's review in the comments. Click on for Tom Breihan's harsh final paragraph.From the review:
"If anything, The Spirit of Apollo should serve as a cautionary tale. These clusterfuck all-the-cooks experiments, more often than not, add up to way, way less than the sum of their parts. It might look great on paper to get weirdo visionaries like Kool Keith and Tom Waits on the same track, but if you actually do it, you'll probably end up with Keith blathering non-sequiturs all over the beat while Waits makes sandpapery fart noises. And as for the impression of Donald Duck busting a nut that someone does at the end of "O Pato", I can't imagine that even looked good on paper."
Ouch. Earlier in his review, he calls the album a "directionless, vaguely condescending mess that wastes the talents of some people who really should've had better things to do."
What do we think about this? Is Pitchfork just trying to make a statement? Or did Tom Breihan just really not like the album?