Which publications allow critics to review albums from leaked downloads?

I don't see why this is necessarily a problem, Tim. Reviewers are not required to name every (or even most every) song on every album they review. How can you be so sure the reviewer didn't hear the bonus EP, but thought it was ignorable (and maybe disagreed with you about its song structures?) Unless the review expressly says "there is no bonus EP," which I doubt (though I haven't actually looked at the review.) (Even if the reviewer used "latter half of the album" to review to the latter half of the main CD, and not the bonus one, this strikes me more as a semantic disagreement than anything more sinister.)

And again, it IS a part of the album given that there is no version of the album that doesn't include it. It just happens to be called "Bonus EP." (And, again also, it was odd that the second disc contains the type of songs the reviewer felt were lacking from the second half of the first disc.)

In. Your. Opinion. Again: How do you know he didn't hear them differently from you? And what evidence do you have that he didn't hear the EP? Not mentioning it proves nothing, one way or another.

x-post

Yes, the promos did come with the bonus EP.

They don't feel like leftovers or outtakes TO YOU, Tim. Why is it so hard for some critics to conceive that everybody is not born with the same ears?

Doesn't necessarily follow.

Anyway, was trying to make greater point about people reviewing albums when they've downloaded a leaked version (which could obviously lead to problems) and wondering how common this is.

Tim, just think of it in terms of what the artist might consider to be the complete work.

To cut to the point: Has PFM reviewed things from leaks in the past? Yes, and has been deservedly burned. I can't say for sure that has not happened in the past eight months or so (since I've been managing editor), but I'm sure it's possible that it has w/o me knowing it.

I don't mind saying there are times when mp3s from promos are ripped and distributed to writers, thus robbing them of clear cases and one-sheets, but the preferred method of distributing records to our reviewers is cutting the office out as a middleman and having the label or PR furnish the writer directly, with my help if needed. This has become the standard, and we're finally getting virtually every promo we request, which is a big help.

And I definitely am thinking of it in terms of what the artist might consider to be the complete work. I'd be surprised if people who had the double disc set thought otherwise.

xpost
you're not getting Tzadik, a company which makes a point of not sending out review copies, which didn't stop someone from reviewing a box set he doesn't even own

(not to grill Dahlen for his well written review, who fessed up to not bothering to buy the box on the Naked City thread... he wrote a review assuming his audience had no idea whatsoever about the band and therefore wasn't concerned about the new packaging, remastering, and unreleased music contained within... but if the reviewer isn't enough of a fan to care about those things either, the 'review' should make that explicit, the review is technically not a review of the box)

That said, I also don't know we're reading so much into Pitchfork's motives/actions. The larger discussion is more interesting, I think.

the example I was referring to was the Snoop album, which initially contained references to songs that aren't on the released version. and that was like 5 months ago.

oh gosh, I must have been blocking that one out of my mind! Yeah, R mailed a copy of the LP with a slightly different tracklist tham the finihsed one. That was careless and inexcusable, no doubt.