i

Haha, I'm actually downloading that album right now, after hearing and liking Never Miss A Beat. Is it really that bad?

 

And I don't really read RS reviews that much, but i know NME have been getting on my nerves recently. Namely their review of the new Keane album :dozey:

Shouldn't this be in the music section, not the Coldplay section? :thinking:

 

But yeah, I agree. I haven't agreed with very many of their reviews recently.

i generally trust them, though i haven't been reading them as much lately as i should. that said, little wayne, 4 stars? coldplay, 3? i think they might be eating their words with VLVOD, since it gets better with time, but i think they were right in giving X&Y 3 stars originally.

 

i just don't like reviews in general. different albums mean different things to different people.

i generally trust them, though i haven't been reading them as much lately as i should. that said, little wayne, 4 stars? coldplay, 3? i think they might be eating their words with VLVOD, since it gets better with time, but i think they were right in giving X&Y 3 stars originally.

 

i just don't like reviews in general. different albums mean different things to different people.

 

Yep. Case in point: Lil Wayne deserved his 4 [and a half] stars. :p

Well, they put Chris on the cover back in June, and the whole band back in 2005...I liked those covers...

 

But their reviews are always really bad, except for X&Y (I agreed with them on that one).

 

But the review for P and AROBTTH, rubbish

 

This is why I read Spin and Q...you Brits have better taste

nothing's worse than pitchfork IMO...

moved :)

nothing's worse than pitchfork IMO...

Agreed.

yeah I was really angry with arobtth review and viva, and some other terrible albums that were rated high

Rolling Stone is rubbish when it comes to reviews. Lil Wayne, four stars, really? That's total bull. The most recent ridiculous one I can remember is the Dig Out Your Soul review, it's like they expect Oasis to write another Wonderwall in order for an album of theirs to be good. And boy does RS love Bob Dylan, geez.

 

Not sure what's so bad about the Kaiser Chiefs album though....

nothing's worse than pitchfork IMO...

nah NME beats pitchfork

^^

 

i was thinking the exact same thing a few days before this thread was put up. when i first got into music about 6yrs ago i would use rolling stone to keep upto date. but now nothing is more resourceful than NME. nonetheless the journalism in RS is of the highest quality.

Yeah, I don't get rolling stones reviews... they've been pretty erratic lately. Not that I ever cared that much to begin with.

 

nothing's worse than pitchfork IMO...

 

Yeah, but at least Pitchfork has a clear and consistent bias. Once you figure out how it works the rating will tell you a lot more about the album than words could. Which is good, because their prose sucks. Really, really sucks. Sort of like the kids in English class who think using big words they don't really know the meaning of makes them sound smart.

 

The way I think of it is that anything above 50 is good. If it's between 50 and 70, add 20 points. If it's between 70 and 90, add 10, and if it's above 90, subtract 10. I've found that gives a much better idea of how much I might like an album- the original rating tells what kind of an album it is.

Off With Their Heads is the Kaiser Chief's worst album but it isn't that bad, the songs are pretty enjoyable, but nothing stands out that much, and i thought Never Miss A Beat was a poor choice for a single BUT it's not that bad ;)

Never read Rolling Stone reviews, I like reading the reviews in Word Magazine (Home of Intelligent Life on Planet Rock) (Music Magazine of the Year 2007), because they don't actually give you a rating out of 5/10.

 

As how many times have you seen an album getting high marks to buy it, only to find out it's a waste of space?