I guess they are somewhat fair, although, I am disappointed by CB's rating. I just love that song. It is such a burner and it seems to get the crowd going. That's probably the exact reasons they rated it lower than the others.

I think the scores are pretty fair, especially for Rolling Stone, but Charlie Brown should totally not be the lowest of them all, especially with only 2.5 stars. And to give Princess of China a higher rating even when no one has heard a decent version of it except the people who were present to hear it live? So besides those two, which they're obviously on crack for, I think the rest are pretty good. And the write-up was lacking in any snark :D

I'm not even gonna vote; when I see the results say they should be higher by a significantly greater amount, I will laugh so hard that I'll start to bleed from my nose.

I think the scores are fair given the clear inexperience of the reviewer. Obviously didn't read the Rock am Ring setlist. A more seasoned reviewer may have judged the live songs from the EP as well and forgot all about PoC for the time being.

Charlie Brown has started to get a bit tiring to me actually, I loved it at first but now it's just kinda repetitive and I tend to skip it. :blank:

I never read Rolling Stone so I wouldn't really know how they usually review stuff...

I added a poll :)

 

Never done that before. Awesome :D

 

Vote, people!

 

You should have added a 4th option :Not fair because they are judging songs from poor quality on Youtube"

 

I don't get it. RS is bigger than Billboard. If BB magazine can get few songs from MX, RS should have been able to do so.

OR

Maybe they are very excited about the new Coldplay era and they can't wait to write about them. Still, I'm sure they can make few calls and have a listen to the proper songs.

Perhaps these reviews are out of 4 stars, not 5...

 

No, Rolling Stone uses 5-star reviews for music.

You should have added a 4th option :Not fair because they are judging songs from poor quality on Youtube"

 

I don't get it. RS is bigger than Billboard. If BB magazine can get few songs from MX, RS should have been able to do so.

OR

Maybe they are very excited about the new Coldplay era and they can't wait to write about them. Still, I'm sure they can make few calls and have a listen to the proper songs.

 

It's not poor quality. You can't dismiss it like you do because it isn't in the best quality available, that's just stupid.

It's not poor quality. You can't dismiss it like you do because it isn't in the best quality available, that's just stupid.

 

But it's ROLLING STONE magazine!!! They should not do this. I hold them to higher standards than this.

Thank you for calling me stupid.

To be honest, I don't like the new songs as much as I like the older stuff. But Hurts Like Heaven is clearly the best songs of the 4 reviewed here and although I'm all for dark, moody songs, this one is fresh and great.

 

I appreciate Charlie Brown a little less every time I hear it. In fact it's just a repeated guitar tune with synth on top. A great tune. But besides that, it's really tacky, even the lyrics. I understand the ratings given by the RS reviewer.

50/50

 

I respect the fact that they gave PoC 3/5 besides the fact that we haven't heard a good quality version of it. I totally agree with HLH and UATW. They both are beautifully written songs and 3.5/5 brings it up there with ETIAW, which also got 3.5/5. I still love that song no matter what the haters say! But I gotta say, I was shocked by Charlie Brown! 2.5/5?! Really?! It's annoying how they "like" the song but not the way Chris delivers, even though it's one of their strongest songs ever.

You should have added a 4th option :Not fair because they are judging songs from poor quality on Youtube"

 

I don't get it. RS is bigger than Billboard. If BB magazine can get few songs from MX, RS should have been able to do so.

OR

Maybe they are very excited about the new Coldplay era and they can't wait to write about them. Still, I'm sure they can make few calls and have a listen to the proper songs.

 

I bet Billboard probably got an exclusive as the first magazine to write on the new era, but I also bet that they're either about to do or have recently done a similar interview with other big magazines like RS and are gearing up to write a bigger article in the next month or so where the reporter gets to hear the songs just like Billboard did.

 

It's not poor quality. You can't dismiss it like you do because it isn't in the best quality available, that's just stupid.

 

...if we're talking about Princess of China, I think it definitely is poor quality. All I can hear is crackly BOOMs the entire song, and from the sound of this review, I really don't think the reporter was in Germany hearing it live, so they're going off the same crap version we have, which really shouldn't be enough to publish a professional opinion on, I don't think. The other songs, fine, as we've heard them clearly as live versions, but I don't think PoC should even be on that list.

Hmm . . . this makes me wonder what score RS will give the studio versions of the songs--especially PoC :wink3:

 

But eh, add .5 to all the scores and I would agree with them ^^

Weird and Groovy? And magical... Yes it's Coldplay :dance:

And it's just because that they're as this, I love!

 

For stars,

I give 5 for Hurts Like Heaven, because it is just the best new song of the band :dance:

A,d I give 4 for Us Against The World

 

And I'm agree with them for Charlie Brown and Princess Of China...

HLH deserves 6/5

 

Absolutly :awesome:

 

But eh, add .5 to all the scores and I would agree with them ^^

 

Agreed! I think PoC will be the best of them once we gets proper versions, though. So maybe add a whole star for that one :)

Rolling Stone is irrelevant, and I'm not saying that cause they gave Coldplay a bad mark.

 

Can't agree more. Especially when a magazine puts "Like a Rolling Stone" by Bob Dylan is their best song ever and A Rush of Blood to the Head as the 473rd best album ever. Both of those things are complete garbage. There's an infinite amount of songs better than Like a Rolling Stone and ARoBttH is a really good album I don't care what anyone says. :p And it's also my personal favorite ever.

Like a Rolling Stone is an amazing song. You take that back right now.

 

And if you're on the 500 GREATEST ALBUMS EVER...I think that's pretty damn good.

Like a Rolling Stone is an amazing song. You take that back right now.

 

And if you're on the 500 GREATEST ALBUMS EVER...I think that's pretty damn good.

 

It's a great song. Not the best song ever though. And not exactly. I definitely think the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame was more realistic. #65>>>#473

It's a great song. Not the best song ever though. And not exactly. I definitely think the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame was more realistic. #65>>>#473

 

I mean, it's a critic's job to be subjective. Not to suck up to its readers. They're not doing a horrible job if you don't agree with them. :rolleyes:

 

 

 

and technically 473>65. :laugh3:

 

I mean, it's a critic's job to be subjective. Not to suck up to its readers. They're not doing a horrible job if you don't agree with them. :rolleyes:

 

Indeed sir. In that case this and the Pitchfork thread shouldn't have been created then. Nothing to discuss.

Indeed sir. In that case this and the Pitchfork thread shouldn't have been created then. Nothing to discuss.

 

Touché.

Touché.

 

Not to be rude man. Just a thought.

You're not rude! :D

 

Music is meant to be debated. Otherwise, to expand on your original thought, there's no point to this whole forum.

You're not rude! :D

 

Music is meant to be debated. Otherwise, to expand on your original thought, there's no point to this whole forum.

 

Thank you. And this is a good point. [: If everyone felt the same way about bands/albums/songs it would be extremely boring and really weird at the same time.