ApproximatelyInfinite

I've been a Strokes fangirl for ten years this weekend :disappointed: :heart:

If you perceived anything I said as an insult to your intelligence, I honestly apologize. This is why I try not to write anything on here without looking at both sides of the coin, because whenever anyone does, someone always ends up feeling slighted. I took my chances on this topic this time because I really don't see the other side of the coin, when I think usually I'd at least point out the other parts of the conflicting argument I found valid. This time, I didn't take the time to convey my inability to understand in more neutral terms, which I probably shouldn't do anymore.

LORE :kiss: :P No insults perceived. This IS me relaxed, I can write three paragraphs on a toenail :lol:

That's exactly what it is: a placeholder for their website before the full review, which will almost definitely appear in the print magazine, accompanying the already-determined 7/10 rating. In fact, that pretty high rating is probably WHY it's a short blurb: people are going to want to buy the magazine so they can read what they really have to say about it in more depth. The full review will sell the magazine, the web-blurb of a few hundred words tells you the full review is coming but you have to buy the magazine to get it. The fact that people are getting so disappointed over a teaser web-blurb is astounding to me. This is almost certainly not all there will be from them, and journalists for websites like SPIN aren't allowed to just write however much they want about what they hear, online or in print. Word limits are strict in journalism. And just because "any music journalist worth their salt" would know these things already doesn't mean the READERSHIP does. They're not writing for other music journalists, or even necessarily the people that already know the things they're writing about, they're writing for the common, casual fan. That's who you have to sell records to: the people who know these things already and have heard them over and over are already going to buy it. I don't think most of the casual fans have watched a lot, or probably any of the webcasts this year. I know tons of people who consider themselves fans of Coldplay in various capacities, and fans of music in general, who never would have bothered to turn on a webstream or even Glasto when it was on US or British TV. They rely on big-name blogs and magazines to find out about these things, and are probably most interested in the singles first, and the song that has another recognizable artist featured on it. It's not that the knowledge isn't rare, it's that it's not in the places most people but the fans like us frequent and care to look for it. These sorts of reviews bring it out into the open so more people can learn about it without boring them with intricacies that won't matter as much to them until they hear it.

Has it ever occurred to some of us that we happen to know a lot about this album? Like, more than any others of theirs before release? They've said it themselves: that's the strategy this time around. I don't think that means that everyone that's heard it that turns around and writes something about it is LYING or leading us on, I think...it's because we just know a hell of a lot about this album and that there aren't a ton of little things that are left for us to find out like there are with more traditionally-promoted albums. Sure, there are some things left for us to discover, but just because the people that have heard it so far haven't torn every slight thing apart in the space they have doesn't mean they're full of shit, either. We have to keep in mind that they're writing for a wider audience who DON'T know every little move they've made and every single new song they've performed this summer--most people have only heard ETIAW and Paradise, and some not even those, yet are still interested in this album. Reviewers don't just write reviews for mega-fans that know a lot more by nature about these things before release than the vast majority of their readership. Whatever, I'm not sure why I bother anymore. This is going to be my new reaction to everything on here I find completely preposterous, meaning I'll probably pull it out twice a day at least:

I thought it was completely ridiculous when after the ACL listening party, everyone was dismissing that one woman's personal review when she'd clearly been in attendance, but now people are dismissing published reviews on websites like SPIN's as frauds. What's going to be questioned next? The actual, physical magazine will probably have a much longer review in it--this is just a first-out blurb for the web, almost certainly with a strict word limit. YOU try writing a review of an album you just heard, or one you've listened to a million times, in that few words and see how far you get.

^and I will be bothering you for an upload if it hasn't leaked by then, you can count on that :P. I'ev got you on like 5 different websites :lol:

...it's a short review. He probably got a certain number of words, dictated by SPIN. How many details and opinions on details can you fit in to like, 300 words? I'm sorry if I sound dismissive, I try give balanced opinions about what people are saying on here, but I think it's absolutely absurd to read a positive review from a high-profile publication of a highly-anticipated album and claim that it's "fishy" and that the reviewer probably didn't even listen to the album. As I said before, why would he even bother to write a bit on something he'd never dedicated 45 minutes of his life to listen to when that's his JOB at a pretty respected magazine?

LOLZ, Yeah, you know what I meant. Meaning that I ALWAYS find him adorable. I'm a bit spazzy and scattered today. The smiley was the real point :P It might very well be 2002, that's right when Chris and Gwyneth got together. I just always figured it was more recent than that regardless of his age--he also recently said he was 28 somewhere, like on some online thing, when he's really 33 :lol:. You're probably right.

That's amazing...here I feel like one store would do that, the people that bought it early would Tweet about it or something, and EMI and all the licensing people would get on the case and sue the owners of the shop for everything they're worth, and win.

Wow, is that even legal? If that happened in the US I'm pretty sure there would be a lawsuit faster than you can say "swiss cheese."

I'm pretty sure that's from 2005/6 instead...2002 was before a lot of the world knew about Coldplay and Chris and Gwyneth had even met. There are few times I don't find Julian adorable :dazzled: *fangirl*

Exactly. I figure the boxes aren't even delivered til a day or two before anyway, so it's not like they're sitting in storage rooms in the mall or whatever weeks in advance just waiting to be opened. I don't know the stats, but a lot of leaks come from the factories, where people can see what albums they're making and gauge the hype about that album.

As non-objective as music magazine reviews may be...I don't think this is the case at all. I don't think reviewers are entirely uninfluenced by outside factors, but I'm pretty sure they DO listen to the album--why wouldn't they? To save 30 minutes of their time? We also know that journalists have had their chances to hear the whole album at press listening parties. I don't see why people are saying the reviewer couldn't possibly have heard the album. I also thought they were pretty balanced and fair in praising the album while also saying it's almost TOO good in that it's too eager to please. To me, all things point to the reviewer actually hearing AND listening to the album, and not being any sort of Coldplay/soft pop-rock snob. 7/10 is a great score, and the review itself was good and balanced--I think they seemed to match.

I've definitely heard it, but right now I can't remember...is that the one where he's being kind of abused by callers? Or is that another time? I think it must be another time because I think in the one I'm thinking of, someone mentions something about Gwyneth and Chris...or maybe I'm just being crazy. Sorry, I've had caffeine and I got overexcited with this thread appeared with new posts in it :P I'll listen to it later :wacky:.

I agree with this--although I might not be AS much of a fan of it as their other work for various reasons, I do think it's a solidly put-together album, and really cemented their career. 9/10...personally I'm not sure if I would go that far--for me, the first two albums are that, and VLV is more like 7/10, but I agree that I'm skeptical that MX can top anything they've previously released. We'll see, though, I'd love to be surprised.

Interesting--my overall impression with VLV is that it went the other way: most people loved it when it came out, but started to become more critical as time went on. I took a major hiatus from this board for awhile, but since being back, other people have said that the general opinion of VLV did cool over time. But that's all up to interpretation and who sees what when, of course. And whoever said it before was right, I think--among Coldplay fans, this is just going to have some rabid fans and some turned-off people. It's really been that way since X&Y, I think.

SO right. If they re-sign with EMI or any other major label...I don't know what the hell they're thinking.

Dreamed it leaked AGAIN last night :dozey:. I'm excited but not desperate, but maybe my subconscious is trying to tell me I am!

I tend to put vague trust in SPIN and RS, so for now I'm going to say that the 7/10 has me pretty excited...but then again, I think all high-profile reviews are crap :P The third paragraph is kind of along the lines of what I expected, but 7/10 is still pretty great.

OKC was my first, but I couldn't get into it for a year plus before I got The Bends and Pablo Honey. Those two made me like Radiohead, and then In Rainbows made something click in my head and understand Radiohead. I think it really almost makes the most sense to go in chronological order, except shove in In Rainbows before OKC :P

OK, I lied: it worked with another font file that I have, but not the ETIAW one. I have Word 08, version 12.3.1, and no. my fonts never show up anywhere else, no other programs.

I feel like I've tried that 400 times before, but I'm going to try it again. I consider myself a fairly computer-savvy person and this has foxed me for a full year :P. Thanks! EDIT: Oh my God, that worked. I swear on my vinyl collection I've tried that before, but apparently not. THANK YOU! :dance:

Thanks, Teco! Question, though, I don't know if anyone can help me out: how do you install new fonts on a Mac so that they work in MS Word and Photoshop etc? I used to be the master of this on PCs, but ever since going Mac, none of the procedures for adding fonts to be usable in applications like Word work :\. Anyone have any tips?

Single songs leaking follow different procedures than albums leaking, and "Paradise" did in fact leak, though only a few hours before first radio play. Their safety seems average, meaning that it'll probably leak anyway--It has a traditional release schedule and structure, meaning that leaks are most likely to come from the physical CD factory itself. Prominent albums (and not so prominent albums) pretty much ALWAYS leak. Exceptions to this rule are people who do surprise releases, like Radiohead this year. When something's released traditionally, as in on physical CDs and with huge lead-up and promo, it just...happens pretty unavoidably. Kanye and Jay-Z outsmarted it, and unless Coldplay made similar deals like they did (I feel like we might have heard about it if they did), I don't think there's a shot of this not leaking at some point before the 19th. I feel like I repeat myself every few days in this thread, so I should just lay off :lol:. Overall point: we're not past the point where it should have happened already. Everyone stop worrying :P