Rolling Stone Review

[tobiasfunke]

http://www.rollingstone.com/reviews/album/20847188/review/20947123/evil_urges

[whothrewthecake]

i love this reviewer because he mentioned 10cc's massive hit of my heart.

[The DARK]

I think this guy just about nailed it.

[sweatboard]

Thanks for the link, I really like this paragraph.....

Yet you sense that for all his freaky ambition, James is still an old-fashioned guy trying to reconcile his love of tradition with the modern world. One of the record's standouts is "Librarian," an acoustic love ballad that's so archaic it's clearly a hallucination: The singer wanders through book stacks ("Since we got the Interweb, these hardly get used") and sees his crush listening to the Carpenters on AM radio. But songs, like books, invent their own reality, and by the time he reaches the hoary nerd-girl come-on, "Take off those glasses and let down your hair for me," it's enough to make you forswear your Amazon account.

This line is right on..... James is still an old-fashioned guy trying to reconcile his love of tradition with the modern world.

[TheDude]

sick article, but we're obviously all a little bias, either way.... i'm smellin' a cover!!! Post Bonnaroo after they steal the show!!

[dragonboy]

4 stars is cool but I don't care for this review..."first three albums earned them a reputation as hairy torchbearers of guitar-driven classic rock"
TTF & AD are guitar-driven classic rock?
"MMJ also embrace prog rock — a direction that initially seems at odds with their populist jam-band vibe."
Nothing odd about that...some of Z had elements of prog to it.
& who uses words like Dude & Badass to review an album?!!

[Goat Boy]

Rolling Stone - what a fucking rag.  He calls Highly Suspicious 'badass'.  Surely reviewers shouldn't be using words like that in reviews these days and especially not in a respected (tee hee) music mag.  Is it just me or does it read like a blog?  I'd just expect a different tone from an actual critic perhaps.  

[Angry Ewok]

Is it just me or does it read like a blog?

You think this is bad... try reading a newspaper.

The new "thing" in journalism is to talk about and characterize yourself more than the actual subject.

At least this "dude" doesn't tell us what he had for breakfast and whatnot.

[Goat Boy]

I haven't read Rolling Stone in years and only have a cursory glance once a while but I'm obviously not missing much if that's the standard of their reviews.  Oh, for a decent music mag!  Mojo has been crap for ages (damn shame as it used to be great), Uncut ditto although it was never that good.  The Word is about the best but it covers books and films and I'd like one solely devoted to music thankyouverymuch.  Which leaves The Wire I guess which is a bit obscurist but always an interesting read.  A decent blend if a bit too much focus on electronica for my liking.

In fact American music mags are a bit lame are they not?  I'm thinking not only or RS but Spin as well.  Are there any really good ones?  I've heard about Paste but I've never seen it over here.

[Bigsky]

Rolling Stone - what a fucking rag.  He calls Highly Suspicious 'badass'.  Surely reviewers shouldn't be using words like that in reviews these days and especially not in a respected (tee hee) music mag.  Is it just me or does it read like a blog?  I'd just expect a different tone from an actual critic perhaps.  

GB, you're starting to become a negative nancy. Cheer up...the review is saying good things about EU, and you're focusing on how it reads. Please try to be a little more positive. Honestly, I thought it read fine, and was a nice break from the typical reviews that are full of rambling crap. Most reviewers are people who like to hear them self talk, and this was more about the experience of listening to EU.

[Jon T.]

Rolling Stone - what a fucking rag.  He calls Highly Suspicious 'badass'.    

Highly Suspicious IS badass.

[Goat Boy]

Rolling Stone - what a fucking rag.  He calls Highly Suspicious 'badass'.  Surely reviewers shouldn't be using words like that in reviews these days and especially not in a respected (tee hee) music mag.  Is it just me or does it read like a blog?  I'd just expect a different tone from an actual critic perhaps.  

GB, you're starting to become a negative nancy. Cheer up...the review is saying good things about EU, and you're focusing on how it reads. Please try to be a little more positive. Honestly, I thought it read fine, and was a nice break from the typical reviews that are full of rambling crap. Most reviewers are people who like to hear them self talk, and this was more about the experience of listening to EU.

Ach, it read Ok I just expected something more I guess.  Like I said it read like a blog.  Whether it's saying positive things or not doesn't really concern me as I'd rather read a well written piece criticising it then a poorly written one praising it.  Not that it was that poorly written but compared to the standard you'd get in Word or Wire or (still) Mojo I found it uninteresting and lacking that's all.  I mean Touch Me part 2 sounds nothing like a Pink Floyd space anthem.  Whatever the fuck one of those things are!  It's got a groove, it's slinky and sexy man, which are things I could never accuse The Floyd of but I won't go there again.  Plus he singles out two songs that I feel are two of the weakest - Two Halves and Aluminum Park which exhibits a bit of a cloth ear imo.  

I'm glad people are saying positive things though.  I have certain qualms about it and a couple of tracks are duds imo but I think an album like this was innevitable after Z.  My spider sense tells me the next one will be an improvement.

[fortbethel]

Tobias,

Thanks 4 posting. I was wondering how RS would review EU. This made my day.  Cheers :)

[dragonboy]

Rolling Stone - what a fucking rag.  He calls Highly Suspicious 'badass'.  Surely reviewers shouldn't be using words like that in reviews these days and especially not in a respected (tee hee) music mag.  Is it just me or does it read like a blog?  I'd just expect a different tone from an actual critic perhaps.  

GB, you're starting to become a negative nancy. Cheer up...the review is saying good things about EU, and you're focusing on how it reads. Please try to be a little more positive. Honestly, I thought it read fine, and was a nice break from the typical reviews that are full of rambling crap. Most reviewers are people who like to hear them self talk, and this was more about the experience of listening to EU.

Ach, it read Ok I just expected something more I guess.  Like I said it read like a blog.  Whether it's saying positive things or not doesn't really concern me as I'd rather read a well written piece criticising it then a poorly written one praising it.  Not that it was that poorly written but compared to the standard you'd get in Word or Wire or (still) Mojo I found it uninteresting and lacking that's all.  I mean Touch Me part 2 sounds nothing like a Pink Floyd space anthem.  Whatever the fuck one of those things are!  It's got a groove, it's slinky and sexy man, which are things I could never accuse The Floyd of but I won't go there again.  Plus he singles out two songs that I feel are two of the weakest - Two Halves and Aluminum Park which exhibits a bit of a cloth ear imo.  

I'm glad people are saying positive things though.  I have certain qualms about it and a couple of tracks are duds imo but I think an album like this was innevitable after Z.  My spider sense tells me the next one will be an improvement.

I agree with GB, this review is amateurish ramblingly crap that reads like a blog! (unless you agree that the "first three albums earned them a reputation as hairy torchbearers of guitar-driven classic rock")

[marino13]

Isn't Will Hermes one of the guys that is a guest commentator on Bob Boilen's NPR All Songs Considered show?  That name sounds familiar.  

[Goat Boy]

I agree with GB, this review is amateurish ramblingly crap that reads like a blog! (unless you agree that the "first three albums earned them a reputation as hairy torchbearers of guitar-driven classic rock")

Classic lazy journo speak.  Neither AD or TTF are guitar driven usually prefrring acoustic textures to electric ones (which is what is meant by guitar driven and classic rock usually is it not?) and if I ever hear or read the phrase 'classic rock' again I'll gnaw my own penis off with my grannies falsers.  Only Rolling Stone would say shit like that and actually mean it in a completely non-ironic, serious way.  It's 2008 for fucks sake! Nobody says shit like that these days.  Well perhaps a bandana wearing chump called Chuck from Texas whose rather found of bbq's and jerky might but nobody in possession of a complete set of teeth and disposable thumbs would ever use that phrase.

[Killgies]

Anytime you and Radiohead can be in the same review is amazing!

[DavidCrosby]

...reading good reviews makes me happy...

[mcarroll]

I don't really understand the outrage over using "classic rock", which is basically a term that is associated with radio stations that play The Beatles, Led Zeppelin, Neil Young, The Band, Pink Floyd, Crosby, Stills and Nash, The Rolling Stones, The Who, etc...  Those bands quite obviously were a big influence on all of My Morning Jacket's albums.  It's not as if the reviewer is swearing by the term, either, as he seems to take into account any music near the wide classification of "rock" that is really good should be considered "classic rock" in the following sentence: "James seems well aware that any definition of "classic rock" that doesn't include Prince, Radiohead and Wilco is pretty bereft."  This is by no means the best review I've ever read, but there are plenty of other things in the world to being angry about.  It's just a magazine, but anything Rolling Stone sure seems to angry up the blood around here. :)

[TheBigChicken]

It's only one persons opinion. And in my opinion I think it's ...well shit I haven't read it...time for my med-sin......really BAD day...