Rolling Stone Review

Started by tobiasfunke, May 28, 2008, 07:43 PM

Previous topic - Next topic
Print
Go Down Pages 1 2
User actions

tomEisenbraun

#20
May 29, 2008, 05:36 PM
What the hell does "proggy" mean?!
The river is moving. The blackbird must be flying.

BH

#21
May 29, 2008, 05:37 PM
QuoteWhat the hell does "proggy" mean?!


It's short for progressivey.
I'm digging, digging deep in myself, but who needs a shovel when you have a little boy like mine.

lazybones

#22
May 29, 2008, 08:27 PM
I don't think the amateurish writing in anyway detracts from the positive approach of the article.  Misguided it is at times (i.e, the boxed classic rock reference to the first 3 albums) however the sophomoric honesty actually translates as refreshing- "Highly Suspicious is Badass!" Yeah RS is less than respectable journalistic medium and has been for decades due to sub standard writing, overt commercialism, and the mysterious exaltation of idiotic musicians.  But this is our favorite band's new album.    Resist the evil urge to crucify the messenger this time and just enjoy the it for what it is.  A four out of five star review in Rolling f'n Stone!
"There are only two kinds of songs; there's the blues, and there's zip-a-dee-doo-dah."
-Townes Van Zandt

The DARK

#23
May 29, 2008, 10:16 PM
QuoteI think this guy just about nailed it.

I would like to clarify this statement by agreeing with how it describes the album. It does sound like a blog ramble. But that's the way most reviews are going these days (and lets face it, its more realistic than anything pitchfork will say)
In another time, in another place, in another face

capt. scotty

#24
May 29, 2008, 10:24 PM
Fact 1 - that review does read like someone ready to graduate high school and who probably got a C+ in English and American Lit

Fact 2 - the reviewer somehow simultaneously applauds the band while either: making fun of them or trying to be comical at the same time...this was supposed to be a review, no?

Fact 3 - he just compared MMJ to prince, radiohead, and wilco, and all of them to classic rock...really?


More than anything, that review annoyed me. Is that the one they'll actually print in the mag? If it is, it def has the length to be that first review with the art (or thats how it was when i read 5 yrs ago). The reviewer seemed to have some knowledge of MMJ, but it bothered me nonetheless and it was still positive for the album even

I dont know how you can compare MMJ to prince, radiohead, and wilco...the similarities are really few and far between, and i like all those bands to varying degrees (wilco>prince>radiohead), but I just feel like the wilco and radiohead comparisons scream to gain popularity for MMJ

and IMHO, Highly Suspicious sounds a timothy-leary-filled-visine-bottle more like Talking Heads than Prince...my .02...but its still BadAssssss
The thing is, Bob, it's not that I'm lazy, it's that I just don't care. - Peter Gibbons

peanut butter puddin surprise

#25
May 30, 2008, 10:01 AM
argh, not another wilco reference! oh well.  just a review...and FOUR FUCKIN' STARS IN ROLLING FUCKING STONE.

Kick.  Ass.  To.  The.  Max.  :)

Runnin' from somethin' that isn't there

The DARK

#26
May 30, 2008, 01:13 PM
Z got 4 1/2 stars.  ::)
In another time, in another place, in another face

Angry Ewok

#27
May 30, 2008, 01:18 PM
Z should have been a 5 star.
--- and that's 2 real 4 u.

Jon T.

#28
May 30, 2008, 02:52 PM
QuoteZ should have been a 5 star.

If Z should have been 5 stars, then Evil Urges should be 6.  That's a fact.  You can look it up.
Print
Go Up Pages 1 2
User actions