|
Post by gdforever on Jul 27, 2011 18:51:32 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by shoes222 on Jul 27, 2011 18:58:47 GMT -5
...is that even a review? Anyone can figure all that stuff out just by listening to the damn song.
Anyway, I can't remember the last time Rolling Stone had ANYTHING positive to say about Oasis. Had to be sometime in the '90s.
|
|
|
Post by gdforever on Jul 27, 2011 19:07:57 GMT -5
Courtesy of some dude name Eric Fox
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2011 19:12:00 GMT -5
Atleast it wasn't negative, but mostly useless.
|
|
|
Post by shoes222 on Jul 27, 2011 19:13:59 GMT -5
Unless it's a pre-release thing, if I'm reading a review I want them to tell me if it's good or not and why, not just give me basic details about the song. Especially when the video is right there.
|
|
|
Post by J.B on Jul 27, 2011 19:27:31 GMT -5
So Rolling Stone are having a go at Noel for this not sounding like Oasis' best songs?
The same songs that they have been consistently slating for the past 17 years?
Idiots.
|
|
|
Post by CFC2013 on Jul 27, 2011 19:35:42 GMT -5
Rolling Stone is good only for toilet paper or bird cage fodder. I can't remember the last time I read anything goo from that piece of shit besides a piece on the civilian killings in Afghanistan. A really shitty magazine that is stuck in the past. At least they rated the Oasis albums better when they did all their reviews again though.
And they like to suck Cobain's dead cock too.
|
|
|
Post by bwilder on Jul 27, 2011 19:37:51 GMT -5
In case you all don't know the back story: When Oasis was the cover story for RS, they didn't kiss ass like most bands did and do to grace the cover of this "illustrious" magazine. From that day forth, RS has trashed them. (Example: From the Paolo Hewitt book, "Getting High", when the Gallaghers were posing for the cover photo, Noel said to the photographer: "You get 20 minutes." The photographer responded by saying, "Pearl Jam was here recently and they stood for two hours." Noel's response was, "You just made your case worse." Or something to that effect.)
|
|
|
Post by CFC2013 on Jul 27, 2011 19:39:24 GMT -5
In case you all don't know the back story: When Oasis was the cover story for RS, they didn't kiss ass like most bands did and do to grace the cover of this "illustrious" magazine. From that day forth, RS has trashed them. (Example: From the Paolo Hewitt book, "Getting High", when the Gallaghers were posing for the cover photo, Noel said to the photographer: "You get 20 minutes." The photographer responded by saying, "Pearl Jam was here recently and they stood for two hours." Noel's response was, "You just made your case worse." Or something to that effect.) That explains it, I'm sure there is more to it though.
|
|
|
Post by Lennon2217 on Jul 27, 2011 19:39:38 GMT -5
Rolling Stone has had it in for Oasis, Noel and Liam ever since that 1996 cover issue they were on. If memory serves correct Liam walked out after 20 minutes while shooting the cover photo telling Rolling Stone that Oasis doesn't need them and that Rolling Stone needs them. I am convinced they have been blacklisted ever since. Readers voted Be Here Now album of the year in 1997. That was their last positive appearance. Who cares anyway, that magazine hasn't been relevant since John Lennon appeared in it's first copy in 1966. Fuck'em.
|
|
|
Post by lookingtothesky on Jul 27, 2011 19:40:13 GMT -5
The Rolling Stones don't know anything about music.
|
|
|
Post by spaneli on Jul 27, 2011 19:41:26 GMT -5
The last decent review I remember, was when they gave DBTT 3.5/5 stars. But then years later, they edited down to 2.5/5
|
|
|
Post by wizwheeler on Jul 27, 2011 20:26:21 GMT -5
i dont read any album/single reviews by these so called music experts in any magazine anymore. the only reason i buy music mags is for interviews and news. albums and singles should be reviewed by the fans not these pompus a**eholes.
|
|
|
Post by NYR on Jul 27, 2011 23:13:10 GMT -5
you disagree with their reviews, that's fine. (that was a blurb, not a review, by the way.) however, to say they have a vendetta against anything oasis is ridiculous.
|
|
|
Post by spaneli on Jul 27, 2011 23:26:59 GMT -5
you disagree with their reviews, that's fine. (that was a blurb, not a review, by the way.) however, to say they have a vendetta against anything oasis is ridiculous. You're right, that's Pitchfork. ;D But yeah, Pitchfork is what's a vendetta. Rolling Stone has at least given some props to Oasis.
|
|
|
Post by splatterfaces on Jul 28, 2011 10:52:01 GMT -5
Just heard it on radio 2, thought it was Coldplay at first. Is Chris Martin guest vocalist?
|
|
|
Post by heathenchemistry02 on Jul 28, 2011 11:13:56 GMT -5
stop_being_stupid_you_idiot@coldplayblows.com^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|
|
|
Post by Silence Dogood on Jul 28, 2011 11:14:29 GMT -5
that shit ain't a review... not that it would matter, coming from RS.
|
|
|
Post by Cast on Aug 1, 2011 1:41:51 GMT -5
you disagree with their reviews, that's fine. (that was a blurb, not a review, by the way.) however, to say they have a vendetta against anything oasis is ridiculous. You're right, that's Pitchfork. ;D But yeah, Pitchfork is what's a vendetta. Rolling Stone has at least given some props to Oasis. pitchfork actually gave a nice review of BHN back in the day. Both are trendy magazines though. But I loathe RS its pure garbage its really not even a music magazine. Its more about pop culture/liberal politics than anything else and to be completely honest its been a shit magazine from day 1 in my book. Dissing Led Zep and other classic bands when they first started. RS is the stereotypical American wannabe "rock/music lover" magazine. I may add that their top 500 albums is atrocious even worse than your typical one. yes I'll admit I do have a vendetta against RS but its just because its so horrible ;D
|
|
|
Post by Shangri Lyla on Aug 1, 2011 1:52:44 GMT -5
So now a little falsetto makes something sound like Coldplay? That's a very lazy and unimaginative review.
|
|
|
Post by bwilder on Aug 1, 2011 17:05:27 GMT -5
you disagree with their reviews, that's fine. (that was a blurb, not a review, by the way.) however, to say they have a vendetta against anything oasis is ridiculous. They definitely do not like Oasis. Always writing condescending, snide comments about relying on Beatles-chord changes and melodies as well as their brutish behavior to sell records. And then they say Kings of Leon are the greatest thing since sliced bread. (Let's see what they say now after KOL cancelled the U.S. because of "health issues"--i.e., drug/alcohol problems. Betcha they don't trash them like they did Oasis.)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 1, 2011 20:54:36 GMT -5
you disagree with their reviews, that's fine. (that was a blurb, not a review, by the way.) however, to say they have a vendetta against anything oasis is ridiculous. They definitely do not like Oasis. Always writing condescending, snide comments about relying on Beatles-chord changes and melodies as well as their brutish behavior to sell records. And then they say Kings of Leon are the greatest thing since sliced bread. (Let's see what they say now after KOL cancelled the U.S. because of "health issues"--i.e., drug/alcohol problems. Betcha they don't trash them like they did Oasis.) Most American music publications, except for Spin, seem to do the same or ignore them almost completely. It's a rather sad.
|
|
|
Post by manualex on Aug 1, 2011 20:56:09 GMT -5
Thats not even a review ffs, to say at most its a cuasi review, if you will.
|
|
|
Post by Heebeejeebies on Aug 1, 2011 21:48:45 GMT -5
They definitely do not like Oasis. Always writing condescending, snide comments about relying on Beatles-chord changes and melodies as well as their brutish behavior to sell records. And then they say Kings of Leon are the greatest thing since sliced bread. (Let's see what they say now after KOL cancelled the U.S. because of "health issues"--i.e., drug/alcohol problems. Betcha they don't trash them like they did Oasis.) Most American music publications, except for Spin, seem to do the same or ignore them almost completely. It's a rather sad. Yeah, after they were blacklisted by Rolling Stone nobody else in the US would touch them. I wish they'd at least been polite for that cover article, it could have made a world of difference. They could have taken over America, too. And if anyone doubts that RS blacklisted them, I can scan that article. I have never read another music article in which the journalist had such obvious loathing for the band in question, it is awful. They are outright insulted. The title is "Ruling Asses", if that gives you any idea of what it's like. I stopped buying RS after they did away with the large format. The extra-large cover images were the only thing I liked about it, and even then they rarely featured anyone worthwhile on the cover. It is a pale imitation of a music magazine.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 2, 2011 0:28:38 GMT -5
Most American music publications, except for Spin, seem to do the same or ignore them almost completely. It's a rather sad. Yeah, after they were blacklisted by Rolling Stone nobody else in the US would touch them. I wish they'd at least been polite for that cover article, it could have made a world of difference. They could have taken over America, too. And if anyone doubts that RS blacklisted them, I can scan that article. I have never read another music article in which the journalist had such obvious loathing for the band in question, it is awful. They are outright insulted. The title is "Ruling Asses", if that gives you any idea of what it's like. I stopped buying RS after they did away with the large format. The extra-large cover images were the only thing I liked about it, and even then they rarely featured anyone worthwhile on the cover. It is a pale imitation of a music magazine. Could you scan it, please? I'm interested in this article. It will be the first time I've read Rolling Stone for maybe five or six years.
|
|