|
Post by CFC2013 on Nov 22, 2017 14:31:11 GMT -5
Noel's album is up to 78 on Metacritic now. We'll see if that holds. He has a 78 based on 8 reviews. That's about a third of the critics for As You Were. Rolling Stone, The AV Club, Telegraph, Spin, The Guardian, Pitchfork, Drowned in Sound, and Consequence of Sound are all unaccounted for. Well, the trend is certainly a positive one.
|
|
|
Post by elephantstone93 on Nov 22, 2017 14:59:01 GMT -5
As You Were was on 80 after 5 reviews. I think this will finish higher than As You Were but never trust Metacritic early on.
|
|
|
Post by matt on Nov 22, 2017 15:05:10 GMT -5
Mark Radcliffe - the veteran DJ - really really likes it. That’s really encouraging - he did a BBC Radio documentary on Oasis some years back but always slated them from Be Here Now onwards. Said something along the lines of ‘3 hrs of mid tempo tripe’ with regards to BHN in a book of his, which is evidently bullshit but it’s nice to see an older DJ who championed Oasis back in the day back on board.
Getting very good reviews so far, what a shame for those hoping it would bomb critically!
|
|
|
Post by matt on Nov 22, 2017 15:09:11 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by liamgallagher1992 on Nov 22, 2017 15:14:14 GMT -5
Was always going to be an album praised by the "critics" for me. Not shocked at all. Honestly, if this album contained Shock Of The Lightning, Falling Down, Riverman, Death Of You And Me and What A Life in one, youd be looking at 5/10 average. Give them brass, flutes, french speaking and their ever so sophisticated pallets will be wet enough and theyll not feel dirty for mixing with the parka monkey anthems. As someone who enjoy brass, flutes, and the odd bit of French, I agree. I never expected it to be poorly reviewed. It's week-1 sales I wanna hear about. Dont get me wrong, i enjoy it all too. Just think its a certain type of person who reviews music and their hatred towards Gallagher music is all too evident.
|
|
|
Post by garys on Nov 22, 2017 15:21:14 GMT -5
Aye. I can't wait till WBTM hits Spotify so I can make a mashup playlist. The closest to an Oasis 2017 album. If you have downloaded the files to your computer mate, they will be on your 'local files' in Spotify, so you can already make a playlist. I tried it last night: 1. Fort Knox 2. Greedy Soul 3. Holy Mountain 4. Wall Of Glass 5. Bold 6. It's A Beautiful World 7. She Taught Me How To Fly 8. You Better Run 9. Doesn't Have To Be That Way 10. Be Careful What You Wish For 11. Universal Gleam 12. The Man... 13. All I Need (Bonus: Dead In The Water) The songs are all great, but as a playlist it didn't flow brilliantly just because they are all different - although Bold into Beuatiful World worked well. I went as follows: Fort Knox Wall Of Glass Bold She Taught Me How To Fly Greedy Soul Paper Crown For What It's Worth Be Careful What You Wish For You Better Run Black & White Sunshine I Get By The Man Who Built The Moon Come Back To Me Universal Gleam I've All I Need End Credits (Wednesday Part 2)
|
|
|
Post by matt on Nov 22, 2017 15:29:57 GMT -5
Love the desperate backtracking on here. Last year, the charts meant nothing and were a load of shite. Now, with good reviews for Noel, they’re ever so important as a sign of quality. You must all dig the likes Chainsmokers or Rita Ora!
|
|
|
Post by His Royal Noelness on Nov 22, 2017 15:44:24 GMT -5
Love the desperate backtracking on here. Last year, the charts meant nothing and were a load of shite. Now, with good reviews for Noel, they’re ever so important as a sign of quality. You must all dig the likes Chainsmokers or Rita Ora! Surely nobody actually believes that the charts mean anything?
|
|
|
Post by Mean Mrs. Mustard on Nov 22, 2017 15:46:46 GMT -5
Love the desperate backtracking on here. Last year, the charts meant nothing and were a load of shite. Now, with good reviews for Noel, they’re ever so important as a sign of quality. You must all dig the likes Chainsmokers or Rita Ora! Surely nobody actually believes that the charts mean anything? I wouldn't know what's in the charts. Have absolutely no idea what might be #1 over here.
|
|
|
Post by His Royal Noelness on Nov 22, 2017 15:52:18 GMT -5
Surely nobody actually believes that the charts mean anything? I wouldn't know what's in the charts. Have absolutely no idea what might be #1 over here. I took a look down through the itunes charts and I honestly had never heard of the vast majority of stuff in there and I'm only 26! Granted I've heard of Ed Sheeran, Taylor Swift etc. but beyond that I may as well be looking into a field of thistles.
|
|
|
Post by AubreyOasis on Nov 22, 2017 16:25:41 GMT -5
Noel's album is up to 78 on Metacritic now. We'll see if that holds. He has a 78 based on 8 reviews. That's about a third of the critics for As You Were. Rolling Stone, The AV Club, Telegraph, Spin, The Guardian, Pitchfork, Drowned in Sound, and Consequence of Sound are all unaccounted for. The most snobbish sites(Guardian, Observer, Pitchfork, PopMatters, CoQ, DiS) will not rate the album more than 6-7 even if it is a pleasant surprise for them, and 2-3 2/5 scores are enough to lower the average significantly, so I would not place my hopes too high. In turn, what I am seeing this time as really different is the actual text of the reviews: if you read the reviews of NME, Clash, Arts desk, AllMusic, The Times, El Pais...the scores are not so different from other times but it is clear the reviewers are more excited
|
|
|
Post by bt95 on Nov 22, 2017 16:31:02 GMT -5
I wouldn't know what's in the charts. Have absolutely no idea what might be #1 over here. I took a look down through the itunes charts and I honestly had never heard of the vast majority of stuff in there and I'm only 26! Granted I've heard of Ed Sheeran, Taylor Swift etc. but beyond that I may as well be looking into a field of thistles. the singles charts are utterly meaningless now, as a song doesn't have to even officially be a single to be in the charts (see Ed Sheeran taking up 18 of the top 20 upon his album release earlier this year). The album charts still mean something though, imo.
|
|
|
Post by CFC2013 on Nov 22, 2017 16:51:16 GMT -5
We'll see if that holds. He has a 78 based on 8 reviews. That's about a third of the critics for As You Were. Rolling Stone, The AV Club, Telegraph, Spin, The Guardian, Pitchfork, Drowned in Sound, and Consequence of Sound are all unaccounted for. The most snobbish sites(Guardian, Observer, Pitchfork, PopMatters, CoQ, DiS) will not rate the album more than 6-7 even if it is a pleasant surprise for them, and 2-3 2/5 scores are enough to lower the average significantly, so I would not place my hopes too high. In turn, what I am seeing this time as really different is the actual text of the reviews: if you read the reviews of NME, Clash, Arts desk, AllMusic, The Times, El Pais...the scores are not so different from other times but it is clear the reviewers are more excited Clash gave it an 8, that's a promising sign. They gave CY 6 and AYW 5.
|
|
|
Post by mystoryisgory on Nov 22, 2017 17:35:06 GMT -5
This is quickly shaping up to be the best-reviewed Gallagher album since WTSMG. Great job, Noel. You've earned it.
|
|
|
Post by mossy on Nov 22, 2017 17:53:31 GMT -5
I wouldn't know what's in the charts. Have absolutely no idea what might be #1 over here. I took a look down through the itunes charts and I honestly had never heard of the vast majority of stuff in there and I'm only 26! Granted I've heard of Ed Sheeran, Taylor Swift etc. but beyond that I may as well be looking into a field of thistles. Sorry to break this to you Lord Vader, but it's now official: you got old. X
|
|
|
Post by ninestonecowboy on Nov 22, 2017 17:55:48 GMT -5
Reviews are a weird thing, especially for someone like Noel. I couldn't imagine NME (or NME when it was actually a magazine) completely panning a Noel/Oasis album because he was always good for a quote and his features/exclusives sold copies of their magazine. In that sense, you may want to keep decent relations with people like that and that's the same in any business really
On the flip-side, the likes of Pitchfork pander to their audience and what they think is "cool". Even if the reviewer loved the album, i'd be surprised if they reviewed it with real honesty. They will always downplay it to fit in with their audience and the image they want to project for their business.
That's why i don't put a lot of stock in reviews. I know of some companies that specialise in online press for bands and have good relationships with certain websites more than others, personally know the reviewers etc. so they generally give favourable reviews from the music they're getting from that press company regardless of whether they truly like it or not.
I think there's some honest reviewers out there who have little to gain from not being genuine, but there's also a lot that put business before honesty.
|
|
|
Post by discworld on Nov 22, 2017 17:56:49 GMT -5
sorry but the first reviews of MG were really bad, it is only after public success that the journalists changed their reviews.
|
|
|
Post by CFC2013 on Nov 22, 2017 18:01:41 GMT -5
There's a lot of poo-pooing in this thread. Hmmm...
|
|
|
Post by ninestonecowboy on Nov 22, 2017 18:07:56 GMT -5
sorry but the first reviews of MG were really bad, it is only after public success that the journalists changed their reviews. Well that's also another point. A review is just one persons opinion, but obviously it speaks for a magazine. The Stone Roses debut got a fairly poor review by NME when it was released...then they also said it was the best British album of all time some years later.
|
|
|
Post by liamgallagher1992 on Nov 22, 2017 21:01:57 GMT -5
Love the desperate backtracking on here. Last year, the charts meant nothing and were a load of shite. Now, with good reviews for Noel, they’re ever so important as a sign of quality. You must all dig the likes Chainsmokers or Rita Ora! I think its cool to knock the charts because none of our favourite artists get in them. But lets face it we will all be spending the next week checking sales figures each day in the hope it gets no.1
|
|
|
Post by liamgallagher1992 on Nov 22, 2017 21:02:24 GMT -5
There's a lot of poo-pooing in this thread. Hmmm... Wee wees and poo poos indeed Blackadder
|
|
|
Post by liamgallagher1992 on Nov 22, 2017 21:03:07 GMT -5
I took a look down through the itunes charts and I honestly had never heard of the vast majority of stuff in there and I'm only 26! Granted I've heard of Ed Sheeran, Taylor Swift etc. but beyond that I may as well be looking into a field of thistles. Sorry to break this to you Lord Vader, but it's now official: you got old. X There's a recording of him..... killing younglings
|
|
|
Post by mossy on Nov 22, 2017 21:04:17 GMT -5
Sorry to break this to you Lord Vader, but it's now official: you got old. X There's a recording of him..... killing younglings
|
|
|
Post by elephantstone93 on Nov 23, 2017 3:35:18 GMT -5
Reviews are a weird thing, especially for someone like Noel. I couldn't imagine NME (or NME when it was actually a magazine) completely panning a Noel/Oasis album because he was always good for a quote and his features/exclusives sold copies of their magazine. In that sense, you may want to keep decent relations with people like that and that's the same in any business really On the flip-side, the likes of Pitchfork pander to their audience and what they think is "cool". Even if the reviewer loved the album, i'd be surprised if they reviewed it with real honesty. They will always downplay it to fit in with their audience and the image they want to project for their business. That's why i don't put a lot of stock in reviews. I know of some companies that specialise in online press for bands and have good relationships with certain websites more than others, personally know the reviewers etc. so they generally give favourable reviews from the music they're getting from that press company regardless of whether they truly like it or not. I think there's some honest reviewers out there who have little to gain from not being genuine, but there's also a lot that put business before honesty. I 100% agree with this but it’s also the reason I use Metacritic a lot. Giving an average of all critic scores is going to give you some indication of how good something is as it in a way eliminates any bias from an individual critic.
|
|
|
Post by AdidasNG72 on Nov 23, 2017 3:39:01 GMT -5
This is quickly shaping up to be the best-reviewed Gallagher album since WTSMG. Great job, Noel. You've earned it. Correction. BHN - which got pretty much the thumbs up and 5 stars all round when it came out. WTSMG wasn't praised that highly when it was released.
|
|