NEW reviews

Discussions of various topics about Paul not covered in the forums below.

Moderator: Mike

Re: NEW reviews

Postby james1985 » Thu Oct 10, 2013 3:11 pm

I don't see why fans get so het up about "bad" reviews.

I don't think he's on the money with his Teddy Boy/Lennon stuff in the intro, but it's mostly complimentary.

May sweet memories of friends from the past
Always comes to you, when you look for them
User avatar
james1985
Supporter
Supporter
 
Posts: 4165
Joined: Tue Sep 06, 2005 2:06 pm
Location: The old UK

Re: NEW reviews

Postby james1985 » Thu Oct 10, 2013 3:19 pm

May sweet memories of friends from the past
Always comes to you, when you look for them
User avatar
james1985
Supporter
Supporter
 
Posts: 4165
Joined: Tue Sep 06, 2005 2:06 pm
Location: The old UK

Re: NEW reviews

Postby mhnso » Thu Oct 10, 2013 4:00 pm

Actually most reweiws have been very positive.. Personally I don t care about these things anymore it s just opinions. With that said I miss good and passionate rock journalism these days. It s more of an intellectual game that to actually describe the feelings within the music. Almost never read the stuff but now I have read reviews for this album and it s rather funny. Uncut gave it 7(10 and said five tracks were outstanding. None of these tracks were Appreciate that Guardian hailed as a brilliant track. Some papers have really dissed Everyody out there a trackNME called fantastic and the best of the lot and on, and on and on..So why bother
mhnso
Silver member
Silver member
 
Posts: 1963
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2005 4:05 am
Location: sweden

Re: NEW reviews

Postby savillerowdie » Thu Oct 10, 2013 4:20 pm

Ultimately, the only review that counts is your own!
I am listening to the whole album for the first time RIGHT NOW. I'm halfway through and this is shaping up to be a very favorable review for me.
savillerowdie
Bronze member
Bronze member
 
Posts: 545
Joined: Mon Apr 24, 2006 2:14 pm
Location: Massachusetts

Re: NEW reviews

Postby Mattal1958 » Thu Oct 10, 2013 8:39 pm

The GUARDIAN review is pretty tough (not in a negative way, but in it's critique' standards), but I agree, it's mostly favorable.

Rolling Stone KILLED VENUS & MARS for me. I was leaning towards thinking something was wrong with my initial "love" for it, then I read that review, and it probably just confirmed what I was thinking sub-consciousely. They savaged it at the time it was released. No mercy at all. That's ONE example of how bad reviews CAN mess with your head.

However, I was 17 at the time. A bit more impressionable. I take reviews into consideration, but if I like something, I like it. A good review confirms it. A bad one might make me analyze it a bit more, but, ultimately, it doesn't change my opinion.

Whatever. People will write what they want to write. Half the time, they revise these reviews 20-30 years later and claim they LOVE the album they trashed at the time of release. Rolling Stone has done that countless times.
in years to come/they may discover/what the air we breathe and the life we lead are all about/but it won't be soon enough for me
Mattal1958
Bronze member
Bronze member
 
Posts: 599
Joined: Tue May 08, 2007 6:23 pm

Re: NEW reviews

Postby chris » Thu Oct 10, 2013 9:33 pm

yeah...ram got slammed pretty badly when first released...and now some consider it his best.

and rolling stone loved press to play...i'll stop now because i happen to be sort of fond of that record myself.
I want to tell her that I love her a lot, but I got to get a belly full of wine.
User avatar
chris
Supporter
Supporter
 
Posts: 3751
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2005 8:22 pm
Location: Chicago, U.S.A

Re: NEW reviews

Postby mhnso » Fri Oct 11, 2013 12:37 am

Rewiews represents nothing but one persons wiews. It s true that Ram got panned as much of Maccas seventies output nqw generally considered classic.And everything is subjective of course.
. For example Uncuts rewiew of the new album is uniformly positive naming five songs as outstanding. Wouldn t five outstanding songs from one of the worlds most famous and skillful artists generate a high score. It did 7/10 . In the same edition I counted several other new l´releases getting the score 8/10. Some of these artists were unknown to me some not. Reading these reviews they were really positive but not more than Macca. And what could be possible make a better album than one including five outstanding songs from Mccartney.
No I think some of these rankings are made for "political" reasons and in that world you don t give the highest score to Macca even though the written words in the actual review begs for it´ There is a certain "hipster"factor here I guess that doesn t work in Maccas favor
mhnso
Silver member
Silver member
 
Posts: 1963
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2005 4:05 am
Location: sweden

Re: NEW reviews

Postby mr h atom » Fri Oct 11, 2013 2:40 am

well...i found the guardian 'review to be a complete waste of time...

one were to assume that paul can't do anything good w/o john..then the whole danged thing might make some form of perverted sense, i guess...since that was nearly the entire basis of anything and everything the..ahem.... 'reviewer' had to say...

me, on the other hand, think pauls done more than fine w/o john...and while it might've been nice to see them work together..i don't live in the past as this twit so obviously does...and i certainly don't measure mccartneys, now or then, output on whether i think he may need a writing partner

for the record...i can't think of a single artist of that era, including dylan, who's had a hit song/single in the last 10-20 odd years...using this fools gold standard, wouldn't that pretty much invalidate all older artists of being able to produce good, new music...

why mccartney and his recent works ought to be held to a sort of standard where having a 'hit' is the be all and end all as to whether any new music has artistic validity...when the lack of a 'hit', for either mccartney (or any of his peers) has more to do with the current state of radio than the music itself...really says more about the authors bias than it does about mccartneys music

heck...the dude even found a way to slam linda...maybe i'm amazed !

unfortunately, his form of purile dross is likely to cause some newer listeners to turn a deaf ear to what could very well be one of the best albums of the year by anyones honest standards...

i give that reviewer a -3 out of a possible ten stars...
lift up your head...and remember what your life is !
User avatar
mr h atom
Gold member :)
Gold member :)
 
Posts: 3151
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2007 2:07 am

Re: NEW reviews

Postby james1985 » Fri Oct 11, 2013 3:03 am

I think it's fair to talk about hit singles when reviewing an album that is using contemporary, successful producers (in Paul Epworth's case, the guy who's produced some of the most successful music of the past few years). And it seems to me that Paul is making a big effort at getting a mass-market, radio-friendly album out there, rather than doing something slower, more meditative, more arty (like doing the whole album with Ethan Johns).
May sweet memories of friends from the past
Always comes to you, when you look for them
User avatar
james1985
Supporter
Supporter
 
Posts: 4165
Joined: Tue Sep 06, 2005 2:06 pm
Location: The old UK

Re: NEW reviews

Postby james1985 » Fri Oct 11, 2013 3:06 am

But he does get a bit of an unfair rap among a certain age of reviewer. The Bowie album earlier this year got universal high-praise reviews when it's six really good songs, a couple of okay ones and three or four sub-Oasis/Rutles pieces of rubbish.

But also, you can't expect every reviewer to have a complete grasp of the back catalogue of every artist.
May sweet memories of friends from the past
Always comes to you, when you look for them
User avatar
james1985
Supporter
Supporter
 
Posts: 4165
Joined: Tue Sep 06, 2005 2:06 pm
Location: The old UK

PreviousNext

Return to MACCA - all discussions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron