4 star Rolling Stone review

[vauxhall]

That's the thing you see. The fact he is comparing it to their other albums. It makes the critic judge it with a clouded view. They need to just get over the fact of 'changing'. It's hard enough for bands to fall perfectly within the "having not changed at all" and "changed too much".
Every review should be treated as though it's an artists debut.

[izzy]

You have a good point, every album on it's own merit. It's just too much to expect tho. Every review tends to have a structure of band's history (especially if it's a bit unusual) a bit about previous stuff and how it compares - dull, dull!!

We all do it too tho, right?

[antroolez]

skatf said:

Who gives a stuff about stars? Not me. And I hope the guys don't either. To be honest, the writer completely lost me when they started slaggin YAYM. It's one of the best debut albums I've ever heard. It still ranks alongside their two other fantastic albums. If you don't know that then I don't want to listen to you.

rite on...

'nobody really minded that they weren't any good'

i mean seriously wt idiots....

[vauxhall]

izzy said:

You have a good point, every album on it's own merit. It's just too much to expect tho. Every review tends to have a structure of band's history (especially if it's a bit unusual) a bit about previous stuff and how it compares - dull, dull!!

We all do it too tho, right?

Yeah, your right. Its a hard thing to ignore.
But the difference between us and the critics, is that they're getting paid to rate it. Also, whatever they're going to say about it, is going to influence a hell of alot of people (seems these days thinking for yourself is too much effort haha).

But hey, this isn't a bad review. Underrated maybe, but not bad.
I just have this grudge against Rolling Stone.

[myblackthumbnail]

"the Kings could be as facile as the Black Crowes or Nickelback if they were content to aim that low."

That was my favorite part. That's Gold, Jerry.

[switchbladeposse77]

Arizona needed a mention.