|
Post by castashadow on Oct 5, 2017 13:28:33 GMT -5
Seems to be averaging around 6/10, which is better than expected.
Some of the reviews that are negative or have negative parts are fair, there are absolutely big flaws, especially tracks 7-9. There are some like Pitchfork who’ll hate everything Liam does no matter what but those who dismiss some negativity are deluded.
|
|
|
Post by thomaslivesforever on Oct 5, 2017 13:36:44 GMT -5
Seems to be averaging around 6/10, which is better than expected. Some of the reviews that are negative or have negative parts are fair, there are absolutely big flaws, especially tracks 7-9. There are some like Pitchfork who’ll hate everything Liam does no matter what but those who dismiss some negativity are deluded. Most aren't dimissing the criticism that is made from some sort of intelligent base. Most of the fan criticism has been reserved for those reviews that have hardly mentioned the music or show a clear dislike for the artist before even getting to the music. You say 7-9 but Chinatown has come in for some praise from the less positive reviewers, as has I Get By. I take it you don't like 7-9?
|
|
|
Post by castashadow on Oct 5, 2017 14:22:41 GMT -5
Seems to be averaging around 6/10, which is better than expected. Some of the reviews that are negative or have negative parts are fair, there are absolutely big flaws, especially tracks 7-9. There are some like Pitchfork who’ll hate everything Liam does no matter what but those who dismiss some negativity are deluded. Most aren't dimissing the criticism that is made from some sort of intelligent base. Most of the fan criticism has been reserved for those reviews that have hardly mentioned the music or show a clear dislike for the artist before even getting to the music. You say 7-9 but Chinatown has come in for some praise from the less positive reviewers, as has I Get By. I take it you don't like 7-9? Yes sorry I meant I don’t like 7-9.
|
|
|
Post by thomaslivesforever on Oct 5, 2017 17:38:50 GMT -5
Most aren't dimissing the criticism that is made from some sort of intelligent base. Most of the fan criticism has been reserved for those reviews that have hardly mentioned the music or show a clear dislike for the artist before even getting to the music. You say 7-9 but Chinatown has come in for some praise from the less positive reviewers, as has I Get By. I take it you don't like 7-9? Yes sorry I meant I don’t like 7-9. That's better.
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Oct 5, 2017 18:14:15 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by cloudburster on Oct 5, 2017 20:08:24 GMT -5
Highest of any Gallagher studio album release since the site has been up including Oasis... and it was on 78 (nearly a 'universal aclaim' score) until the Pitchfork review
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Oct 5, 2017 20:38:56 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Spaceman on Oct 5, 2017 21:05:30 GMT -5
Fuck the critics review on metacritic, I'm waiting for the peoples reviews!
|
|
|
Post by Spaceman on Oct 5, 2017 21:06:58 GMT -5
Also love the predictable low score from pitchfork, most of the music I like is rated low by those fucking students tbh
|
|
|
Post by jordan71421 on Oct 5, 2017 21:12:56 GMT -5
I don't think there's anything more cringe worthy than fans of Oasis bashing critics and calling them vaginas and students because they don't rate a Gallagher related album well.
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Oct 6, 2017 0:05:04 GMT -5
I don't think there's anything more cringe worthy than fans of Oasis bashing critics and calling them vaginas and students because they don't rate a Gallagher related album well. It’s the motive. It’s not about the actual score.
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Oct 6, 2017 0:08:06 GMT -5
The ultimate review!
|
|
|
Post by space75gr on Oct 6, 2017 3:09:24 GMT -5
Fuck the critics review on metacritic, I'm waiting for the peoples reviews! People definitely love it, and most reviewers have a positive/very postitive verdict. Its good to have an album with positive reviews. N its really a shame a few hate-reviews to fuck the final score. Seems not right n not fair, and unfortunately that's a practise from a few sites to fuck artists because they can! Reviews like these in pitchfork's or guardian's OR cOs , should not be included in metacritic. They are not reviews , these pieces of shit are hate-statements from people who really dislike oasis/gallaghers no matter if the music is great /good and now have the path to express their feelings. Its not about the score, its about what they are sayin n whow they are sayin it. Their so called "reviews" could work as articles to express their negative feelings or their opinions but not as reviews. and dont forget that metacritic based more in american reviews/sites/magazines and that saying something, promoting music from their agenda. its more about a "politic" game than real total score for artists. Quietus dont give a verdict in their reviews so its up to metacritic to put a score after reading the review! For example, when Quietus wrote the review about "Night Thoughts" by Suede with a statement that Night Thoughts was even better than the all time classic "Dog Man Star", metacritic gave a verdict of 8//10!!! i mean what the fuck! Dog Man Star is one of the greatest albums ever, a pure 10/10 and the reviwer says that new sude album is even better and metacritic gave to it only an 8/10? !!! imagine now the same case for a promoted by Pitchfork artist... know what i mean?
|
|
|
Post by thomaslivesforever on Oct 6, 2017 4:34:58 GMT -5
I don't think there's anything more cringe worthy than fans of Oasis bashing critics and calling them vaginas and students because they don't rate a Gallagher related album well. I don't agree with the guy from the Guardian but he put his points across and went some way to explaining them. Fair enough, I don't think anyone has a problem with reviews like that.
|
|
|
Post by space75gr on Oct 6, 2017 5:43:33 GMT -5
I don't think there's anything more cringe worthy than fans of Oasis bashing critics and calling them vaginas and students because they don't rate a Gallagher related album well. I don't agree with the guy from the Guardian but he put his points across and went some way to explaining them. Fair enough, I don't think anyone has a problem with reviews like that. disagree 100% with you for the Guardian review. i dont care about the score, no bad after all a 3/5. the writing was terrible, his views also, all i could get from his review was hate n hate n hate. If you hate oasis or gallaghers write an article and leave the review to someone else. i cant see any point not even an explanation. i can see only hate from alex petridis (what a jerk) Same with pitchfork's review. Horrible review. i dont care about the verdict (4,9/10). As a review was just a piece of crap. When Pitchfork gave BE a 5,5/10 (bad verdict) i didnt say a word cause i could understand the point even if i dONT agree with it. thats the difference. and please dont make me remember that 0/10 review for BE (from DIS i think)... i also dont agree with popmatters or paste magazine verdicts, but i dont say anything cause those were fair reviews and well written especially the one in popmatters (7/10) oasis fans dont have a real problem with the verdicts. we have a problem with the prejudices of the so called antioasis hipsters
|
|
|
Post by icebreath on Oct 6, 2017 8:04:16 GMT -5
DIY magazine review Rating: 3/5 Back in June, Liam Gallagher said he’d rather be playing with Oasis than going solo. It’s a sentiment echoed by literally every other fan of the Mancunian loudmouth on the planet, and yet here we are and here it is: LG’s first record under his own moniker after two-and-a-half decades in the spotlight. In his own words “you can’t just sit at home twiddling your thumbs,” so instead we have ‘As You Were’ – seemingly a glorified way of killing time until he and Noel eventually kiss and make up for the inevitable internet-breaking reunion. If that all makes the album sound a little, well, underwhelming, then Our Kid’s first is actually a far more decent listen than its context might suggest. ‘As You Were’ is very much a Liam Gallagher record, which is to say there are no massive curveballs or surprises. But no surprises from a man who’s been involved with some of the biggest and best rock’n’roll tracks in modern music is like getting no surprises from your Big Mac meal – exactly what you’d hope for from a classic. Lead singles ‘Wall Of Glass’ and ‘For What It’s Worth’ operate at either end of the album’s spectrum. The former swaggers around on overdriven, stadium-sized riffs, while the latter is a big Beatles-channelling ballad. Both are genuinely good; if Liam has two major songwriting modes, he’s still wont to veer wildly in quality within them and these land near the top of the scale. ‘I Get By’ makes for an album highlight, opening with with the kind of world-beating tumult of guitars – the kind that could only come from a Gallagher – that hark back to ‘Definitely Maybe’. ‘Bold’, meanwhile, is a more melancholy turn, full of minor chords and an uncharacteristic sense of self-criticism (“Yes I know I was wrong / I didn’t do what I was told”); it, too, works completely. Then we get to the iffier elements. Not since Kasabian’s infamous “bugle / Google” line in ‘Eez-eh’ have we been gifted (for it is, undoubtedly, a gift) a line as face-palmingly awful as “The cops are taking over / while everyone’s in Yoga”. Then just to cap it off, he throws a Beatles reference in there for good measure: “…’Cos happiness is still a warm gun”. OK. ‘You Better Run’, while perfectly adequate, has the aura of ‘pub back room’ to its chugging riffs; it’s fine, but it’s largely filler. In general though, ‘As You Were’ is almost certainly the best thing Liam’s offered us since he parted ways with his big bro. It’s no ‘What’s The Story…’, but it’s most definitely better than sitting, twiddling your thumbs.diymag.com/2017/10/06/liam-gallagher-as-you-were-album-review
|
|
|
Post by spaneli on Oct 6, 2017 8:06:58 GMT -5
I don't agree with the guy from the Guardian but he put his points across and went some way to explaining them. Fair enough, I don't think anyone has a problem with reviews like that. disagree 100% with you for the Guardian review. i dont care about the score, no bad after all a 3/5. the writing was terrible, his views also, all i could get from his review was hate n hate n hate. If you hate oasis or gallaghers write an article and leave the review to someone else. i cant see any point not even an explanation. i can see only hate from alex petridis (what a jerk) Same with pitchfork's review. Horrible review. i dont care about the verdict (4,9/10). As a review was just a piece of crap. When Pitchfork gave BE a 5,5/10 (bad verdict) i didnt say a word cause i could understand the point even if i dONT agree with it. thats the difference. and please dont make me remember that 0/10 review for BE (from DIS i think)... i also dont agree with popmatters or paste magazine verdicts, but i dont say anything cause those were fair reviews and well written especially the one in popmatters (7/10) oasis fans dont have a real problem with the verdicts. we have a problem with the prejudices of the so called antioasis hipsters The Pitchfork review, though a low score, was well written, well researched, and well defended. It wasn't crap writing, and Laura Snapes is a damn good writer. You may not agree with it, but you're going a bit overboard.
|
|
|
Post by mancraider on Oct 6, 2017 8:13:31 GMT -5
I don't care if a review gives a low score but if the starting point is that oasis are shit and the writer is blatantly sneering at oasis fans because they think they are a bit superior then I don't need to apologise for thinking they are a bit of a vagina, however cleverly they write. It's certainly not every review, or even low scoring one,but it does happen.
|
|
|
Post by space75gr on Oct 6, 2017 8:24:55 GMT -5
disagree 100% with you for the Guardian review. i dont care about the score, no bad after all a 3/5. the writing was terrible, his views also, all i could get from his review was hate n hate n hate. If you hate oasis or gallaghers write an article and leave the review to someone else. i cant see any point not even an explanation. i can see only hate from alex petridis (what a jerk) Same with pitchfork's review. Horrible review. i dont care about the verdict (4,9/10). As a review was just a piece of crap. When Pitchfork gave BE a 5,5/10 (bad verdict) i didnt say a word cause i could understand the point even if i dONT agree with it. thats the difference. and please dont make me remember that 0/10 review for BE (from DIS i think)... i also dont agree with popmatters or paste magazine verdicts, but i dont say anything cause those were fair reviews and well written especially the one in popmatters (7/10) oasis fans dont have a real problem with the verdicts. we have a problem with the prejudices of the so called antioasis hipsters The Pitchfork review, though a low score, was well written, well researched, and well defended. It wasn't crap writing, and Laura Snapes is a damn good writer. You may not agree with it, but you're going a bit overboard. i definitely dont agree with it. She's probably a 'damn good writer;; for things she likes, but not in that case and definitely not proffesional at all. Reading her ''review'' first thing to come in my mind was WTF IS SHE TALKIN ABOUT?. Strongly believe that her review is a piece of crap and i m not over reactin in that case. even if Liam's album was better than Revolver she/(Pitchfork) would say the same things n she would give the same verdict. Fact. imo. unfortunately in Pitcfork's case, some things never change. Most trustef voice in music? HA HA. mY ASS
|
|
|
Post by Headmaster on Oct 6, 2017 9:01:56 GMT -5
The problem with Pitchfork is that they are not imparcial, they hate Oasis and that is It, It does not matter If the next Noel album will be a masterpiece or not, they will always give a low score to anything Gallagher related, and that sucks, reviews are supposed to be imparcial and about music, not stabbing the artist at every oportunity.
|
|
Wolf
Oasis Roadie
YOU DON'T LIKE BEETHOVEN
Posts: 417
|
Post by Wolf on Oct 6, 2017 9:03:59 GMT -5
The Pitchfork review, though a low score, was well written, well researched, and well defended. It wasn't crap writing, and Laura Snapes is a damn good writer. You may not agree with it, but you're going a bit overboard. i definitely dont agree with it. She's probably a 'damn good writer;; for things she likes, but not in that case and definitely not proffesional at all. Reading her ''review'' first thing to come in my mind was WTF IS SHE TALKIN ABOUT?. Strongly believe that her review is a piece of crap and i m not over reactin in that case. even if Liam's album was better than Revolver she/(Pitchfork) would say the same things n she would give the same verdict. Fact. imo. unfortunately in Pitcfork's case, some things never change. Most trustef voice in music? HA HA. mY ASS I'm not sure what your point is? You don't agree with the review or you don't like the review? I mean if you don't like it fair enough, but Pitchfork has rated Oasis / the Gallaghers highly in the past. The reissues of the DM / WTS(MG) scored very highly.
|
|
|
Post by spaneli on Oct 6, 2017 9:08:45 GMT -5
The problem with Pitchfork is that they are not imparcial, they hate Oasis and that is It, It does not matter If the next Noel album will be a masterpiece or not, they will always give a low score to anything Gallagher related, and that sucks, reviews are supposed to be imparcial and about music, not stabbing the artist at every oportunity. I mean, they gave BE a 5.8/10. They also gave Chasing Yesterday 5.9/10. Both of those are fairly decent scores, and just below what many people would rate them.
|
|
|
Post by jordan71421 on Oct 6, 2017 9:10:04 GMT -5
The problem with Pitchfork is that they are not imparcial, they hate Oasis and that is It, It does not matter If the next Noel album will be a masterpiece or not, they will always give a low score to anything Gallagher related, and that sucks, reviews are supposed to be imparcial and about music, not stabbing the artist at every oportunity. I mean, they gave BE a 5.8/10. They also gave Chasing Yesterday 5.9/10. Both of those are fairly decent scores, and just below what many people would rate them. Yeah they’re very fair reviews. Some Oasis fans are super touchy, it’s really annoying
|
|
|
Post by oasisserbia on Oct 6, 2017 9:30:34 GMT -5
There is not much going on this album, let's be honest. For someone who is really into music, I don't think that there is one second of absolute brilliance on this album. Creativity, new ideas, production, melodies, structures, guitar solos, drum fills...There is not a single 10/10 moment. This album is important for music history as Michael Buble's last album. I can really understand why someone would give 4/10 or 5/10. I would probably if I wasn't an Oasis fan.
The biggest strength of this album and the most unique and distinctive thing should be Liam's voice and I'm not sure that his voice nowadays sounds good to neutral listener. When we say that he is back in form or that he was great last night, I'm not sure that it was enjoyable for everyone.
We are fans of this style of music and that is why we will appreciate this album more than somebody else but we should know that there are not many universal values in Liam's debut. Of course, there are mean people who are just waiting for Gallagher brothers to fall but I didn't see any mean review about this album.
In my opinion, everything from 4/10 to 8/10 is realistic and then it's their job to explain why they think that is 4/10 or 6/10 or 8/10...
9/10 can be ok with really good arguments. 1/10, 2/10, 3/10 or 10/10 reviews can only be written by Gallagher's haters or brainless, overexcited fans :-)
|
|
|
Post by Aman on Oct 6, 2017 9:31:12 GMT -5
Thing is Pitchfork's review sticks out as the only truly bad score from any of the reviews.
They're in the minority here.
So I think Oasis fans have a right to question those pricks.
|
|