Uh Oh!

[Shady]

TLOS has been literally thrashed in the new issue of Q magazine.

2 Stars 

So we have had 3 major reviews, 2 very positive one terribly not.

I'm worried about what RS has to say!!

Like Q they have a bunch of young writers doing their reviewing.

[Andrew G. Doe]

They don't have to like it, you know.

[Shady]

They don't have to like it, you know.

True,

But it's all about spreading the good word.

I don't care what anyone says, TLOS does not in any shape or form deserve 2 stars.

[GoofyJeff]

I gave up reading music reviews a loooong time ago... in a galaxy far, far away even.

I know what I like, and it ain't what they like 95% of the time or more, so why bother?

We all know how good TLOS is going to be, why do some feel the need for justification from some holier-than-though critic?

[Andrew G. Doe]

But it's all about spreading the good word.

I don't care what anyone says, TLOS does not in any shape or form deserve 2 stars.

I can imagine whole swathes of music fandom who would think two stars seriously generous.

[Aegir]

As much as I like TLOS, it's totally out of sync with 2008. I can completely understand that a young guy would give it a bad review.

[Wirestone]

To expect the kind of critical approbation for TLOS that BWPS received is unrealistic, I think.

It has moments that will be inexplicable and cringe-worthy for folks who aren't already fans or well-versed in the history BDW.

Despite the nice notices from Uncut and Mojo, they're each in the tank for Brian, and have been for years. The overall critical response will definitely be more tempered -- I foresee a Metacritic score in the low 70s. (For reference, Smile received an average of 97% -- the site's all-time high score -- and GIOMH averaged 55.)

None of this, of course, has anything to do with how good the album actually is.

[shelter]

It's just one person's personal opinion. Big f**king deal.

[brianc]

Has it been posted anywhere yet? The review?

[the captain]

I don't think the reviews are going to matter much. For the most part, the people who were going to buy it are going to buy it, while those who weren't, aren't. The younger audience has been introduced to Brian a few times already via places like Pitchfork, etc., which reviewed the Smile shows, BWPS and the live TLOS. He's not an unknown.

[BiNNS]

As long as I like what I'm hearing, i could care less what the "critics" are saying.

[the captain]

As long as I like what I'm hearing, i could care less what the "critics" are saying.

No need for quotes: it's not ironic. They're really critics. You not agreeing with them doesn't change their job title.

[Jason]

I don't care what anyone says, TLOS does not in any shape or form deserve 2 stars.

Well, so much for objectivity in the world.

[Amy B.]

It has moments that will be inexplicable and cringe-worthy for folks who aren't already fans or well-versed in the history BDW.

My sister generally has good taste in music, but she didn't like the two songs from TLOS that Brian played at the Hammerstein (Goin' Home, Southern California). "I don't like his new stuff." Then again, he also played "Add Some Music," which she had never heard, and she turned to me and said, "Is this a new one?" "No, it's from 1970." "Oh." "Do you like it?" "No."

Anyway, she's not a BW fan. I think TLOS will appeal more to BW fans than to the masses.

[BiNNS]

"No need for quotes: it's not ironic. They're really critics. You not agreeing with them doesn't change their job title."

Thanks for the advice, Luther. I'll remember that next time when I'm actually trying to be "ironic".

[the captain]

"OK." I "look" forward to "seeing" the "results."

[brianc]

"Hahahahaha."

[Jason]

The internet. SERIOUS BUSINESS.

 

[SG7]

Ha! Bet they won't be posting that article on the blueboard 

[the captain]

Ha! Bet they won't be posting that article on the blueboard 

Not the mod, but the posters will--as the equivalent of a dart board.

[Sheriff John Stone]

For anyone who has read the review (is there anyone?), what part(s) of the review are objectionable?

[elnombre]

Who cares? They're no more qualified to judge this work than you and I, and one bad review isn't going to sink the album.

That being said, I'd take the musical opinions of any magazine that bills itself as 'The worlds greatest rock n' roll magazine' and has at various times included The Spice Girls, Eminem and Kylie Minogue on its cover, very lightly indeed.

[Surfer Joe]

TLOS has been literally thrashed in the new issue of Q magazine.

While we're being all linguistic, I assume that by "literally", you mean "figuratively".

[TdHabib]

I honestly don't care what the critical reception for this album is--I already know I like the material and that's that. That being said, I do follow music criticsm, and the writers of Q have never been one whom I agree with or particularly like. Pitchfork, Blender and Allmusic are always a bit more in tune with my liking and beliefs.

[Wirestone]

Anytime I hear of Pitchfork these days, I can't help but thinking of this (which really applies to virtually all music reviewers in some fashion):

The Onion, September 10, 2007
Pitchfork Gives Music 6.8

CHICAGO—Music, a mode of creative expression consisting of sound and silence expressed through time, was given a 6.8 out of 10 rating in an review published Monday on Pitchfork Media, a well-known music-criticism website.

According to the review, authored by Pitchfork editor in chief Ryan Schreiber, the popular medium that predates the written word shows promise but nonetheless "leaves the listener wanting more."

"Music's first offering, an eclectic, disparate, but mostly functional compendium of influences from 5000 B.C. to present day, hints that this trend's time may not only have fully arrived, but is already on the wane," Schreiber wrote. "If music has any chance of keeping our interest, it's going to have to move beyond the same palatable but predictable notes, meters, melodies, tonalities, atonalities, timbres, and harmonies."

Schreiber's semi-favorable review, which begins in earnest after a six-paragraph preamble comprising a long list of baroquely rendered, seemingly unrelated anecdotes peppered with obscure references, summarizes music as a "solid but uninspired effort."

"Coming in at an exhausting 7,000 years long, music is weighed down by a few too many mid- tempo tunes, most notably 'Liebesträume No. 3 in A flat' by Franz Liszt and 'Closing Time' by '90s alt-rock group Semisonic," Schreiber wrote. "In the end, though music can be brilliant at times, the whole medium comes off as derivative of Pavement."

While Schreiber concedes that music is still "trying to find its aesthetic," he also claims the form has not yet lived up to the lavish praise heaped on it by pop culture journalist Chuck Klosterman and 19th-century French romantic composer and critic Hector Berlioz, among others.

Schreiber concludes his critique by calling on music to develop a more cohesive sound in its future releases.

"We can only hope that [music] will begin to grow with its fans over the next few millennia," Schreiber said. "If it can stick to what it does well, namely the song 'Peg' by Steely Dan, and Tuvan throat singing, then a sophomore effort will indeed be something to get excited about."

The review has split the music community, with many decrying Pitchfork's lukewarm reception of music as a contrarian move designed to propel the publication's tastemaker status.

"It's elitism for the sake of elitism," said Rolling Stone senior editor David Fricke, who refuted Pitchfork's middling rating, describing the entire art form as "transcendent." "I've been listening to music for over 30 years, and it's consistently some of the best stuff out there."

Despite music's defenders, the Pitchfork review has made a deep impression on the thousands of music fans who slavishly follow the website's advice when it comes to enjoying things.

"Music used to be great, but let's be honest, it's a 6.8 now at best," said Los Angeles resident Lowell Radler, 23, who admitted that he  just looked at the rating rather than reading the whole review. "I seriously might never listen to music again."

Still, most analysts agreed that the impact of Pitchfork's scathing review of music will be dampened by the 2.4 rating it received from Pitchfork staff writer Dave Maher just moments after the initial critique was published online. Maher termed Schreiber's assessment of music "overwrought, masturbatory posturing intended to make insecure hipsters feel as if they're part of some imagined elite beau monde."