Not a great review in Q

[desmondo]

Uk mag Q gives TSS three stars - not a great one pit rightly highlights GV H&V CE W SU as being magnificent

[Smilin Ed H]

Reviewer?

Any reason for not giving it a great review?

[TerryWogan]

Three stars (presumably out of five) still seems a pretty decent store, bearing in mind 4 CDs of this box are going to be of little interest to those not already obsessed with SMiLE.

[homeontherange]

Three stars (presumably out of five) still seems a pretty decent store, bearing in mind 4 CDs of this box are going to be of little interest to those not already obsessed with SMiLE.

It's a horrible score, considering the very same magazine gave Razorlight's S/T album 5 stars a few years ago. One of the worst albums in the history of rock n roll.

[Runaways]

lol razorlight.

[Cliff1000uk]

I wouldn't worry-Q magazine has been poor for years. I gave up subscribing a few years back because I was sick of seeing Bono/Chris Martin/Razorlight/McCartney landing on my doormat once a month.

Mojo gave TSS 5/5 with a small interview with Brian.

[37!ws]

Heck, Entertainment Weekly "only" gave The Pet Sounds Sessions a B, specifically spelling out the exact same reason that TerryWogan mentioned. Pet Sounds as an album, though, got at least an A.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Sometimes I have difficulty distinguishing typos from British slang.

[SMiLE Brian]

How they heck do you rate razorlight better than SMiLE.

[desmondo]

Reviewer?

Any reason for not giving it a great review?

Too much filler - die hard fans only

[Ron]

Who reads reviews anyways?  Like I'm gonna take somebody else's opinion on what sounds good.   The best way to discover what sounds good is to listen to IT, not somebody bitching about it. 

[Austin]

Three stars (presumably out of five) still seems a pretty decent store, bearing in mind 4 CDs of this box are going to be of little interest to those not already obsessed with SMiLE.

I haven't read it yet, so I can only go off of the star rating, but barring some flat-out condemnation in the review itself, I don't see the problem either.

You have to keep in mind that Q is writing for their audience, one of modern-day rock and pop fans. Assuming the question is, "Should someone with no exposure to Smile pay $110 for this?", then three stars seems like a perfectly fair review.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Obscene.

If you want to give the collection three stars, that's fine. If you want to say in your review that the full set is geared for die hards, that's fine. But to base your review of an album on whether or not the average consumer will find it worth their money is absurd. How about judging the collection by how good the stuff is that's on it?

[PaulTMA]

Q think Elbow are the best band of all time.  Ignore them.

[Austin]

But to base your review of an album on whether or not the average consumer will find it worth their money is absurd. How about judging the collection by how good the stuff is that's on it?

Think about the people who read Q. Do you think many of these people have a lot of exposure to Smile? I would guess not.

If you've never heard any Smile whatsoever, you probably don't need this 5-disc box set.

(And, who knows, maybe the review is for Beach Boys fans, or maybe that was a disclaimer in the review, or something. I have no idea. I'm just saying, a three-star review from a contemporary music magazine is nothing to cry blasphemy over.)

[Chocolate Shake Man]

But to base your review of an album on whether or not the average consumer will find it worth their money is absurd. How about judging the collection by how good the stuff is that's on it?

Think about the people who read Q. Do you think many of these people have a lot of exposure to Smile? I would guess not.

Well, in 2006, Q Readers placed Pet Sounds #12 in the Greatest Album of All Time poll. A little lower than it usually gets in non-fan polls, but that's still pretty good and enough to suggest that a sizeable amount of Q readers are big Beach Boys fans.

Plus, to repeat myself, if you want to say in your review that the full set is geared for die hards, that's fine. Hell,fill the whole review up with words to that effect. But to base your actual rating of the review on that fact is, like I said, obscene.

If you've never heard any Smile whatsoever, you probably don't need this 5-disc box set.

Sure, but that has nothing to do with how good (or bad) the collection is.

(And, who knows, maybe the review is for Beach Boys fans, or maybe that was a disclaimer in the review, or something. I have no idea. I'm just saying, a three-star review from a contemporary music magazine is nothing to cry blasphemy over.)

I agree. Again, to repeat, if you want to give the album three stars, that's fine. The reason given here is what's ridiculous.

[Fire Wind]

(And, who knows, maybe the review is for Beach Boys fans, or maybe that was a disclaimer in the review, or something. I have no idea. I'm just saying, a three-star review from a contemporary music magazine is nothing to cry blasphemy over.)

The review appears to be for their general readership.  It said something along the lines of 'make no mistake, for the serious fan, this is a very big deal'.  I wonder though if they would (or should) give a different mark to the 2-disc, rather than the big box.  Perhaps they ought to review both.

[Austin]

Plus, to repeat myself, if you want to say in your review that the full set is geared for die hards, that's fine. Hell,fill the whole review up with words to that effect. But to base your actual rating of the review on that fact is, like I said, obscene.

The star ranking is for Q's readers, not Beach Boys fans. Why is this so "obscene"? If I had never heard Smile before and was subjected to five hours of recording sessions from it, I'd find that laborious. And while I respect the wish that the star ranking was for Beach Boys fans, not doing it that way isn't unfair or ridiculous.

I wonder though if they would (or should) give a different mark to the 2-disc, rather than the big box.  Perhaps they ought to review both.

Now that would actually be the more interesting review of the two.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

The star ranking is for Q's readers, not Beach Boys fans. Why is this so "obscene"? If I had never heard Smile before and was subjected to five hours of recording sessions from it, I'd find that laborious. And while I respect the wish that the star ranking was for Beach Boys fans, not doing it that way isn't unfair or ridiculous.

The review shouldn't be for Beach Boys fans either.

I guess this is why music reviews are an abomination under every circumstance - instead of critics evaluating the work, they evaluate the audience.

[Fire Wind]

Now that would actually be the more interesting review of the two.

Come to think of it, 'cos I only had a quick browse, the review might've been for the album generally and not for the box, particularly, though it had a paragraph or so talking about what you get with it.  As said by the OP, the few big tracks were called magnificent, but it referred to getting 'nonsense' like Vegetables too.

[Austin]

Now that would actually be the more interesting review of the two.

Come to think of it, 'cos I only had a quick browse, the review might've been for the album generally and not for the box, particularly, though it had a paragraph or so talking about what you get with it.  As said by the OP, the few big tracks were called magnificent, but it referred to getting 'nonsense' like Vegetables too.

I actually hope most of the reviews concern the 2-CD version. It'll be interesting to see which tracks resonate with reviewers or not, since this is the version of the two that will probably (hopefully?) be the most popular.

[Bud Shaver]

Is Q the magazine that named U2 the greatest act of the last 25 years and Coldplay the best act in the world today?   

[Wirestone]

How many people actually listen to the sessions part of the PS box for fun?

[Mike's Beard]

Of course it's only going to get an average review, it's not The Beatles is it? Which as every self respecting Q reader knows is the only group from that period that was any good! Who cares about old music anyway when we could be discussing the collective merits of U2, Kings of Lameon, Jessie Jane and the mighty COLDPLAY!!

Eat a bag of s*it Q Magazine.

[Shady]

Of course it's only going to get an average review, it's not The Beatles is it? Which as every self respecting Q reader knows is the only group from that period that was any good! Who cares about old music anyway when we could be discussing the collective merits of U2, Kings of Lameon, Jessie Jane and the mighty COLDPLAY!!

Eat a bag of s*it Q Magazine.

Just beat me to it..