mortified
4500 Timer
Posts: 5,861
Favourite Quo Album: Hello!
Favourite other bands.: Talking Heads, Rolling Stones, Sheryl Crow, Gary Numan, Alabama 3, ZZ Top, Paul van Dyk, Jeff Beck, Bowie, Gerry Rafferty, Band of Skulls, UFO, S.A.H.B
|
Post by mortified on Feb 15, 2021 10:36:45 GMT
Ooooh how the british press slated Quo off over the years..to be honest I wonder where those reporters are now?..I think one could be part time Gazette deliverer.. I just don’t get the bitterness towards the reviewers. I think bitterness is maybe overstating it a bit but I did get pi$$ed off when I was a teenager and saw my heroes getting slagged off by someone who probably gave a Gentle Giant or ELP album 5 stars Especially when everyone round about me was reading the same music papers. But you grow out of that quite quickly. It shouldn't really seriously bother you when you get older because you come to realise it's throwaway stuff just the same as the vast majority of journalism. And it's the same as an art critic or a theatre critic; completely subjective.
|
|
|
Post by 4th Chord on Feb 15, 2021 12:17:25 GMT
Ooooh how the british press slated Quo off over the years..to be honest I wonder where those reporters are now?..I think one could be part time Gazette deliverer.. I just don’t get the bitterness towards the reviewers. Looking back, and we kind of knew it at the time, most music journos of the period were so up their own arses and snobs towards certain genres. Music is made for one purpose, and that's to be listened to. I understand the need that people look for recommendations and guidance of what they should listen to but writing a thousand words about how an album 'embodies the delicate yet visceral emotive horizons of the artist's career-long battle with the capitalistic tendencies of society reflected in the maternal sobriety of the lyrical expression' is a dick move. No one cares mate, should I listen or not?
|
|
|
Post by paradiseflats on Feb 15, 2021 12:25:54 GMT
I just don’t get the bitterness towards the reviewers. Looking back, and we kind of knew it at the time, most music journos of the period were so up their own arses and snobs towards certain genres. Music is made for one purpose, and that's to be listened to. I understand the need that people look for recommendations and guidance of what they should listen to but writing a thousand words about how an album 'embodies the delicate yet visceral emotive horizons of the artist's career-long battle with the capitalistic tendencies of society reflected in the maternal sobriety of the lyrical expression' is a dick move. No one cares mate, should I listen or not? I am surprised you found a coment on Tommy's in love. It does rather capture the gheist of the number.
|
|
|
Post by freewilly on Feb 15, 2021 14:51:02 GMT
Ooooh how the british press slated Quo off over the years..to be honest I wonder where those reporters are now?..I think one could be part time Gazette deliverer.. I just don’t get the bitterness towards the reviewers. I used to be a music critic/reviewer Not bitterness from my end, more like "you ain't got clue!" type of vibe with me, in regards certain articles at times and that has nothing to do with taste. Plus, I know for a fact certain publications have been paid to write glowing reviews for albums released by certain artists. Take Quo for example...Doesn't matter if they are average albums or not, going by the way some of the reviews are written, it's clear as day they haven't listened to the album in question or they were told what to write. Outside of Quo, read the initial reviews of Thriller, Bad, Hotel California, Achtung Baby and Definitely Maybe...Those albums were panned when they were released... I don't need to tell you what Thriller, Bad and Hotel California went on to be. The other two defined the respective bands, cemented one legacy, created another, captured two eras and are still hugely influential. And that's before we get into the racist element there used to be in the music press and other forms of the media As for Perfect Remedy, the reviewers didn't give it a 0 out of 5...Therefore, they didn't listen to it
|
|
|
Post by paradiseflats on Feb 15, 2021 15:56:29 GMT
I just don’t get the bitterness towards the reviewers. I used to be a music critic/reviewer Not bitterness from my end, more like "you ain't got clue!" type of vibe with me, in regards certain articles at times and that has nothing to do with taste. Plus, I know for a fact certain publications have been paid to write glowing reviews for albums released by certain artists. Take Quo for example...Doesn't matter if they are average albums or not, going by the way some of the reviews are written, it's clear as day they haven't listened to the album in question or they were told what to write. Outside of Quo, read the initial reviews of Thriller, Bad, Hotel California, Achtung Baby and Definitely Maybe...Those albums were panned when they were released... I don't need to tell you what Thriller, Bad and Hotel California went on to be. The other two defined the respective bands, cemented one legacy, created another, captured two eras and are still hugely influential. And that's before we get into the racist element there used to be in the music press and other forms of the media As for Perfect Remedy, the reviewers didn't give it a 0 out of 5...Therefore, they didn't listen to it I am fully aware how it works both in terms of corruption but also just saying what they think their audience wants to read. It’s no accident that classic rock lauds some very average output by the band. Sometimes reviewers get it right sometimes very wrong. St Anger came out to positive reviews and I don’t think anyone thinks that way now. 1987 was panned on release as bang average it now is seen as some classic. I don’t know what you read but Definitely had great reviews when it was released as did Achtung. As for Bad is that Jackson the kiddyfiddler or U2? People love to read bad reviews of acts they like.
|
|
|
Post by wolfman on Feb 15, 2021 16:00:53 GMT
I used to be a music critic/reviewer Not bitterness from my end, more like "you ain't got clue!" type of vibe with me, in regards certain articles at times and that has nothing to do with taste. Plus, I know for a fact certain publications have been paid to write glowing reviews for albums released by certain artists. Take Quo for example...Doesn't matter if they are average albums or not, going by the way some of the reviews are written, it's clear as day they haven't listened to the album in question or they were told what to write. Outside of Quo, read the initial reviews of Thriller, Bad, Hotel California, Achtung Baby and Definitely Maybe...Those albums were panned when they were released... I don't need to tell you what Thriller, Bad and Hotel California went on to be. The other two defined the respective bands, cemented one legacy, created another, captured two eras and are still hugely influential. And that's before we get into the racist element there used to be in the music press and other forms of the media As for Perfect Remedy, the reviewers didn't give it a 0 out of 5...Therefore, they didn't listen to it I am fully aware how it works both in terms of corruption but also just saying what they think their audience wants to read. It’s no accident that classic rock lauds some very average output by the band. Sometimes reviewers get it right sometimes very wrong. St Anger came out to positive reviews and I don’t think anyone thinks that way now. 1987 was panned on release as bang average it now is seen as some classic. I don’t know what you read but Definitely had great reviews when it was released as did Achtung. As for Bad is that Jackson the kiddyfiddler or U2? People love to read bad reviews of acts they like. there you go my freind all explained for you from other members..some critics slated the Quo and some didn't...
|
|
|
Post by paradiseflats on Feb 15, 2021 16:12:22 GMT
I am fully aware how it works both in terms of corruption but also just saying what they think their audience wants to read. It’s no accident that classic rock lauds some very average output by the band. Sometimes reviewers get it right sometimes very wrong. St Anger came out to positive reviews and I don’t think anyone thinks that way now. 1987 was panned on release as bang average it now is seen as some classic. I don’t know what you read but Definitely had great reviews when it was released as did Achtung. As for Bad is that Jackson the kiddyfiddler or U2? People love to read bad reviews of acts they like. there you go my freind all explained for you from other members..some critics slated the Quo and some didn't... Its a revelation. They don't need critics with many of the people who have suffered from much of their output.
|
|
|
Post by freewilly on Feb 15, 2021 16:28:28 GMT
I used to be a music critic/reviewer Not bitterness from my end, more like "you ain't got clue!" type of vibe with me, in regards certain articles at times and that has nothing to do with taste. Plus, I know for a fact certain publications have been paid to write glowing reviews for albums released by certain artists. Take Quo for example...Doesn't matter if they are average albums or not, going by the way some of the reviews are written, it's clear as day they haven't listened to the album in question or they were told what to write. Outside of Quo, read the initial reviews of Thriller, Bad, Hotel California, Achtung Baby and Definitely Maybe...Those albums were panned when they were released... I don't need to tell you what Thriller, Bad and Hotel California went on to be. The other two defined the respective bands, cemented one legacy, created another, captured two eras and are still hugely influential. And that's before we get into the racist element there used to be in the music press and other forms of the media As for Perfect Remedy, the reviewers didn't give it a 0 out of 5...Therefore, they didn't listen to it I am fully aware how it works both in terms of corruption but also just saying what they think their audience wants to read. It’s no accident that classic rock lauds some very average output by the band. Sometimes reviewers get it right sometimes very wrong. St Anger came out to positive reviews and I don’t think anyone thinks that way now. 1987 was panned on release as bang average it now is seen as some classic. I don’t know what you read but Definitely had great reviews when it was released as did Achtung. As for Bad is that Jackson the kiddyfiddler or U2? People love to read bad reviews of acts they like. You know well who the album is by and only said it so you could throw the term "kiddyfiddler" in. I'd also read up on the subject before you start throwing terms like "kiddyfiddler" around.
|
|
|
Post by paradiseflats on Feb 15, 2021 16:31:44 GMT
I am fully aware how it works both in terms of corruption but also just saying what they think their audience wants to read. It’s no accident that classic rock lauds some very average output by the band. Sometimes reviewers get it right sometimes very wrong. St Anger came out to positive reviews and I don’t think anyone thinks that way now. 1987 was panned on release as bang average it now is seen as some classic. I don’t know what you read but Definitely had great reviews when it was released as did Achtung. As for Bad is that Jackson the kiddyfiddler or U2? People love to read bad reviews of acts they like. You know well who the album is by and only said it so you could throw the term "kiddyfiddler" in. I'd also read up on the subject before you start throwing terms like "kiddyfiddler" around. That is where you are incorrect. I thought you might be referring to U2. I am fully aware of what he did and how he paid off his victims. I think I was diplomatic about the pervert that recorded some great music but so did Glitter. Perhaps you need to read the accounts of his sister and those of Wade Robson and James Safechuck.
|
|
|
Post by freewilly on Feb 15, 2021 16:34:24 GMT
You know well who the album is by and only said it so you could throw the term "kiddyfiddler" in. I'd also read up on the subject before you start throwing terms like "kiddyfiddler" around. That is where you are incorrect. I thought you might be referring to U2. I am fully aware of what he did and how he paid off his victims. I think I was diplomatic about the pervert that recorded some great music but so did Glitter. You should take your evidence to the FBI, pal. They'd be interested in it.
|
|
|
Post by paradiseflats on Feb 15, 2021 16:38:31 GMT
That is where you are incorrect. I thought you might be referring to U2. I am fully aware of what he did and how he paid off his victims. I think I was diplomatic about the pervert that recorded some great music but so did Glitter. You should take your evidence to the FBI, pal. They'd be interested in it. If you can’t handle or accept the truth about Jackson. That’s up to you.
|
|
|
Post by 4th Chord on Feb 15, 2021 16:41:32 GMT
|
|
|
Post by freewilly on Feb 15, 2021 16:44:51 GMT
You should take your evidence to the FBI, pal. They'd be interested in it. If you can’t handle or accept the truth about Jackson. That’s up to you. Well, I spent the most part of my life thinking he was guilty. I then spent the time between March 2019 and November 2020, reading everything there is to be read about the whole thing. FBI files, FBI interviews, court documents, depositions, recorded phone calls etc. All available freely to anyone who wants them. I then made the decision that I would never be so ignorant or blind in my judgement of anyone or anything again, until I knew everything there is to know. If you can't handle or accept the truth that some of us know more about certain things than you or actually have the decency to try to find out the truth, without The Sun newspaper telling us, that's up to you
|
|
|
Post by freewilly on Feb 15, 2021 16:45:24 GMT
Just saw this. No hassle. Sorry about that
|
|
|
Post by paradiseflats on Feb 15, 2021 16:58:59 GMT
Just saw this. No hassle. Sorry about that I will not reply to the above nor do I read the Scum. We will just have to disagree based on our interpretations of the evidence.
|
|