Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

i was reading the sun (waits for the boo's) and they had a first listen of the new oasis album (waits for more boo's)

every single track was reviewed separately and every single track was immediately compared to another band ..."this is like the beatles...that is like the rolling stones and blah blah blah

do music journalists actually find this information helpful given that most of the time the comparisons are totally wrong and completely irrelevant

while sometimes bands are highly comparable in many cases the music journo's are just talking balls

even worse is when they try to portray some kind of musical snobbery by comparing an unknown band to another completely unknown band...safe in the knowledge that nobody has a clue what they are on about...making the comparison useless anyway

so do you find these lazy but inevitable comparisons helpful or not

and dont get me started on album "ratings" out of 5 or 10 or whatever...cause that gets me even more annoyed

I don't believe for a minute that a dumbo journo from the scum has actually sat down and listened to the new Oasis album. I read the review and he's pretty much copied the preview which Q magazine gave it.

isnt it a woman that does the entertainment section in the sun

haven't read the Q review...cant say im much looking forward to the album...always with the "best album since definitely maybe" quotes...every album they have released since has had the same hype

but then i guess when you live in a mansion and have millions in the bank...the same life experiences arent there to fuel the same song writing style

It's The Sun, you expected anything more than textual excrement?

-AC

hehe,
And I always rate things out of 100, I think its more diverse

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
It's The Sun, you expected anything more than textual excrement?

-AC

not really...but i didnt expect complete laziness