Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
so it's to be expected.
sorry for making assumptions NME, i'll never do it again.
Clearly a typo. I was expecting some Swells-esque rant but instead I got tedious gushing.
they did that for in rainbows and it is really slack, it is nme though
wait... what? this might be a test to see if people read the review and not just look at the score, because.. see that review? its a good one. maybe they are doing a thing lik that issue of edge where they got rid of all the scores...
those of you who think it's something other than a typo are giving the NME a lot more credit than they currently deserve.
on which set of number keys this particular hack used I suppose he could be forgiven for tapping "0" instead of "9". I can't imagine proof reading is one of NME's priorities!
Half the site reads like it was given to the bored work experience kid to dash off in an afternoon.
i hate the eNMEy! LOL!
to be fair, it's probably a lot closer to 0 than 9. Ooh look, they've compressed it to fuck again. Nice one fellas
does Wayne Coyne actually listen back to the masters at all?
It's probably their best since Clouds Taste Metallic. Since when is excessive compression anything new w/r/t modern music production?
if a band uses excessive compression, they're probably shit. And FL use more compression than is healthy.
All my favourite recent bands understand that sound is as much a part of the music as the notes being played. FL clearly don't
Just so y'know.
I more wanted to see if people would start bitching about NME for no particular reason.
and he's not fond of the old score ratings
Sunn 0))) DiS 10/10 hullaballoo
I'm not keen on the numbers either they don't really mean anything to me.
I don't see the point in them myself. Surely it just wastes the writer's time by getting them to turn in 500 words on a record, then give it a number from 0 to 10 at the end? If the writer is any good at their job, you'll be able to tell if an album is any good from the way they've written it.
I see the point in a rating system when it's someone like Robert Christgau, who writes a small, often amusing, often confusing blurb. Half the time you dunno what the fuck you've just read so that B- gives you a bit of help.
I just don't get anything from them, you glace at them and go oh it got 7 its alright then... then you think hold up what does 7 even relate to, every writer and every site will have their own criteria as will every reader so they end up meaning nothing esspecialy if you don't read the acctual review which might give you some clues to what the number means.
I was refering to the outcry over the 10/10 score, in both the comments section and that thread
Most people just read the score, you see
wasn't 'Whatever People Say I Am...' the last record to get 10 from that magazine?
I've been listening to it today and funnily enough I had it down as something really special.
its clearly a massive typo
it's about time someone stood up & slagged them. they truly do suck.
My top 10 of the year thus far has been a photo finish and the new Flaming Lips is seriously fucking with it more with every listen.
Just not enough melody or songs for my liking. Was looking forward to it as well! Dissapointing.
The truth is, it had plenty of them, they just weren't what you're used to.
I think '0 out of 10' refers to the number of comments dingus:
"Ten years after their last masterpiece, The Flaming Lips have finally produced another one."
...is hardly a good way to judge a whole album.
You will get exactly no idea of this album listening to clips.
You're a master at the patronising statement
trust reviews except the bit where they are actually describing the music that is playing...ie instruments used/stlyes etc....i keep reading good and bad stuff about this....personally for me they went to poppy after "soft Bulliten" which is a crackin album.