charlieravepants

…than I dared to expect. Really very good, the closing title track is immense

He didnt say any of that. It's a poor review, seemingly knocked out in a spare five minutes as some sideways promotion for Thrash Hits. And, oh look, there's the plug at the end…

So this is how DiS ended: in a flurry of inter-site ass fondling with rapidly depleting critique. You're getting big, fella, you're losing your edge.

…to change your mind, it's another entirely to have drastically opposing views within a very short space of time. Perfectly right it should be questioned. "Sprung"

Makes me think the guy's either on a wind up or shouldn't be believed in case his opinion is having an off day, as it seems to change with the wind.

Anyway, fear not Acquiescence, I wouldn't take anyone seriously who posted on a sodding Embrace forum.

…but why use "it's a music review" like that can't be a reasonable basis for doing something creative? Should all music reviews be really dull and unadventurous? Don't you think someone once said to Chris Morris, "It's just a comedy programme!"

It's the vocals methinks

Great record

…because Dave Sitek produced it, and it's got Bowie on it, and the Yeah Yeah Yeahs were involved… certainly a reason for DiS to cover it, at least

It's not bad. Good review actually. Certainly not worth the criticism it's getting here.

I like it, but I'm getting a bit sick about the over-praise. It was inevitable that everyone would hail it as the second coming, but it's fairly average. Most of the songs float by without you even noticing. It reminds me of 100th Window more than Mezzanine, very cold and clinical rather than organic. That album got critically panned, yet this is getting hailed as a masterpiece. Funny that

…so much? Change of direction or record company pressure to sell records and justify early hype?"

I think this pinpoints many people's problem with them, however subconsciously. They signed for a major. For many, there's no way back for them, and people dress it up as constructive criticism.

To me it sounds like a mixtape of all the best bits of last year. Picking them up on missing the boat and no longer being relevant is fair enough, but I really don't understand people saying it isn't a good listen.

…so you'd both rather the band committed to one sound, so as not to confuse you, and became really boring by making all their songs sound the same?

Why, exactly, do they need to decided whether to be a straight-out electro band like Digitalism or Justice? There are people already doing that. For my mind, no one's doing this kind of 'throw everything till something sticks', joyously all-over-the-place party nonsense, and I'd rather have that.

I knew people would hate this record. It falls between too many stalls – it's not 'credible' enough for the likes of Pitchfork, it doesn't take itself seriously enough for most musos (seemingly DiS included), it's not full-on dance enough for the DJ mags. But it's absolutely ace. I haven't been able to stop playing it since I was sent it about three months ago. And they replicate it perfectly live, and then some.

But then, no one took Pop Will Eat Itself seriously at the time either. History sometimes ends up being kind to those who fall down the cracks.

Not on my watch. Just saw lots of pre-pubescent, Skins-esque kids and a fair few oldies (myself included) up top. Nice atmosphere

hear

reaction by most. There are far worse albums than this around at the moment, jeez. Think it works on a few levels, conceptually, though it's a bit samey and drifts off near the end. Nothing matches 'Homecoming', but the opening four or five tracks are all decent enough.

What a ridiculous comment. They haven't even released their debut album yet but you think they should play for more than an hour?! They did everything I would have wanted them to and did it well. And you never mention the wonderful lights once. Shame on you

The score does not match the review at all.

I love this record, but you haven't made a very good argument.

…immense

…that gets top marks on here, and this only get a seven. Lame. This is my album of the year so far.

…but Dev Hynes is so faux-wacky it hurts. From his hair, to his clothes, to his cover versions, to everything he does. The guy is just TRYING TOO HARD. The most wilfully contrived 'artist' around at the moment. Yet NME seems to lap it up and reckon he pretty much invented everything including bread. Good on him.

Nice article too

…Gold Against The Soul getting some rep. Vastly under-rated and what got me into the Manics in the first place. Pretty much agree with most comments here, well done, a rarity on DiS

I'm glad we've got that sorted

But this gig still blew

There you go. No nostalgia needed.

…wants to "work a bit more"? Seriously, answers on a postcard

I actually liked Zeitgeist, but your audience is your audience. Deal with it. People are paying £40 to see you, give them what they want. A gig at a venue as big as The O2 is where you're expected to deliver a singles set, as that's what the majority of people there are going to want.

Christ, even bands like Blur accepted this where they did their 'Singles' tour at arenas then went back to relatively small venues like the Astoria to tour Think Tank, because they knew they wanted to play mainly new stuff. They flagged it up so people knew exactly what they were getting.

…pretty much exactly the same thing:

http://www.new-noise.net/gig-reviews/smashing-pumpkins/the-o2/live-in-london-smashing-pumpkins_3746.html

The basics of pop are verse chorus verse, with perhaps a bridge. Half of these songs don't have choruses so, on a fundamental level, they are not pop. Sorry.

Saying it is pop shows up how little actual pop you listen to. Sure, compared to Pelican or Dillinger Escape Plan, you could say it was poppier. But compared to chart music or even a lot of mainstream indie, this is going to confuse a few people.

Trust me, I work in a mainstream-as-hell office and it already has. They're far more comfortable with their We Are Scientists LP. Now THAT'S pop.

I mean, come on, half of it sounds like a fusion of Talk Talk and watered down Battles.

"Go here for the exclusive interview, go here to pre-order the album, go here to declare them the best band ever"

Zzzzzzzzzzz

100% agree. People saying this is pop are well off. Foals have pop tendencies but they've purposefully suppressed them to make a wannabe avant-garde album. I still like it, mind, but the the exclusion of Hummer and Mathletics was a statement of intent that the album follows through. It wants to be difficult, though is rarely as interesting as that would suggest

This isn't pop at all. Seriously guys, listen to some pop. Pop needs sodding choruses for a start

It may be more pop than The Ed Fitz, but that's not exactly saying much. It is in no way pop. Seriously, listen to some pop, this isn't it. Friendly Fires? OK. Foals? Not a chance in hell. Mainstream music buyers will get this and think, "WTF?!" Which is great. Hopefully it will be many an Enemy fan's first 'difficult' album.

I've spent a lot of time with the Foals album, it's good, but this review may as well have been written by the band themselves. Way too much loving going on and, as someone else said, glossing over factors which would have earned any other band a dressing down.

It's not in the same stratosphere as Battles, sadly. Oh, and I'm sick of them making out Hummer and Mathletics wouldn't fit in here. They absolutely would - I could understand if they'd kept the Dave Sitek mix, but now they've basically remixed the whole thing to sound similar to those single any way. Trust me, I've made a playlist of the album and those two singles, and they fit in snuggly. Try Hummer before Cassius at track 2 and Mathletics between Electric Bloom and Balloons. It works…

"Urging a genocidal jaunt in your opening verse alludes to why chart success continues to elude M.I.A"

Most people wouldn't even notice the lyrics, you can't use that as an excuse here. MIA has produced some cracking songs in her time, but this isn't one of them. Really ppor

Damn right

The most pretentious piece of drivel I've read in a long time. A non-paying job at Plan B awaits you, well done.

The album's good though.

Decent album, nothing more nothing less. More of the same.

are a twat

On the majority of the tracks on the album, his voice is actually too high in the mix and it really counts against it. Think it works better in context, perhaps.

It's good. Not great, but good. Certainly a lot better than Machina and in a different stratosphere to Zwan and his solo LP.

I think it's not a great single because there are better tracks on the album, simple as that. But like so many people you spend half the review attacking the circumstances of the reunion rather than the actual music. It's a strong track, if not their best, and I really believe if the line-up was still shrouded in secrecy, you wouldn't guess that the rest of the Pumpkins weren't on board. "The vocals are trying too hard to sound like Pumpkins vocals" – what does this even mean? The guy is trying to sound like himself?

I hate to say it as I like the man Haydock, but this is a poor review, indulging all the boring old stereotypical grievances towards the reunion. It's not a great single (Doomsday Clock is much better), but the reasons you give are lazy and ill thought out.

It's really not that bad, and the two singles are the worst tracks. 'Colours' is the pick of a better-than-this-claims bunch. Pure pop, done well. Comparing it to genuine dance albums is about as relevant as putting McDonalds up against Gourmet Burger Company.

PS: Nice recommendations, but the SMD album is very disappointing.

Thought Alexis Petridis got it pretty much spot on. It's a very average album by their standards. The opener is immense, but after that it's really them by numbers. Kind of like the latter-day Pearl Jam albums - decent, but with very few tracks to add to your 'best of' playlist.