AVALANCHES BTFO
P4K 4/10 incoming.
>unironically using 'meh' as an adjective on a review
http://www.nme.com/reviews/the-avalanches/16513
>>66077414
I thought they were Australians why is there an American flag on the cover
>>66077414
>writing reviews and giving arbitrary scores to a work of art after one listen
lol
was there a better quality leak
>sound so meh
>someone got paid to write this
Reminder that this review was written by a feminist
It's just..... meh...
thanks for the paycheck
>>66077764
No wonder the review is shit quality
>>66077451
because sly and the family stone
>Era Defining
>The Avalanches
>Literally who?
It lost three points because there was no Arctic monkeys or oasis in it
Honest question - is their a more woeful tale in music journalism than the decline of NME?
I remember when reading NME made you a coveted sort of hipster indie-kid. It meant that you were 'in' a scene - wherever you were in the world, you probably knew where the indie bands were playing that weekend.
You hung out with people that knew who Mobb Deep and Pulled Apart By Horses were. You attended dub nights only semi-ironically.
You were a fucking asshole, but you could at least delude yourself into thinking you were a bit cool.
Nowadays NME is below /mu/ levels of trash.
I saw a guy obviously being paid less than minimum wage giving away copies outside a train station; it made me fucking sad that a magazine that used to keep afloat on simply its own self-worth now has to resort to bait headlines and literally asking people to take a copy.
NME will never again destroy anything but itself.
>>66077764
this review is literally just saying it's too happy.
>>66077414
Was there early review copies or some shit? Have they really already reviewed the album less than a day after it's release? Why would anyone take these people seriously?
>NME
>relevant
Theyll be fine.
meh i give this review a 2/5
>>66077884
Which is stupid, because Since I Left You was hardly The Downward Spiral in tone
Don't they have something to write about Morrissey? Gay rumours, lawsuits, some kind of scandal? Why would they stoop so low as to review music?
>>66077832
good. fuck nme.
No one cares about NME
>>66077764
>that hair
>>66077764
looks like me only with a penis
>>66077832
>Rolling Stone of the 60s/70s
>NME of the late 70s to early 90s
>Pitchfork of the 2000s
All these popular and once-highly regarded music publications can't stay cool forever, but I doubt anything else will reach their heights in critical reputation and influence. Music journalism has gotten too niche and there is so much of it on the internet, plus some people just like user reviews like RYM or *shudder* YouTube reviewers
I cannot BELIEVE THIS IS FUCKING REAL
I ACTUALLY WENT TO THEIR WEBSITE TO CHECK
FUCK THESE IDIOTS
ethereal cereal
>>66077414
This is something straight out of a cringe thread
>There are far too many children’s voices, snatches of birdsong, glissandi of saccharine strings
>not quite as punchable as ‘Frontier Psychiatrist’ – the whinny of horses is still annoying 16 years on
The whole review seems to be "this album is happy, but I, a seasoned serious person, do not fall for it, I'm mature"
M E H
E
H
2/5
What a fucking moron she should not review music she has no clue wtf shes talking about
>>66078015
>Morrissey
>Gay rumours
>rumours
I rate her existence a 2/5: meh.
M
>>66078301
N
ARE DISGUSTING DIE CIS SCUM
>>66078313
was expecting meh this was a nice twist
why the fuck would anybody give a shit about the NME lmao
>not once does the album mention the plight of african americans or the oppressive patriarchy
>everything is sunshine and rainbows for the white men who made this album
>2/5
>>66078362
please tell me the review isn't actually like this
But what does Noel Gallagher have to say about it?
>>66077414
is this the offspring?
>>66078394
Basically, she criticizes it for being too happy and only positive thing she says is that there is female singer feature
>>66077414
This t b h.
What quality is the leak? Is it worth listening to?
>>66078362
>not once does the album mention the plight of african americans or the oppressive patriarchy
Live a Lifetime Love seems pretty BLM-inspired.
When it comes out, and it's actually shit, will you kill yourself?
>>66078558
good thing we've heard it and its not shit
>every single reviewer is Cucktano tier "I cant hear the rapper from the beat" horseshit
>>66078558
It leaked senpai
>>66077764
Like this bitch knows what the fuck she's talking about music reviewers are always the most shit people
It's a 2.5/5 they were close
>>66078545
IT HAS HORNS!!!
IT'S ELECTRO SWING!!!11!
MOM!!!!!!
>>66078573
One thing I noticed
Fantano has criticised a few releases for this, ad yet he gave TMS a 10/10? The beats overpower the vocals frequently
anyone got a download link?
>>66077414
Fuck they look like mongos
That review was trash but the replies here are just as trash. Same as when ram came out. You fanboys need to calm down and stop being retards.
Accurate review.
>>66077414
REMINDER THAT THIS IS THE WEBSITE THAT UNIRONICALLY GAVE THE ARCTIC MONKEYS A 10/10. ON THEIR WORST ALBUM TOO. IF AT ANY POINT YOU TAKE NME, OR MOST OTHER REVIEW SITES SERIOUSLY, YOU ARE AN ABSOLUTE FOOL.
this exact publication gave Arctic Monkeys a 10/10
>>66078740
Wow you sound retarded
>>66077764
i want to smell her armpits
A shame they had to make an electroswing album. I get it, a carbon copy of Since I Left You might not have been the best thing in the world. But of all the directions to go with the new project, why electroswing? It's a meme genre, and everyone knows it.
>>66078751
Alex Turner pls go
I don't entirely disagree, honestly. SILY was also a very happy-sounding party record but it had a lot of dynamic because underneath the surface there was a low-broiling intensity and sense of melancholy. Wildflower at points borders on schmalz at times - sorta like some mid 2000s indie band.
I thought it was a pleasant enough listen, but I most likely won't remember it a few months from now.
>>66078772
>they made an electroswing album
haven't heard it yet, but i hope this is a joke
>>66078812
I agree but you made sense unlike the review
Wtf this isn't even edgy or trap influenced at all
0/10
>>66078772
>>66078813
It's not electroswing
also, by general rule of thumb - usually if NME dislikes something, it's probably quite good
>>66078772
>>66078813
It's not electroswing you fucking idiots
Frankie Sinatra is the only track that gets anywhere near being electroswing
>>66078847
I was going to contradict you by posting their St. Anger review, but then I realized they gave it a 9/10
>all these MRAs hating the review because she's a woman
I should say I'm surprised but I'm not, it's clear you little boys have no sense of modern standards in music of which the Avalanches didn't meet, continue listening to your Electro Swing all the girls love a classy gentlemen like you.
>>66078899
you're kidding
>>66078899
St Anger > Laughing Stock
http://www.nme.com/reviews/metallica/7105
http://www.nme.com/reviews/talk-talk/2121
>mfw Pitchfork will rate it low too and /mu/ will suddenly hate The Avalanches
>>66078688
>anyone cares about Ride's lyrics 100% of the time anyway
>>66077414
Reminder this is the publication that gave AM a 10/10. Not to be taken seriously.
>>66077438
>>66077658
>>66077780
>>66078198
>>66078286
>>66078301
>>66078348
All these people should get paid instead of that hack.
>>66078916
The only people who should be professionally reviewing Wildflower should be the same people who reviewed Since I Left You or were adults when it came out desu
>>66078931
holy shit surely this is a joke
they honestly liked
>"muh laaifstahhl duturmuns muh deffstahhl-ah"
over songs like New Grass
Just read the review. That's it? That was the worst fucking review i've ever read. They barely scrap the surface of the album. The review basically went "You know, this album isn't SILY and that's why it's not good" They talked a bit about Frankie Sinatra. AND THAT'S IT! THEIR FUCKING ST. ANGER REVIEW WAS BETTER WRITTEN THEN THIS REVIEW. The review made me puke a bit, and I didn't even love it. was like a 3.5 or 4. geez...
>>66077414
*Leafyishere voice* OHh myyyyy GAAAAAAHD
What the fuck?
>>66079095
you haven't been to nme in the last five years, right?
all their reviews are like this now.
five short paragraphs of non-opinions with a random score attached.
it's almost funny.
>>66078931
>>66079125
You need to be 18 to post here.
why would they make frankie sinatra a single?
actually, why would they put it on the album?
it's legitimately awful.
>>66079222
Leafyishere voice* OHh myyyyy GAAAAAAHD
What the fuck?
>>66078931
*Leafyishere voice* OHh myyyyy GAAAAAAHD
What the fuck?
>MehMehMehMehMehMehMehMehMehMehMehMehMehMehMehMehMehMehMehMehMehMehMehMehMehMehMehMehMehMehMehMehMehMehMehMehMehMehMehMehMehMehMehMehMehMehMehMehMehMehMehMehMehMehMehMehMehMehMehMehMehMehMehMehMehMehMehMehMehMehMehMehMehMehMehMehMehMehMehMeh
>>66077414
>NME
Mehme
Reminder that NME gave Laughing Stock a 5/10
>>66078697
slsk
http://www.nme.com/reviews/arctic-monkeys/14752#lvhS8jXVTV73uF5W.99
Does it matter what the fuck these idiots think?
>>66080515
The answer you are looking for is:
"No"
