Stylus Magazine Reviews OWB

[dubman]

Originally Posted by thee carp dreamer

point #2) pitchfork won't give this higher than 4.5. they just won't. and no one cares.

True, but maybe a bit higher. they did stuff AHDO in the "decent" range, and this will obviously appeal to them more than that record did.

[matt]

i can't understand why anyone would get so upset just because their favourite band get's a bad review..i mean, so what?

and besides c+ is probably about right for this album, maybe b--

yes, it's a huge improvement over the rubbish that was AHDO but it's still a massive way short of scaling the heights UW reached with their first two albums

besides, music is an art and so enjoyment is subjective (i mean, some people genuinely think westlife make great music ) and that's what makes music forums etc such interesting places as everyone's opinion tends to differ. as this is an UW forum and populated mainly by UW fans (many of whom i have to admit do seem to see all of UWs output through rose tinted glasses) it's natural that the new album gets a better reception here than it will in general. i've seen lots of reviews for OWB and they alll seem to be either 3 or 4 star reviews which gives an average of 3 and a half stars and again seems about right

at the end of the day if you really love this album then who cares what other people think. get over it.

[Tom]

Originally Posted by BrotherLovesDub

---- if you think STITI and Born Slippy were the artistic peak of Underworld you're ignorant.

No, you'd be right.

---- did you discover techno through Trainspotting? what was your first exposure to UW? Born Slippy? as i said, Giant Douche.

What does his first exposure to UW have to do with his opinion of this record? I guarantee that a large portion of your peers on this board discovered UW through Trainspotting. That's not to say they're any less a fan that you or I. You're being a douche.

11. you mentioned raving.

i rest my case.

Raving used to be awesome, don't hate.

Originally Posted by crank

He basically admited he'd only listened to it twice (thrice?)

I really don't think this should matter. If I'm not immediately engaged by a track it can go get fucked, because there's 100 other tracks out there that will engage me immediately.


[COLOR="Red"]

WOOP WOOP!

[/COLOR]

[crank]

Originally Posted by Tom

I really don't think this should matter. If I'm not immediately engaged by a track it can go get fucked, because there's 100 other tracks out there that will engage me immediately.

in my humble experience there have been masterpieces that i've listened to, that, on first listen, i hated.

not to say this is or isn't a masterpiece, but you just can't digest something in one listen if, of course, it's your job to listen. now obviously there are exceptions to all rules. I'm just saying that if you are a reviewer, don't give it a cursory listen.

[BrotherLovesDub]

http://www.hatebook.org/

i'm signing up to this new wonderful social network. you folks should too!

[the real stuff]

I passed OwB on to a friend who played it at a party, and apparently a lot of people really dug it. I'm more looking forward to how people react to this music, and less what the press have to say about an 'old techno group trying new things'.

[Future Proof]

I agree with the review. And actually I applaud the reviewer here -- that was a top-notch job of even-handed criticism.

[IsiliRunite]

I don't feel the record has as much charisma as the others, as in I could see some of it being released by any ambiguous artist. I'm not sure how this is true, but maybe a change in creative scenery/sobriety would help