Now playing on dirty.radio: Loading... |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Re: OWB Reviews
I just found that Pitchfork review yesterday (See? 6.0), and I wasn't really surprised by anything they said. It seemed like a typical critic's or reviewer's opinion of it, especially the background part. Not saying I was expecting anything, but it just seemed like a very predictable mediocre review.
Essentially, all of these reviews go like this: "Remember the 90's and electronica? Born Slippy was the tits! Underworld is good. The new album is kinda good, but not as good as Born Slippy. C+." |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Re: OWB Reviews
I was just speaking about Underworld reviews in general lately, not specifically Pitchfork.
But if you do want to read some terrible reviews, certainly look at the early Pitchfork reviews from the 90's, for any band. Some of them really are just hipsters spouting off irrelevant bullshit so they can sound cool. That's where their repuation started. But they've changed a lot since then. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Re: OWB Reviews
http://www.intro.de/pvg/platte/154/905
Every month intro puts 12 album 'on trial'. Then some people rate those albums. And from the 12 albums OWB came out on position 11. My favourite quote: "Can I rate it under zero? I just don’t find the music appealing at all." My observation is that many people dislike (ambient) electronic music and not Underworld specifically. Sometimes it's frustrating that I don't know anyone who at least likes Underworld a bit.
__________________
uw#0523 |
Post Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|