Classic Rock attacks Lifeblood !!!!!

[starstruck]

Originally Posted by Mr.Selfdestruct

Has anyone ever compiled a collection of bad Lifeblood reviews? Or should i say, compiled a collection of all Lifeblood reviews. That would be an amusing read.

looking at the summary of "professional ratings" here, the reviews were not quite as bad as you seem to assume they were.

sure, Q gave it 2 out of 5, but if the band had either dedicated it to Sting or had Phil Collins as a guest artist on it they would have given it a straight 5 before they even played it.

[River Boy]

Leave rating albums that have been out for longer than 20 minutes to the fans, not to journalists.

[PaulTMA]

Originally Posted by starstruck

looking at the summary of "professional ratings" here, the reviews were
sure, Q gave it 2 out of 5, but if the band had either dedicated it to Sting or had Phil Collins as a guest artist on it they would have given it a straight 5 before they even played it.

I think they would have had to release the album in 1989 or 1990 to get that kind of otherwise entirely improbable accolade from Q.

[Mark]

When I think of the kind of person whose musical tastes the title 'Classic Rock' represents, I'm thinking Jeremy Clarkson. I'd hardly call it an attack, it just means Lifeblood has less percentage of power chords and wanky self-indulgent solos than other Manics albums. *air guitar*

[Ermintrude the Cow]

Originally Posted by Mark

When I think of the kind of person whose musical tastes the title 'Classic Rock' represents, I'm thinking Jeremy Clarkson.

Best description of that type I've ever heard.

[starstruck]

Originally Posted by PaulTMA

I think they would have had to release the album in 1989 or 1990 to get that kind of otherwise entirely improbable accolade from Q.

i just gave up on Q around the time they did the "why Kurt Cobain had to die" cover in 1994.

anyone still read it? i remember when i heard that Sting had done some sort of quasi-Christmas album and had grown a beard i thought "a-ha, Q magazine will be able to drag this out and wank over it for months".

the mind boggles as to how enthusiastic they got over the return of Phil.

[SeveredJoke]

Originally Posted by starstruck

looking at the summary of "professional ratings" here, the reviews were not quite as bad as you seem to assume they were.

sure, Q gave it 2 out of 5, but if the band had either dedicated it to Sting or had Phil Collins as a guest artist on it they would have given it a straight 5 before they even played it.

See also

http://www.metacritic.com/music/life...critic-reviews

Surprising 9/10 from the usually hard to please Drowned in Sound.

[allisvanity]

Originally Posted by starstruck

i just gave up on Q around the time they did the "why Kurt Cobain had to die" cover in 1994.

anyone still read it? i remember when i heard that Sting had done some sort of quasi-Christmas album and had grown a beard i thought "a-ha, Q magazine will be able to drag this out and wank over it for months".

the mind boggles as to how enthusiastic they got over the return of Phil.

No those days are long gone. In fact they picked Sting's last record as one of the worst of the year and Phil Collins is a long stranger to their pages.

They are more likely to be wanking over whaterver MOR dribble U2 and Coldplay subject on us these days. 5 stars for No Line On The Horizon with the tagline "have they just released their best yet?" The answer is no Q, no they haven't.

[starstruck]

Originally Posted by allisvanity

No those days are long gone. In fact they picked Sting's last record as one of the worst of the year and Phil Collins is a long stranger to their pages.

They are more likely to be wanking over whaterver MOR dribble U2 and Coldplay subject on us these days. 5 stars for No Line On The Horizon with the tagline "have they just released their best yet?" The answer is no Q, no they haven't.

bold =

i should have guessed they had moved onto Cold "Made For Q Readers" Play, and i seem to recall their Bono worshipping was in its infancy when i stopped reading it. genuinely surprised to see they have fallen out with Sting, they seemed to forever do interviews with him whether he had an album out or not.

ho hum, i suppose the stuff they praise and their readership are the "bankers" that sell loads and loads of records and prop up the poor record industry.

[allisvanity]

Originally Posted by starstruck

bold =

i should have guessed they had moved onto Cold "Made For Q Readers" Play, and i seem to recall their Bono worshipping was in its infancy when i stopped reading it.

It's in full flow now!

They’ve already back-tracked on NLOTH though, due to its poor commercial showing – a recent live review slagged of the recorded versions but bigged up how good the songs have become live since. Particularly Get On Your Boots apparently! Haha! Presumably they’ve changed the lyrics to that too then, because that is The Worst U2 single in fucking decades!

Anyway, I digress... Classic Rock dissing average Manics album! Boo!

[Porco]

Yeah, well I asked a neolithic boulder and it quite liked Lifeblood, so never mind.

[y2kyle16]

I love Lifeblood, At least the Manics HAD THE BOLLOCKS TO RELEASE SOMETHING A LITTLE DIFFERENT, unlike the following bands who's albums ALL sound the same, yet they are critically acclaimed.....

u2
Arctic Monkeys
Coldplay
Foo Fighters
Elbow
Athlete
Embrace
The Killers

etc.

[Europa Gluten Free]

Can I just wade into the debate here are LB is prob my 3rd fav album and 2nd most listened to (if that makes sense!)

As ol' Bono says above there, the fact that it has the majestic 1985 means that LB is a great album. 1985 is IMO one of their best songs. Better than ME (too long), better than Tolerate (tempo too slow and too long), better than DFL (crap verse lyrics). It's an absolute travesty that it wasn't the lead off single (though I do have a soft spot for TLORN).

As I've said before on here, the band's feelings toward it are due to their insecurities about what type of band they were or wanted to be at that time. They completely blew their commercial success with KYE (either consciously or subconsciously) and obviously didn't know what to do. As an album, forgetting the band's issues about themselves, it's a fantastic album. Great artwork, great glossy sleeve notes, nice length, and possibly only one or two dodgy tunes on it. Great b-sides too. As I always say on here as well, it reminds me of that winter with my missus living in our wee flat. Great times.

[y2kyle16]

My fav manics album by a mile, all the b sides were fucking epic too.

[MSPlover]

Originally Posted by y2kyle16

My fav manics album by a mile, all the b sides were fucking epic too.

The B sides were even better than some of the songs in the album.