Thursday, October 23, 2008

The Times reviews 4:13

The Times gives 4:13 its first bad review. 2 out of 5.
(Thanks Kate)
Posted by Craig at 3:48 PM

40 comments:

  1. humptydumptyOctober 23, 2008 at 3:58 PM

    I don't think they've actually listened to it. "It's over" sounds like "from the edge"??? WTF?
    It's all right not to like an album, or a group, but to blatantly have preconceived opinions about anything the group might put out is another matter altogether. Very bad review, I think. Well what do I know, all I've heard so far is the Rome show.
    Roll on Monday.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Clockwise CatOctober 23, 2008 at 3:59 PM

    "Underneath the Stars is a sluggish variation on a theme better realised by Plainsong from the 1989 album Disintegration"

    ???

    Sluggish?!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Clockwise CatOctober 23, 2008 at 4:01 PM

    "At 49, Smith is beginning to sound like a man burdened by the narrow expectations of a loyal, loving fanbase"

    Again they mention AGE. I hate to be politically correct, but COME ON, it's starting to sound discriminatory.

    The review did have SOME merit, at least, even if I disagree with it... it delved into some of the ideas as to why the album doesn't work, at least for the critic, so I'll give him props for that... but it still falls short of what I would deem a comprehensive, detailed review... I have yet to see that with any review so far, good OR bad...

    ReplyDelete
  4. AndrewV127October 23, 2008 at 4:03 PM

    Well it was better written than the BBC review...

    Whats annoying about most of these reviews (even the positive ones) is that they lay down a score without any justification. How many super positive 8/10's have we seen with little or no mention of what has stopped it from getting a 10?

    Same with this review. They claim it to still contain some positive aspect that validates a 2/5 but fail to mention what these are.

    ReplyDelete
  5. cure_kittyOctober 23, 2008 at 4:04 PM

    Sounds like the guy who wrote the article is not a Cure Fan!

    WHATEVER DUDE!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    I doubt that he even played it. Why should a noob like that even get a chance to hear it and get a copy before it's released?

    Tuesday Tuesday Tuesday can't come soon enough for me! :)

    ReplyDelete
  6. ToddOctober 23, 2008 at 4:05 PM

    It's funny, reviewers such as this seem obsessed with pointing out that bands this old tend to repeat themselves and not have anything refreshing or new to say.

    Pot, meet kettle.

    ReplyDelete
  7. The Ghost ScriptOctober 23, 2008 at 4:07 PM

    wow, the reviewer obviously has no idea what they are talking about

    ReplyDelete
  8. humptydumptyOctober 23, 2008 at 4:09 PM

    Well, what do they know, anyway?
    Let me remind you that "the cure" album got mostly positive reviews, and that album was a great disappointment. This is so cliché to say Smith always gives the fans what they want. Remember WMS? Remember "let's go to bed" and the top for that matter.
    Reviewers are just very sad people doing a sad job, whether they write good reviews or not. Why you should be paid for giving your opinion about anything has always eluded me.

    ReplyDelete
  9. HelsabotOctober 23, 2008 at 5:02 PM

    lol Humpty- because THESE people are EXPERTS! and don't you forget it! :p

    Todd said...
    "It's funny, reviewers such as this seem obsessed with pointing out that bands this old tend to repeat themselves and not have anything refreshing or new to say.

    Pot, meet kettle."

    That pretty much sums it all up right there.

    ReplyDelete
  10. MichaelOctober 23, 2008 at 5:37 PM

    This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  11. MichaelOctober 23, 2008 at 5:46 PM

    This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  12. MichaelOctober 23, 2008 at 5:46 PM

    For non-UK readers, it's worth point out the The Times was once a serious newspaper, but is now utter trash - pseudo-serious press for those that can't cope with proper news, so you can safely ignore this review.

    ReplyDelete
  13. HLPOctober 23, 2008 at 6:38 PM

    i use to ignore all the reviews

    as humpty said:

    "Reviewers are just very sad people doing a sad job, whether they write good reviews or not. Why you should be paid for giving your opinion about anything has always eluded me."

    ReplyDelete
  14. sixcentralOctober 23, 2008 at 6:46 PM

    Bit of a dry review, loaded with drivel really, but then all opinions count I suppose, positive or not.

    Left the reviewer in a dreary mood, but has lifted my spirits to the skies!

    So to be honest F**** the Times

    ReplyDelete
  15. humptydumptyOctober 23, 2008 at 6:48 PM

    michael - plus the Times is right-wing ,conservative and systematically anti-European , so I never read it either.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Genital BenOctober 23, 2008 at 7:14 PM

    I've never even heard of The Times, I thought craig was referring to the New York Times. What the hell is The Times?

    ReplyDelete
  17. andeee*October 23, 2008 at 7:43 PM

    Critics' opinions are no more valuable than anyone else's (in fact I'd argue that often they're LESS valuable) but I agree 100% with what this writer says.

    Robert's writing has become increasingly bland, safe and predictable over the last several albums. Indeed, his latter day work has all the hallmarks of a veteran artist writing for an audience who doesn't want him to change.

    Long gone is the risk-taker of the 80s, who exercised his impulsive whims at every turn, alienating fans without batting an eyelash. The music was wildly unpredictable then -- now it's all the same bland puree of comfy, long-established sonic trademarks and lyrical turns of phrase (boy girl world love never dream etc).

    It all sounds "Cure-y", no doubt, but what is the most depressing is that the songs are so completely forgettable, even the ones that attempt to be poppy. After repeated listens, most of these songs just refuse to leave a lasting impression.

    The writer mentions AC/DC, but that band has always pretty militantly just done one thing, and therefore no one expects any new ground to be broken from one outing to the next. But I hold the Cure to a different standard (not better, but different) -- in his heyday, Robert threw out the playbook every year or so (especially between 1981 and 1985) and the results were universally thrilling. It's just sad to see him become so boring, so conservative and so dull.

    IMO.

    ReplyDelete
  18. AnahOctober 23, 2008 at 8:50 PM

    WTF do they know anyway. Jackasses.

    ReplyDelete
  19. r.dahlOctober 23, 2008 at 9:18 PM

    i supposed all these mainstreams want us all to join hands & embrace U2.....wtbloodyf do they know about the cure anyway? oh shit i can hear my oompas loompas coming with a silly rhyme.....

    ReplyDelete
  20. JennyOctober 23, 2008 at 9:39 PM

    I totally agree with AndrewV127. It's quite funny actually - the review reads like there's nothing good on this album but then gives it a 2 out of 5. Where did that 2 stars come from?

    ReplyDelete
  21. AnonymousOctober 23, 2008 at 9:45 PM

    Reviewers that keep repeating that old bands keep repeating themselves get repetitive... errrrr... I mean... It gets old to read reviews that say old bands are old... errrr... I mean... It bothers me to read a review that states an old band didn't bother renewing themselves... Gosh! I mean... What the fuck do I mean? :oS

    ReplyDelete
  22. Clockwise CatOctober 23, 2008 at 10:06 PM

    hi andee. i couldn't disagree more with you, but i respect that you were not pedantic about it.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Clockwise CatOctober 23, 2008 at 10:07 PM

    Hey Fandork. I agree with you. :-)

    ReplyDelete
  24. Singled out...October 23, 2008 at 10:56 PM

    And not only that but the review insults the fans as well :(

    ReplyDelete
  25. sixcentralOctober 24, 2008 at 2:04 AM

    I disagree about critics being idiots for the most part, I am a critic and I try give balanced reviews to artists, even if I dislike their music.

    But then thats cos I am not a wanker....

    although on the occasion of this times review, there is an inclination to agree with the futurists when they said all critics are dangerous and useless, but then that could sum up many of the biased critiques we deliver in favour of the Cure really....

    hi cat~

    oh and i have to say I loved Herons review...simply beautiful!

    ReplyDelete
  26. perfect.murderOctober 24, 2008 at 5:48 AM

    andeee, i get your point and it is indeed quite nicely put BUT,so many bands struggle to get to album number 2, when number 1 was mediocre...we are talking album 13here, for a 30yr old band with guys reaching 50..what do you expect..there's always going to be a point where it'sgoing to repeat itself...i prefer to pick out songs like UTS(amazing) or Freakshow(in a way totally un-cure).
    The band has covered so much ground in its history, i dont think you can knock them down for being samey
    IMO

    ReplyDelete
  27. perfect.murderOctober 24, 2008 at 5:48 AM

    andeee, i get your point and it is indeed quite nicely put BUT,so many bands struggle to get to album number 2, when number 1 was mediocre...we are talking album 13here, for a 30yr old band with guys reaching 50..what do you expect..there's always going to be a point where it'sgoing to repeat itself...i prefer to pick out songs like UTS(amazing) or Freakshow(in a way totally un-cure).
    The band has covered so much ground in its history, i dont think you can knock them down for being samey
    IMO

    ReplyDelete
  28. UnknownOctober 24, 2008 at 6:44 AM

    2 from 5 is a little unfair, because its actually very well done, but perhaps they are a fan of the old cure like i am. I am sorry, but i cant love the new cure any more. I will not listen to this album more than a few times, just as i did with the last album.

    The old cure has gone and it is a horrible realisation for someone who loved them so much. There is no beauty in their music any more. No magic and no atmosphere. Horrible, horrible shame.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Robert but not THE RobertOctober 24, 2008 at 7:01 AM

    I was pretty diappointed to read such a negative review from a paper read by grown ups - despite being aptly described by Michael.

    Obviously, the reviewer falls into the trap of mentioning AGE and comparison but then I read Andee's comments and well I am a postmodernist who believes that everyone's opinion is equally valid I have to disagree with your view that the band does not move on..

    Disintegration was totally different to KMx3, Wish different to Dis', then came WMS (which I had on this morning for refreshing change... Bloodflowers for me was the repeat of Disintegration and fell a bit short (despite some real high spots) but The Cure was a new direction and 413:Dream draws on all these and back further but seems to have real verve. The sound has got to be similar, the lyrical content the same nature - IT IS THE CURE for F**KS SAKE but let me ask this question here and now and the albums sales will answer it in time...

    The NME are re-embracing The Cure next week. Its readership is young. It is quite possible that a new breed will get 413:Dream in their soft hands and they will not have the predjudice of what has gone before... and let's see if they like it? I think this could be the real sequal to Wish (which is not to say its a re-hash!)

    XX

    ReplyDelete
  30. KateOctober 24, 2008 at 7:13 AM

    Boo on that review.

    ReplyDelete
  31. MikeOctober 24, 2008 at 7:33 AM

    The album is good.


    And that is a fact.

    ;)

    ReplyDelete
  32. KeithOctober 24, 2008 at 9:15 AM

    Andee, I couldnt agree more.

    Some people just dont want to hear this band being criticised.

    I bought the album today, on the day of it's release here in Ireland, as I have done with every new cure album since I started with The Top, and it's underwhelming me on first listen.

    The 2004 got me more on first listen than this album. I know it's stupid to judge on just one listen so I'm hoping my opinion changes after a couple of listens.

    Ther'e no doubt there's some "good" tracks on it but so far I dont think this album is deserving of all the good reviews it's getting..

    *prepares for a mauling*

    I agree with a lot of the Times reviewer says

    ReplyDelete
  33. MikeOctober 24, 2008 at 9:21 AM

    Keith,

    It's not that I don't like a well thought out criticism...it's that I hate music journalists.

    Also, it appears that this reviewer is reviewing the Self Titled album, and not this album ("own tribute band", "lyrics that appear to have been spat out by some sort of Cure lyric randomising software package") etc...

    ReplyDelete
  34. MikeOctober 24, 2008 at 9:27 AM

    I also can't stand this statement:

    "in the case of the 23-year-old Sleep When I’m Dead, an actual version of one they have already written. "

    This reviewer has no idea in what form/stage this "demo" was at when Robert discovered it. It should have just been a baseline...a guitar riff. some similar lyrics over a completely different song entirely. He is using the idea against them that every single song should be written during that albums session. His example to back up his claim that the songs are stale have no relevance and are an unfounded sloppy "guess".

    And then there are the other 2 connections he uses to illustrate the songs unoriginality. Saying that UTS is "sluggish variation" of plainsong is just ridiculous. The songs have nothing in common except that they are dream like and ethereal sounding...and if that should be held against the band, we should immediately throw out a huge amount of their songs as unoriginal.

    And I call into question a reviewers ear when they liken "It's Over" to FTEOTDGS.

    Shit review from a shit journalist.

    ReplyDelete
  35. hynreckandjoeOctober 24, 2008 at 9:35 AM

    eh, for all those who don't like the new Cure, it's fine, you peeps have a right to say so.

    I'll never understand though all those who complaints about how it's not the same since the x and x album back in the eighties... and mentionned how they keep buying and listening every new album but how it's so damn shitty and horrible.
    I mean, what's the point in torturing yourselves??

    ReplyDelete
  36. swiftyOctober 24, 2008 at 10:12 AM

    Hynreck - Some people are just gluttons for punishment. Oh,...and how wise you are in the ways of Monocular science.

    ReplyDelete
  37. hynreckandjoeOctober 24, 2008 at 10:18 AM

    Monocular makes it sounds like it's real high-tech... lol

    ReplyDelete
  38. Blackberry WhiteOctober 24, 2008 at 11:44 AM

    Andeee, I agree, although I think I'm a little bit more positive about this album. I kind of think the Cure the same way I think of the Simpsons: both are kind of past their peak, so when you see an episode or hear an album that actually manages to grab your attention, it's impressive, where if the same work had been done years earlier, it would be a disappointment. It's all about readjusting your standards.

    :P

    ReplyDelete
  39. MikeOctober 24, 2008 at 12:40 PM

    If this album came out after Disintegration and before Wish I would be just as impressed as I am right now.

    boosh.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Robert but not THE RobertOctober 24, 2008 at 3:01 PM

    H&J:

    Well said!

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)