|
Post by duranfan09 on Dec 19, 2010 11:33:46 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by nitetiger on Dec 19, 2010 11:51:26 GMT -5
very interesting read.
|
|
|
Post by nitetiger on Dec 19, 2010 11:55:03 GMT -5
WHAT! I thought Andy dyed and cut his hair. He left??? Bugger it all!
|
|
|
Post by nitetiger on Dec 19, 2010 11:56:25 GMT -5
Dom filled in for Andy on some of the 2005 shows as well. When Andy's father died Andy was off and then Andy was sick later in the year.
|
|
|
Post by nitetiger on Dec 19, 2010 12:02:18 GMT -5
Dom filled in for Andy on some of the 2005 shows as well. When Andy's father died Andy was off and then Andy was sick later in the year. True, but I think they are counting from when Andy officially left, not shows he missed before that time. They really need to do more research. I once found a picture of Dom and the mag had Andy's name listed.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 19, 2010 12:30:32 GMT -5
Think this a poorly written review. 75% of the review is re-hashing the same old history lesson (which is getting really boring)... and then at the end it's like "oh yeah, there's some good songs on the album too".
I don't care if you give it a 5/5 or a 1/5 but make sure you give it some thought.
|
|
|
Post by figital on Dec 19, 2010 12:40:36 GMT -5
the thing that struck me was this; "but the rest of the album is filled with so many nods to the past that it comes across as cynical"
so, ironically, what fans seemed to want/think was best for the band; to get back to the classic sound, is taken as cynical by journalists. ain't that a beeaatch!!
i think the back to roots vibe is superb, but i am not shocked that some reviewers will call it out as being cynical or having dubious motives.
one of the shittiest things about reviews in 2010 is that they all seem to be afforded 100-200 words to try and review an entire album. it's a shame that the space that could've been used to talk about the songs, which the reviewer doesn't even mention by name, is spent (as mattymo mentioned) on a history lesson that a reader could've easily gotten on wikipedia.
|
|
|
Post by pollo194 on Dec 19, 2010 13:38:32 GMT -5
Well, I would have to agree that, honestly, if the album is all "nods to the past". Then the only people its going to appeal to is the fanbase, and no one else. Agree. Productionwise, some tracks sound like they where recorded in 1981. I mean, I love the fact that the band decided to use vintage instruments and the the tracks in general are pretty good. But, in terms of production, the final mixes resulted so intentionally 80s that I can get the cynical part of the review. However when they say "Brown’s lines sound exactly like Taylor circa 1981", well he is a session guitarrist, and he was hired to do that isn't he?
|
|
|
Post by pollo194 on Dec 19, 2010 13:58:09 GMT -5
Agree. Productionwise, some tracks sound like they where recorded in 1981. I mean, I love the fact that the band decided to use vintage instruments and the the tracks in general are pretty good. But, in terms of production, the final mixes resulted so intentionally 80s that I can get the cynical part of the review. However when they say "Brown’s lines sound exactly like Taylor circa 1981", well he is a session guitarrist, and he was hired to do that isn't he? Well, I would be disappointed if they just hired him to play like someone else when, I've heard him live and know he is capable of so much more. Yes, I know, I'm not saying the guitars in AYNIN are bad, I think they are the best guitars in a lot of years. And in RCM he did an excellent job too, especially in Tricked Out.
|
|