|
|
|
| Author | Message |
|---|---|
 Post subject: Posted: Sat Feb 12, 2005 6:24 am 
Wow, four pages for this? It was a bad review, but not THAT bad. I've certainly heard them criticize in a harsher way. Whether you like Rolling Stone or not shouldn't matter, the bad review could delay some fans in finding eisley or stop them forever, but a person who takes a critics word as gospel isn't necessarily a fan I'd be concerned about. There are most certainly people that dislike Eisley with more fervor than this reviewer did, but that doesn't make them a bad person or leave them without credibility, it just means that somebody has different musical taste than you. Period. I have a feeling Pitchforkmedia will rip the album apart, they've given bad reviews to a lot of stuff I've liked last year. |
|
|
Joined: 17 Jun 2004 | Posts: 2249 | Location: Kansas City, MO
|
|
   |
|
|
Post subject: Posted: Sat Feb 12, 2005 6:26 am
p.s. I don't think Rolling Stone has ever claimed to be a magazine for the "little guy"... it's a big magazine for the masses, that group that is larger than us, remember? Don't fault them for not covering someone like the Unicorns, or the Robot Ate Me... it's not in their scope to cover that... that's what the smaller magazines are for. |
|
|
Joined: 17 Jun 2004 | Posts: 2249 | Location: Kansas City, MO
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: Posted: Sat Feb 12, 2005 7:07 am
Oh, come now, Robbie. Stop being so annoyingly reasonable.  As ultimate Eisley fans, surely we're allowed to utterly despise haters and question their taste in music. Gosh. Idiot. _________________ Facebook & Twitter & Blog(ish)-type thing |
|
|
Joined: 18 Jan 2004 | Posts: 5565 | Location: Austin, TX
|
|
 |
|
|
Post subject: Posted: Sat Feb 12, 2005 7:12 am
I think a lot of people's problem with the review was that it was so poorly written, aside from the fact that it was negative. If he had at least done a well-written review that made more of an effort to support his low rating, it'd be a different story... |
|
|
Joined: 21 Nov 2003 | Posts: 2290 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: Posted: Sat Feb 12, 2005 7:14 am
haha I really don't care all that much, but I must say That was a really dumb review. REALLY dumb. Wow, they focused on the stupidest things and made no valid points. I know people do get swayed by these things, but I really thought it ridiculous. (I hope others do too, especially people who have not heard of Eisley) Have a nice day _________________ www.xanga.com/ijustpeedalittle www.myspace.com/obello http://photobucket.com/albums/v164/ijustpeedalittle/Photography%20by%2 0David/ |
|
|
Joined: 15 Apr 2004 | Posts: 427 | Location: Bastrop, LA
|
|
  |
|
|
Post subject: Posted: Sat Feb 12, 2005 7:23 am
homesick_alien wrote: ali wrote: i've got to admit, i was once a person who was swayed by reviews in magazines. if it got a good review, i'd check it out. if not, i'd not bother. so yeah, i think ben's got a point. do you just automatically disagree with everything I say these days ali? 
and Ben and oceaneyes,why are you under the impression that if someone is swayed by a RS review and don't check out eisley themselves thats the end of it,its a fan lost forever? whats to say they wont hear them on the radio/mtv or read about them in other publications (good reviews) etc? didn't the thread starter say Sherri said she didn't care about the review? if so, why does anyone else?If the co-writer and lead singer is mature enough to not let it bother her then we should all take a leaf out of Sherris book and just wait patiently until the "non believers" are won over (which alot of them will be,not all but alot) haha! yes, i can't help but to always disagree with you 
you're right, the review isn't permanently damaging, people could be exposed to eisley later. but a good review in a magazine like rs can do wonders for first week/month album sales, which i've heard is very important to a label (and therefore, indirectly, the band). so in that respect, it's kind of a shame. but hey, like you said, if the band doesn't care, then i don't care. _________________ hello. |
|
|
Joined: 23 Aug 2003 | Posts: 5978 | Location: Austin, Texas
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: Posted: Sat Feb 12, 2005 10:05 am
i partcularly like this line from a rollingstone review of britney spears' album: "Britney's demand for satisfaction is complex, fierce and downright scary, making her a true child of rock & roll tradition. (RS 842)" _________________ "You're my favorite person." - David Carradine, Kill Bill vol. 2 |
|
|
Joined: 23 Mar 2004 | Posts: 497 | Location: aventura, FL
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: Posted: Sat Feb 12, 2005 10:48 am
ideal wrote: i partcularly like this line from a rollingstone review of britney spears' album:
"Britney's demand for satisfaction is complex, fierce and downright scary, making her a true child of rock & roll tradition. (RS 842)" Wow. What MORONS. "True child of rock and roll tradition"? Excuse me? EXCUSE ME? What kind of FREAKING idiots are these people? They say Eisley is "Unicorn Barbie" music and Britney Spears is "true rock and roll". Here's what I say. Britney Spears is IDIOTIC, and Eisley is uplifting, eerie, angelic, enlightening, and judged unfairly because of religious beliefs. In addition, Ashlee Simpson is HORRIBLE. I haven't ranted as far as I'd like to, but hey. Whatever. You shouldn't let these guys get to you. But still, erg. _________________ Distant though I am...orange, gold, and green...firing, flaming colors surround me.. |
|
|
Joined: 04 Feb 2005 | Posts: 17 | Location: The Land Of Poptarts and Cheesy Goodness
Last edited by supershayde on Sat Feb 12, 2005 11:57 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: Posted: Sat Feb 12, 2005 11:20 am
I just wanted to write a review of his review. It was pretty bad all around. I just think that if you have the hubris to think your opinion matters enough to share in a major magazine as some kind of truth, you might as well make your opinion clear. People who criticize somebody's work should at least do their own job well enough to be taken seriously. Of course, the hubris in forming an opinion on somebody's opinion is extremely clear, but it's for the sake of satire, so I think it's appropriate. I wonder if there would be a chance of me making a career in review reviewing. Obviously it's sorely needed. _________________ Scriptozoology, a screenwriting blog .. Facebook |
|
|
Joined: 04 Mar 2004 | Posts: 11753 | Location: Toledo, OR
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: Posted: Sat Feb 12, 2005 12:54 pm
I sent a link to this discussion to Mr. Hoard at Rolling Stone. I challenge him to respond. To quote myself: "My question is this. Will uber media super stars actually listen and put their bias aside and give these kids a fair listen or will they hate Eisley because they hate George Bush?" Obviously, Mr. Christian Hoard cannot and did not. |
|
|
Joined: 31 Dec 2004 | Posts: 91 | Location: Stinky Swamp
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: Posted: Sat Feb 12, 2005 3:39 pm
robbie wrote: p.s. I don't think Rolling Stone has ever claimed to be a magazine for the "little guy"... it's a big magazine for the masses, that group that is larger than us, remember? Don't fault them for not covering someone like the Unicorns, or the Robot Ate Me... it's not in their scope to cover that... that's what the smaller magazines are for. Robbie! Robbie, Robbie, Robbie. Hahahaha! There was no reason for repeating your name. I just thought it sounded good out loud (if not on paper, or, in this case, screen). In regards to the big boys covering the "little guys": haven't you noticed? Modest Mouse? Bright Eyes? Death Cab For Cutie? The Shins? These "little guys" are everywhere now. Indie rock has become the new big thing. Not that that's a bad thing! Heaven forbid should the mass listen to good music. But the bands I have in mind, including The Unicorns, aren't exactly unheard of. They're huge in the indie scene, as were the previously mentioned bands once. They're the "next big thing" (like Eisley!!!!!!!) and you'd think any magazine worth their weight in subscribers would want to be the "first ones there." But, what do I know? I've never run a magazine (nor do I intend to!!). And I, personally, have no problem with the fact that this fella didn't like the album. Everyone is more than welcome to their opinion and encouraged to voice it. That's the beauty of freedom and self-realization, but the review itself was poor. That's all. And I'm not kidding when I say that the 5th graders I'm interning with right now have written better book reviews. I mean, come on. "Best band at a talent show?" That could be in regards to any band I listen to!!! The review was unclear and inconclusive, hence, a bad review. I just wanted to let you know where I was coming from. I don't want to write a bad review of the reviewer!!!!!!!  But, yeah, you're right, I think there's been too much energy spent on a lousy review. It's like I always say, ya takes the yings with the yangs. And if the Eisley kids aren't concerned with it, then neither should we. It's up to us ultimately to turn the non-believers. I'm done!!! _________________ "I am a writer, a writer of fictions I am the heart that you call home I've written pages upon pages Trying to rid you from my poems" -The Decemberists |
|
|
Joined: 11 Feb 2005 | Posts: 11 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: Posted: Sat Feb 12, 2005 5:14 pm
i wonder how hard it is to get your letter in the front part of the magazine? i want to somehow ask the question: If Rolling Stone is such a liberal, free thinking publication, why do they follow the cliche' of automatically assuming that every Christian backs Bush? p.s. i happen to know several that don't _________________ I am Torgo. I take care of the place while the Master is away. |
|
|
Joined: 05 Nov 2002 | Posts: 6826 | Location: Gilmer, Tejas
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: Posted: Sat Feb 12, 2005 6:58 pm
I didn't think the review was that bad either, however, not much context. It sounds like to me that the author doesn't like Eisley's type of music, but knows that their music is actually really good and that most people will like it. Because of that he couldn't trash them too bad. |
|
|
Joined: 08 Sep 2004 | Posts: 1335 | Location: COLUMBUS, GA
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: yes Posted: Sat Feb 12, 2005 7:03 pm
I am a strong christian and am in the christian band Noah Bullock, but I cannot stand W. He stands for everything that christianity is not. Now money bags church people who are there for the wrong reasons are why we get that label. _________________ Check out my band, Noah Bullock, www.noahbullock.listen.to. I quit this band, but Eilsey inspired me to come back! |
|
|
Joined: 10 Feb 2005 | Posts: 17 | Location: Kentucky
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: Re: yes Posted: Sat Feb 12, 2005 7:05 pm
KyGuyEisleyfan wrote: I am a strong christian and am in the christian band Noah Bullock, but I cannot stand W. He stands for everything that christianity is not. Now money bags church people who are there for the wrong reasons are why we get that label. hmm. interesting. _________________ Facebook & Twitter & Blog(ish)-type thing |
|
|
Joined: 18 Jan 2004 | Posts: 5565 | Location: Austin, TX
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Laughing City Forum Index -> eisleyBlog -> Rollingstone review...
Page 5 of 7 |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
|
|
All times are GMT - 12 Hours
|
|
