Rolling Stone Review

[SeventhWonder]

Ok.... Tell me this isn't the worst review you've ever read...

______________________________________

*** (3 stars)
For those keeping score at home, the latest lineup of this endlessly regenerative California-rock legend goes Lindsey Buckingham, Stevie Nicks, Mick Fleetwood and John, but not Christine McVie. It's the first Mac album in sixteen years for which Buckingham has written songs; tracks such as "Peacekeeper" and "Steal Your Heart Away" prove that Mac's singular vibe -- a sunny, countrified lope against which urgent breakup lyrics blaze -- has always been his doing. Say You Will also proves that this is the only band that knows how to play his songs. The album is a randomly sequenced display of Fleetwood Mac's best instincts: Buckingham's bittersweet tunes about playing for keeps; Nicks' tough, swirly songs about fragile and wicked women; and the experiments the group can't stop indulging in (near-classical and metal-inclined guitar, teen pop, an incoherent number about the media). And when this accumulation of chops rallies for a single, the result is the perfectly mellow breeze of the title song. Not that this is a band that needs to be relevant -- in California, no one has to grow old.
ARION BERGER
_______________________________________________

What the hell... did he even listen to the freakin CD? Can we actually get a REVIEW of it instead of some lame comments about California?! Well I don't know what I was expecting...Rolling Stone is pretty much crap nowadays.

Dan

[Bella Figura]

our first negative review!! I'm soooo proud!! :laugh:

"a sunny, countrified lope against which urgent breakup lyrics blaze" ...what does this mean?? talk about being airy-fairy...well at least now the woman are fragile and wicked...

but the real kicker is the comment: in California, no one has to grow old. that's like the pot calling the kettle black...

[ricohv]

I think it's actually fairly complimentary, guys. The comment about "in California, no one has to grow old" that means their saying that FMac still has relevance. This isn't as detailed and exhaustive as say The Uncut review, but hey, it still is good. (BY the way, the bit about a sunny, countrified lope: they are saying FMac has happy sounding music w/ heavy heartbreak lyrics...again, nothing really bad being said)

[Les]

My problem with it is that I can't tell if it's supposed to be negative or positive, because it's difficult to make out the writer's point at all. There's no real attempt to discuss any songs in any kind of informative way. Very poorly done.

[SeventhWonder]

Originally posted by ricohv
I think it's actually fairly complimentary, guys. The comment about "in California, no one has to grow old" that means their saying that FMac still has relevance. This isn't as detailed and exhaustive as say The Uncut review, but hey, it still is good. (BY the way, the bit about a sunny, countrified lope: they are saying FMac has happy sounding music w/ heavy heartbreak lyrics...again, nothing really bad being said)

Hey ricohv..

Even if this review was negative, I wouldn't care...as long as it says something about the album. THAT'S what bugs me about the review. I mean, doesn't Fleetwood Mac deserve more than a one paragraph review that actually says something about the CD? To me didn't really make a point at all. ...Oh well.

April 15th hurry up!


:confused: Dan

[strandinthewind]

I took it as a positive interview. It was, however, poorly done in that it does not really give any details. I think/hope there will a "better" interview in the actual magazine.

[Gazza]

Seems to me, he's had one quick listen, given it 3 stars knowing that Fleetwood Mac with Lindseys is never going to be anything lower, and that was it.

It's a pathetic review imo.

[estranged4life]

Originally posted by Gazza
Seems to me, he's had one quick listen, given it 3 stars knowing that Fleetwood Mac with Lindseys is never going to be anything lower, and that was it.

It's a pathetic review imo.

I think the reviewer just listened to the "6 Song Sampler" at Border's and then gave a review (Which I can't tell if it was a positive or negative, lol)...Brian "Rolling Stone magazine makes a GREAT litter box liner too" J.

[ricohv]

I do agree-it really is not the review I would expect from RS-especially considering the hype this album is getting-it really does just gloss over the album-I was just trying to point out that if it is going to be a simplistic-overview kind of review, that the things they were saying are for the most part pretty good!

I really had hoped for a big feature review. But remember the Dance had been out for several months before FM got the Rolling Stone cover and feature story...so maybe that's how this lightning could strike twice!

[Steve]

I think the person who posted this on the RS website summed it up....

YOUR REVIEWS

Average User Rating

BlueNites writes:

Rating: ****1/2

Disagreed with the RS Review

It doesn't appear as if the critic listened to the album, beyond just a few songs. How about the title track, Say You Will -- a clear reference to departed Mac member Christine McVie? Certainly her absence should be worthy of a mention, considering that she's been with the band since the 1960s! Or the references to our current states of affairs on Illume (9/11) and What the World Coming To. How do they stack up? Strengthen or weaken the album? Or Buckingham's acoustic brilliance on Red Rover, Miranda and Come? What about Buckingham's production work? Quirky or polished? Or the obvious exchange between Buckingham and Nicks on the last two songs, Say Goodbye and Goodbye Baby -- which certainly can be interpreted as closure for one of rock music's greatest romantic/musical partnerships. There are so many elements of this record this critic could have explored, but completely missed.

:nod:

[Wayne2]

lol...

you guys are catching feelings because of a review you feel isn't positive.

[Johnny Stew]

I don't think anyone's bothered that the review isn't a glowing one, per se... I think the sticking point for everyone is that you can't even really tell if it's positive or negative.

The critic focused more on what's known about FM and their music, and barely even touched upon THIS album and its contents.

Anyone could have written this, without having heard a stitch of music from 'Say You Will'.... and I believe *that* is the problem people are having with it.

[Sarah]

I don't know if the review was negative or positive.. but that doesn't matter, I don't think. I've been trying to save this album as a surprise - but I have heard a few very small clips, and of course, Peacekeeper.

I have to admit, at this point, I'm somewhat disappointed in what I've heard. It might just be a pre-polished-small-clip issue, so I'm trying to keep my mind open and hope for a fantastic new album. I can't imagine that Fleetwood Mac would put out a record that is more than what I see as slightly less than perfect. (Perfect doesn't apply because of Mirage and Tango.. wonderful albums.. works of art.. but not quite perfect, IMO, sorry.) All FM albums have been close to perfection thus far.. surely this one can't be much different.

Maybe this review guy only got the same very small sampling that I did. That's a stupid thought though.. who can critique an entire album on clips or only a couple songs? If he did.. leave it to Rolling Stone.

[SeventhWonder]

Originally posted by Wayne2
lol...

you guys are catching feelings because of a review you feel isn't positive.

Did you even read our posts?

You obviously missed the point...:rolleyes:

[wondergirl9847]

I would have been OKAY with a negative review, as long as the reviewer didn't say "THIS SUCKS." That tells me JACK SQUAT!! WHY does it suck?!?! Is it the cohesiveness of the album, the lyrics, the vocals, WHAT??!?!?! He told us NOTHING, positive OR negative.

THAT is our problem.

[Gazza]

For me, it's just the fact that one reviewer will dedicate god knows how many words to a review of "Elephant" by the White Stripes, yet this twit doesn't even manage more than one paragraph for one of the biggest selling bands of all time... It just sums up my feelings on most "know it all" critics who really are just bandwagon jumping fools. It wouldn't have mattered if that White Stripes album was the worst album of the year - it still would have got a great review (similar to how Radiohead got nothing but good reviews for Kid A - which was awful). There's a clear bias, and no genuine love of the creation. The fact the reviewer somehow completely ignored songs like Red Rover and Come makes you very suspicious on whether or not he listened to the album or not.

[Wayne2]

Originally posted by SeventhWonder
Did you even read our posts?

You obviously missed the point...:rolleyes:

yes

really?

[SeventhWonder]

Originally posted by Wayne2
yes

really?

yes
:rolleyes:

[Cour]

Originally posted by Johnny Stew
I don't think anyone's bothered that the review isn't a glowing one, per se... I think the sticking point for everyone is that you can't even really tell if it's positive or negative.

The critic focused more on what's known about FM and their music, and barely even touched upon THIS album and its contents.

Anyone could have written this, without having heard a stitch of music from 'Say You Will'.... and I believe *that* is the problem people are having with it.


How about forwarding your comments to RS? They often publish these types of letters and if nothing else, it might get someone at RS to take a second look at the review.