1. Cool.
  2. I completely forgot how well received No Line on the Horizon was. 100% perfect score from Q, Blender, and Rolling Stone! #Random
  3. Originally posted by Ross1441:I completely forgot how well received No Line on the Horizon was. 100% perfect score from Q, Blender, and Rolling Stone! #Random

    It's an excellent album.

  4. No, it isn't. Too many weak spots. It's a very good album. Those early reviews were highly biased/hyped by the anticipation, the long wait, the postponed release and the excellent marketing work. But I doubt it would reach a 90% score today, even with those same critics.
  5. I think critics get extremely happy when they get to listen to some good rock these days.
  6. @Ourumov Yes. Very much so. I'm sure it's the height of their year when something decent happens.

    @Sergio I agree actually. I think the review score would go down a little, but still maintain a very respectable score. Don't forget that Rolling Stone actually included Moment of Surrender in their revised 500 Greatest songs of all time list.

  7. Yeah Get On Your Boots, Crazy Tonight, White As Snow, that's precisely what I call good rock

    I mean, it's a very good album and it has some great songs (MOS, UC, Breathe, NLOTH, Cedars) but it surely doesn't deserve a 100% rating.
  8. Amazing album.

  9. +1
    I like it

    Anyway i think they work hard to have very good 5/6 songs and then complete with some songs
    They did that on the last 3 cds
  10. I've made up my mind. If the Tigers make it too the playoffs, I'm going to ask out the gal I like.


  11. Depends on the critic. If it's NME, then indie rock will get favoured to death. They gave the new Vaccines album 8/10. It's shit! They are a bad that are degrading massively and had a fluky first album. NME hate U2 and bash proper rock.

    On the other hand, Q and Rolling Stone usually give rock good reviews - albeit a tad biased with it comes to their lists.