|
Post by Brick Wall on Dec 24, 2017 5:00:13 GMT
Okay. I'll start.
0 out of 5 stars EVERYTHING THE RUTZ RECORDED WITH MALCOM OWEN BETWEEN 1978 AND 1980!!!!!!!!!! ByEdward J. mccarthy Jr.on November 17, 2015 Format: Audio CD god bless malcom owen as he was one of the uks best punk front men of that era, anyway what you get here is almost everything the rutz ever recorded with malcom between 1978 and up until his death in 1980, the rutz did some of late 70s uk punks best songs that still stand very strong today like my favorite something that i said as well as dope for guns, give youth a chance, human punk babylons burning and jah war, any punk that knows what he/ she is talking about knows these songs well, this was long long before green day, rancid and all that 90s poser punk crap came along, god malcom must have been rolling in his grave with sid by 1995, anyway most all of this music in this beautiful clam shell box brings back memories from some of the best times i had in my life on the punk scene on the lower east side in nyc back in the day, anyway all 4 cds are remastered to sound there best and all 4 discs come in lp style replica sleeves and the booklet is great but at my age i have to put on my glasses to read and look at it, you get the classic 1979 lp the crack and all 45s that came out in 1979 and 1980, you get all the b sides, the single mixes and 2 great john peel shows one from 1979 and one from 1980 as well as a great 1979 bbc in concert gig. as a bonus on the fourth disc you get a full marquee london show from the summer of 79 wich was when the rutz peaked in the uk, sadly they did not get far as malcom would be dead within a year, anyway this is an awesome box set for any REAL PUNK from back in the day or anyone young who considers themselves a real punk today 35 years after malcoms death., you basically get everything the rutz ever recorded right here in this box, the rutz followed a bit in the footsteps of the clash mixing punk with reggae, personally i liked the rutz better then the clash, malcom did not live long enough to sell out rip man and thank you for the memories......................... Comment| 7 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?
There you go.
|
|
|
Post by AnalogRearEnd on Dec 24, 2017 5:12:03 GMT
Best review I've ever seen was a dad on youtube playing death metal vids for his young daughters. One of the vids was by Suffocation, and when it's done dad asks youngest daughter (who's like six or seven) "so what do yo think that song was called?". They'd never heard any of this stuff before.
Her answer: "I'LL RIP YOUR FACE OFF"
Now, that's a proper review.
|
|
|
Post by antiram on Dec 27, 2017 17:57:36 GMT
I highly recommend this site: Rolling Stone's 500 Worst Reviews rateyourmusic.com/list/schmidtt/rolling_stones_500_worst_reviews_of_all_time__work_in_progress_/I have no idea who wrote it, but the guy is brilliant. His analysis is spot-on, he's funny, he knows his music history, and he understands what makes a good record. If he were to publish it as a book, I'd buy it. Reading it, I got a really clear sense of just how a small handful of proto-SHites pretty much controlled the whole rock music narrative, at least through the end of the last century. It made my blood boil in places, it had me laughing aloud in others, and it got me to spin a few records too. It also turned out to be a place that ate up the better part of half a day after I found it by accident on Google. I think the crowd here would appreciate this remarkable labor of love.
|
|
|
Post by hoffa_nagila on Dec 27, 2017 21:11:30 GMT
Well there goes my weekend
|
|
|
Post by gobshite on Dec 28, 2017 3:06:45 GMT
Guy has reviewed 500 Rolling Stone reviews? What's his SHite handle?
|
|
|
Post by antiram on Dec 28, 2017 5:01:19 GMT
Guy has reviewed 500 Rolling Stone reviews? What's his SHite handle? I don't think most true SHites would like that guy. SHites claim to hate Rolling Stone, but it was Rolling Stone (and to a lesser extent, Creem and SPIN) that created and curated that musty, boring canon they cling to. Had it not been for their awful reviews and record guides, the whole pantheon might look different. Imagine if Lester Bangs had been left in charge, or something... SHites would have to be dissecting the latest Iggy and the Stooges release or something for 400 thread pages...
|
|
|
Post by krabapple on Dec 28, 2017 5:10:12 GMT
Read 'Sticky Fingers' (demonstrates conclusively that Jann Wenner has long been a disgusting status-climbing excuse for a human being, basically) and better yet, 'Rock 'Til You Drop: The Decline from Rebellion to Nostalgia' (which covers RS for obvious reasons) to get more on how Rolling Stones reviews got made.
|
|
|
Post by hugofuguzev on Dec 28, 2017 6:28:52 GMT
Only good thing about Rolling Stone magazine was Hunter S Thompson's articles, back in the day.
|
|
|
Post by gobshite on Dec 28, 2017 12:32:50 GMT
Guy has reviewed 500 Rolling Stone reviews? What's his SHite handle? I don't think most true SHites would like that guy. SHites claim to hate Rolling Stone, but it was Rolling Stone (and to a lesser extent, Creem and SPIN) that created and curated that musty, boring canon they cling to. Had it not been for their awful reviews and record guides, the whole pantheon might look different. Imagine if Lester Bangs had been left in charge, or something... SHites would have to be dissecting the latest Iggy and the Stooges release or something for 400 thread pages... But retrospectively taking critics to task with 40-50 years of hindsight and context is ur-SHite activity. Who else has the time and that level of obsession? Check the action here: forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/wings-referred-to-as-one-of-the-greatest-bands-of-all-time.666558/page-26
|
|
|
Post by Wanklein on Dec 28, 2017 13:52:10 GMT
I don't think most true SHites would like that guy. SHites claim to hate Rolling Stone, but it was Rolling Stone (and to a lesser extent, Creem and SPIN) that created and curated that musty, boring canon they cling to. Had it not been for their awful reviews and record guides, the whole pantheon might look different. Imagine if Lester Bangs had been left in charge, or something... SHites would have to be dissecting the latest Iggy and the Stooges release or something for 400 thread pages... But retrospectively taking critics to task with 40-50 years of hindsight and context is ur-SHite activity. Who else has the time and that level of obsession? Check the action here: forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/wings-referred-to-as-one-of-the-greatest-bands-of-all-time.666558/page-26Holy Fuck look at page 27 and Maccafan: "This is what I mean by some just totally IGNORING THE FACTS and being DISHONEST! How on Earth is the SECOND MOST SUCCESSFUL band of the ENTIRE 70s, the band that BROKE AND SET WORLD RECORDS, it wasn't even the band that was more successful (the Bee Gees) that broke and set those records! It wasn't any other band you can name that did it, not the Stones, Led Zep, the Who, Queen, anyone else that did it, it was WINGS! So how are they subject to having the bar raised too high?! If anything Wings raised the bar! As I said NO ONE ELSE was breaking and setting those world records! It wasn't just because he's Paul McCartney either, because if the music wasn't good no one would have KEPT SHOWING UP! The music couldn't be FAKED! It seems with this band, for whatever reason, some just will not give credit where it's due?! Personally I have absolutely no problem with calling Wings a backup band, after all they were PAUL McCARTNEY and WINGS! My point and by McCartney's own STATED GOAL, VIEW and WORDS, they were a BAND! The first version was RAW, the second CONQUERED THE WORLD, the last WRAPPED IT ALL UP! All three were very good, and deserve WAY MORE CREDIT than they have EVER RECEIVED! I watched ROCKSHOW again the other night, and that band was TIGHT, HOT AND ROCKIN! WINGS at their absolute best, one of the greatest bands of the 70s!" What a fucking psychopath
|
|
|
Post by AnalogRearEnd on Dec 28, 2017 13:58:08 GMT
I'm totally CONVINCED! TIGHT, HOT AND ROCKIN! I WANT TO WEAR SIR PAUL'S SKIN!
|
|
|
Post by Wanklein on Dec 28, 2017 14:05:03 GMT
I wonder what he thinks of retard son James
|
|
|
Post by AnalogRearEnd on Dec 28, 2017 14:20:30 GMT
Probably a seething hate based in a "PAUL shouldn't have a FAMILY, he should focus all his attention on his BIGGEST FAN, no one LOVES HIM like ME!" kind of thing.
Not that there's anything wrong with that.
|
|
|
Post by thisonehurts on Dec 28, 2017 15:11:15 GMT
I am STILL WAITING for Rolling Stone to print an APOLOGY for their critical review of Red Rose Speedway and to DELETE it from their database and all their encyclopaedias because it is WRONG and IGNORES THE FACTS.
|
|
|
Post by antiram on Dec 28, 2017 15:51:31 GMT
I don't think most true SHites would like that guy. SHites claim to hate Rolling Stone, but it was Rolling Stone (and to a lesser extent, Creem and SPIN) that created and curated that musty, boring canon they cling to. Had it not been for their awful reviews and record guides, the whole pantheon might look different. Imagine if Lester Bangs had been left in charge, or something... SHites would have to be dissecting the latest Iggy and the Stooges release or something for 400 thread pages... But retrospectively taking critics to task with 40-50 years of hindsight and context is ur-SHite activity. Who else has the time and that level of obsession? Check the action here: forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/wings-referred-to-as-one-of-the-greatest-bands-of-all-time.666558/page-26The writing is a lot better than what you find at SHiteville. It is well-researched too. And it doesn't say the comforting things most SHites would expect. Honestly, it is worth a look. If one is a writer, one writes what they know... But I have no dog in this race; I just offer the link because I thought is was a really fun read.
|
|