DanVerlaine

Jurix, I was saying, compared to disgusting groups like Maroon 5, that despite the countless examples of nineteen-year-olds who have done great things, young age for many means greater naivety and immaturity, and therefore a possibility that they have not yet found their musical identity, their right sound. They are just a teen band; it's easy to criticize them because they're caricatures and have too much success. Their shitty music is no shittier than that of others who make shitty music, that's all.

Rest assured that the great songs by the Stones were written by them. The usual Nazi fans of the Beatles...
That said, vellugrigio, it seems to me that you express various trivial evaluations. Just because they are "outdated" doesn’t mean anything; it would be absurd to claim that the Beatles' sound today isn't "outdated." One is a nice collection of singles that shows the appreciable variety in the Beatles' repertoire. Some tracks aren't worth half as much as others that didn't chart, but in some cases, success actually rewarded quality (Eleanor Rigby, We Can't Work It Out, Something). The Ballad Of John And Yoko is probably the worst single by the Beatles, with Lennon already quite daft thanks to Yoko, singing in an annoyingly shrill voice. Ticket To Ride is great, and obviously, Hey Jude. Hello Goodbye, despite the ridiculous lyrics (the PID theory doesn't change anything; it's still ridiculous), features an interesting arrangement, perhaps one of their most underrated tracks.
You can also skip the first few songs on the album, up until track 7.

The truth is that many have never listened to a Tokyo Hotel album, the rest is just foolish preconceptions. I've listened to this album, and I don't think it's as dreadful as people say. It's pop-rock that offers a few catchy songs here and there; they aren't any less valuable than bands like Maroon 5, we’re on the same level and they even have the excuse of being young.
Girls in the '90s listened to Take That, so if the girls now listen to Tokyo Hotel, to me that's a small step forward.
If the singer seems like a woman, what does that mean? You don't have to approve of the characters, but their music.

It’s definitely an uneven album, a bit frayed around the edges, but there are 4-5 great tracks in my opinion.
It’s hard to understand why the Stones are asked for 10 2000LightYearsFromHome while the Beatles are allowed to insert completely out-of-context pop-swing clichés into a theoretically psychedelic album (according to Martin, of course).

Come on, let’s stop bluffing.
Honestly, we’re dealing with one of the best pop-rock albums of all time, no doubt about it.
I believe the Beatles are indeed overrated, especially for Sgt. Pepper, but Revolver is a wonderful, perfect album.
Lennon and McCartney at their peak of inspiration, Harrison shines without being a distraction, and very, very little Martin.
Revolver is THE BEATLES ALBUM, an amazing record.
Maybe it's not rock, no, it's just great music.

Thanks Editors, got it all, I’m a donkey, it was easy. Me Jackass.
Sorry Antmo. End of OT.

Yes, you're right, the truth is I don't know Debaser that well and I'm a lazy bastard :).
But I did click there, I tried to do different things but I still couldn't get ahead.
That said, you could highlight that email a bit more prominently somewhere..
Or am I blind?
Oh well..
Sorry Antmo, I love White Denim!!

Guys, sorry, I tried to see how to write a review, but once I got to the page where I need to provide the artist's name and the album, the page doesn't change, everything stays still. What should I do to proceed?

Eh, but you see Lux, you’re a balanced person who doesn’t want to throw around star ratings, and in the end, that’s fair enough. You probably also believe that the 5 stars should be reserved for just a handful of albums, and I can agree with you on that. However, I repeat, I notice that 5 stars are casually slapped on albums that are worth less than 20 seconds of Here To Fall. For me, it’s a 3.5, and as a reviewer, I would have given it a 4 to encourage listening, but I certainly don’t want to come off as overly critical towards you; it was just a side comment.
At times, I believe Popular Songs is up there with their best work; the two previous albums convinced me a lot less.
Live, they’re really strong!
And to think that the first time I listened to May I Sing With Me, I thought, "what is this stuff without a verse?" :)

Sorry Psycho, but I didn't say it has to be liked just because it has been praised on a global scale. I don't know, in my opinion, those who write online often lose sight of the fact that this, like other places, shapes opinions and stimulates interest. In this sense, since I've noticed a bit of coldness towards this band, I felt it was important to let you know that they are not just some random twenty-something wannabes that someone talks about to seem "alternative," but a group with an important career that has garnered a lot of acclaim. Yo La Tengo = cult band - very well regarded by critics: it's just information to clarify who we are talking about.
Why do you think I swallow anything the critics exalt? Of course, why then do the Pains of Being Pure at Heart make me sick? Why do Animal Collective, who have a very high average rating on Metacritic, not resonate with me at all?
However, there is a "but," and it's undeniable that often, we approach albums because the critics have spoken well of them. Everyone thinks, "Oh, let me hear these guys everyone is raving about," which doesn't mean, if you have a solid critical sense, that you have to conform to the prevailing opinion, but more or less directly that appreciation from critics has constituted the reason for your listening. This happens to everyone, even you, it's perfectly normal.
On the other hand, hype around albums is generated this way; the problem is, there are those who, "under the effect of hype," would find even crap enjoyable, that's for sure. The argument of "if everyone says so" is as valid as it is generic and rhetorical. It depends: if I read the critics, at some point I'll also be able to understand which critics have a view of music closer to mine, meaning I'll know whom I can "trust." There are critics or webzines that I consider more "reliable," and if I get a listening recommendation from those sources, I tend to take it into consideration. However, that doesn't mean I have to like the album; I just listened to it following their suggestion, and certainly, if you don't listen to an album, you can't know if you like it. The opinion of the critics can lead to listening => one more listen = one more person who might appreciate the artist.
Besides that, considering the ratings thrown around here, this is an album that could have easily earned 4 stars.