"Years Of Refusal" review in Q magazine March 09

[thecondy]

Just had a quick glimpse of the new Q (March 2009 issue - I think The Killers are on the front cover but could be wrong)...

• 2-pages devoted to YOR (1 page of review writing, 1 page new photo of Morrissey's face).
• It's their lead review and is also mentioned on the front cover.
• They give it 3 out of 5 (I think Q ratings are so predictable these days!) with the comment "Another solid muscular effort from Morrissey. It's just a shame he carps on so much."
• (In the index at the front of the mag it says something similar: "New album reviews: Morrissey has another moan".)
  
• Sorry, I didn't catch who the reviewer is.

 

[Maurice E]

Re: "Years Of Refusal" review in new Q magazine

Just had a quick glimpse of the new Q (I think The Killers are on the front cover but could be wrong)...

• 2-pages devoted to YOR (1 page of review writing, 1 page new photo of Morrissey's face).
• It's their lead review and is also mentioned on the front cover.
• They give it 3 out of 5 (I think Q ratings are so predictable these days!) with the comment "Another solid muscular effort from Morrissey. It's just a shame he carps on so much."
• (In the index at the front of the mag it says something similar: "New album reviews: Morrissey has another moan".)
  
• Sorry, I didn't catch who the reviewer is.

oh dear. that's a bad sign, at least for those of us who've yet to hear the album. the rest of you obviously know what you think of the album.
Q's bias can account for one plus or minus star, but sounds like it's gonna be another album destined to receive mixed reviews ...

 

[Absurd]

Re: "Years Of Refusal" review in Q magazine Feb 09

Oh dear.

 

[Manchester Neil]

Re: "Years Of Refusal" review in Q magazine Feb 09

Don't worry guys - the album is a treat.

They'd have given it 5 stars if Years of Refusal had anyone but Morrissey's name on the cover. I've not read the review yet but 'carping on and moaning' aren't really good enough reasons to criticise the merits of a song.

 

[Orson Swells]

Re: "Years Of Refusal" review in new Q magazine

oh dear. that's a bad sign, at least for those of us who've yet to hear the album. the rest of you obviously know what you think of the album.
Q's bias can account for one plus or minus star, but sounds like it's gonna be another album destined to receive mixed reviews ...

Actually I think it's quite a good sign as Q is staffed by many Moz-haters. Three stars is probably the lowest they can give the album without looking completely ridiculous. If they had the chance to give it any lower, then they would.

 

[mspendl828]

Re: "Years Of Refusal" review in new Q magazine

Surprised Q would go as high as 3/5.

 

[Johan de Witt]

Re: "Years Of Refusal" review in Q magazine Feb 09

Well, the album is hardly breaking any new ground, and has the added disadvantage of including 2 songs that were released a year ago, so I never expected the reviews to be very positive, and neither did Moz, I suppose.

This is an album to keep the fan base happy, not the critics.

 

[spleenhead]

Re: "Years Of Refusal" review in Q magazine Feb 09

"It's just a shame he carps on so much" is surely not relevant criticism - surely they know what they're letting themselves in for when they listen to a new Moz album?

 

[thecondy]

Just for completeness:

The Moz review is in the new issue of Q which is the MARCH one.
[Someone (a moderator?) has incorrectly changed the main Title of the thread to read "Feb 09" but the Feb issue is the "old" one with U2 on the front.]

 

[Dave]

Re: "Years Of Refusal" review in Q magazine Feb 09

To Q Magazine, I say...

You wouldn't understand
Good sons like you
NEVER DO


seriously, I can't believe people here that haven't heard the music are going by a magazine review. Do they ever really get Morrissey right?

Don't worry.

 

[Jones]

Re: "Years Of Refusal" review in Q magazine Feb 09

He always gets crap reviews from Q. They've been anti-Morrissey for years and he refuses to have anything to do with them. I'm quite surprised they gave it that high a mark.

 

[Maurice E]

Re: "Years Of Refusal" review in Q magazine Feb 09

had a quick read at lunctime.
it's by Victoria Seagull and it's pretty well written with some good observations. says there are some great songs but too many duff lyrics.
likens Morrissey's current lyrical approach to a poetic genius who spends all his time writing letters to the council about waste collection!

 

[Maurice E]

Re: "Years Of Refusal" review in Q magazine Feb 09

A quick Google reveals that Seagull also wrote the first YATQ review to be published by a major music mag (Mojo). Think she gave it 4 or 5 stars (out of 6)...

 

[Johan de Witt]

Re: "Years Of Refusal" review in Q magazine Feb 09

it's by Victoria Seagull and it's pretty well written with some good observations. says there are some great songs but too many duff lyrics.
likens Morrissey's current lyrical approach to a poetic genius who spends all his time writing letters to the council about waste collection!

Seems like she's pretty spot on then!

 

[Dave]

Re: "Years Of Refusal" review in Q magazine Feb 09

You're right. I don't like the record anymore. It has now been proven to be lacking.

 

[Ugly Devil]

Re: "Years Of Refusal" review in Q magazine Feb 09

Q's history of reviews has always been hit and miss, sometimes they get it right, here's a breif history of Morrissy's ratings in Q magazine

Viva Hate 4/5
Kill Uncle 2/5
Your Arsenal 5/5
Vauxhall and I 5/5
Southpaw Grammar 4/5
Maladjusted 2/5
You are the Quarry 2/5
Ringleader of the Tormentors 3/5

As you can see after Vauxhall the rating system seems pretty random.

 

[nightcrawler]

Re: "Years Of Refusal" review in Q magazine Feb 09

Q's history of reviews has always been hit and miss, sometimes they get it right, here's a breif history of Morrissy's ratings in Q magazine

Viva Hate 4/5
Kill Uncle 2/5
Your Arsenal 5/5
Vauxhall and I 5/5
Southpaw Grammar 4/5
Maladjusted 2/5
You are the Quarry 2/5
Ringleader of the Tormentors 3/5

As you can see after Vauxhall the rating system seems pretty random.

Well, seeing these rating they got it right except for YATQ (should have been 4/5). But I remember that most of those reviews were not very well written...

 

[Ugly Devil]

Re: "Years Of Refusal" review in Q magazine Feb 09

Well, seeing these rating they got it right except for YATQ (should have been 4/5). But I remember that most of those reviews were not very well written...

I disagree, they got the first five spot on. This is how I see it.

Southpaw Grammar 3/5
Maladjusted 3/5
Quarry 3/5
Ringleader 4/5
Years of Refusal 4/5

 

[Johan de Witt]

Re: "Years Of Refusal" review in Q magazine Feb 09

I disagree, they got the first five spot on. This is how I see it.

Southpaw Grammar 3/5
Maladjusted 3/5
Quarry 3/5
Ringleader 4/5
Years of Refusal 4/5

Yes, but Quarry got a much better critical reception than the 2 albums preceding it, and the 2 following.

Based on the critical consensus they should have rated the albums thus:

Southpaw Grammar 2/5
Maladjusted 2/5
Quarry 4/5
Ringleader 3/5
Years of Refusal 3/5

So they got them all spot-on except for Southpaw (but he was on the cover then...) and Quarry (John Harris anyone?).

 

[Maurice E]

Re: "Years Of Refusal" review in Q magazine Feb 09

Yes, but Quarry got a much better critical reception than the 2 albums preceding it, and the 2 following.

Based on the critical consensus they should have rated the albums thus:

Southpaw Grammar 2/5
Maladjusted 2/5
Quarry 4/5
Ringleader 3/5
Years of Refusal 3/5

So they got them all spot-on except for Southpaw (but he was on the cover then...) and Quarry (John Harris anyone?).

Ringleader actually did slightly better than Quarry, critically (see this site which averages the main reviews).
http://www.metacritic.com/search/process?sort=relevance&termType=all&ts=morrissey&ty=0
Q's scores do tend to be at least slightly influenced by their relationship with the artist. Moz gave them an interview in 95 so Southpaw Grammar was given 4/5 but refused to in 2004 which explains partly why Quarry just got 2/5. Well, that and the fact that John Harris is an utter twat!