Wasn't that too harsh?

>>68351986
No. Oasis in their prime were always medicore. Post-90s Oasis is just atrocious.

>>68352001
Yeah I know, but 1,2 it's really damm low, that album got some good tracks, it doesn't anoy you. You don't give 1.2 to mediocrice you give at least 4

>>68351986

1.2 is fucking ridiculous and im not even saying the album is good

>>68352073
>You don't give 1.2 to mediocrice you give at least 4

See: "Oasis in their prime were always medicore. Post-90s Oasis is just atrocious."

reviews are inflated (or deflated) these days because its the only way to get the attention of younger people

>>68351986
Hindu Times and Songbird are the only good songs from that album, the others can burn in hell

>>68352129
/thread

>>68351986
should be lower

>>68351986
Should have been 0.0

Early Pitchfork made their name by being incredibly harsh. I remember they had a Wired magazine cover feature and the tagline was "the music site not afraid to give Sonic Youth a 0." During peak hipsterdom that was a huge appeal.

It is a difficult Oasis period. The solo albums make up for it. Maybe that was the problem all along? No one could work with Noel.