Wrongest Record Reviews

This has sparked a lot of debate on our social channels: which record review most upset you for being so wrong?

Posts here Redirecting... and here https://twitter.com/drownedinsound/status/1144146179397210112?s=21 if you wanna see what people are saying or join in over there.

1 Like

This piece of utter fucking stupidity.

In truth, Discovery rarely invokes its predecessor’s slap-bass funk



There was a (American?) music website whose name I forget who were mostly pretty decent and stopped operating about 7-10 years ago. I remember that they gave mclusky do dallas such a bad review that in the final message they even made a point that they stood by the review.

While this description is vague, and perhaps imagined, I’d like to nominate it.

It simply closes


Mark Beaumont of Melody Maker gave Kid A a 1.5/5 in a scathing review.

I found it pretty funny at the time as I was avowedly a ‘The Bends’ fan but looking back it seems a little low. Even more so when taking into account the critical glow that album basked in.

Didn’t Pitchfork originally slate it too? Before later, crowning it album of the 00’s IIRC.

Select magazine 5/5 for Oasis - Be Here Now

Didn’t Be Here Now get massive praise in reviews at the time? Better than OK Computer from what I can remember.

1 Like

Yeah, the whole music press went a bit mental as Oasis were so huge that everyone was scared of giving it a bad review. I also assume that the mags were scared of not getting an interview with them further down the line if a bad review was published.


Think it was also that the press were scared that they’d got it wrong in giving ‘morning glory’ lukewarm reviews and then seeing it then blow up the way it did. Think your comment could also apply to blur’s ‘the great escape’ though which got amazing reviews across the board at the time but was subsequently seen as a bit of a dud.

1 Like

The Pitchfork review for Last of the Country Gentleman. More obscurely, I remember a Planet Sound review of Figure 8 by Elliot Smith that described him as something like “an American version of David Gray, but without the songs”. It absolutely infuriated me at the time, not least because pre-internet they were probably the most reliable music reviewers around (at least, as far as indie/alternative stuff went).


Pitchfork giving:

B&S - The Boy With The Arab Strap 0.8
Tegan & Sara - So Jealous 3.4


Maybe worst of all - in the sub-heading…YOU’RE album’s a bit overdue

Select was a terrible magazine by 1997.

NME were so brave with their 7/10 What’s the Story review then!

I believe they had firmly chose Blur. They gave The Great Escape 9/10 iirc

Pretty sure I remember Q giving Massive Attack’s ‘Mezzanine’ a 3 star review.

1 Like

Also, Earbuddy’s review of Low’s ‘Double Negative’… pffffttt… fuck off!

1 Like

i dunno about this, it’s a bit too conspiratorial - the reality is that any big band releasing a hotly-anticipated album would be extremely likely to get the 5/5, 10/10 treatment for a good decade after this. Just look at Q Magazine etc

I mean maybe it’s the same thing that underlies it but Oasis were hardly unique if that’s the case.

This is the moment the government should have nationalized Pitchfork.

Not everyone is going to like the same albums, but it’s clear they never really listened to it and had a vendetta against the band going into it (not saying this is limited to the Pumpkins, see their treatment of The Eels too). If you’re going to say it’s the same thing as Adore and then have the nerve to shit on Jimmy Chamberlin’s drumming of all things, you lose all credibility. Saying Billy has a baby-head was a charming touch too.