One of the worst reviews I've seen, and I mean that in a journalistic way. The Nirvana reference made me :

Pearl Jam, Pearl Jam

*** (J Records)

Mat Snow
Friday April 28, 2006
The Guardian
Pearl Jam by Pearl Jam


Pearl Jam are an orthodox-sounding rock band who have never mustered the credibility of their Seattle grunge contemporaries, Nirvana - but they have a grassroots popularity that enables them to challenge the rock industry's most cherished ideas about ticket prices, bootlegs and promotional videos. An air of aggressive self-righteousness especially attends frontman Eddie Vedder, respected for his awkward-squad personality. Despite being over 40, he musters absolute conviction in writing and singing lyrics of male teenage angst, such as the single here, World Wide Suicide. And though few of these 13 numbers have the drama of tracks by the Who or Led Zeppelin, from whom the band draw much of their style, Pearl Jam play like men on a mission - that mission perhaps being to recover the 9m US sales mislaid between their 1991 debut and this album's 2002 predecessor. You certainly wouldn't bet against them.

The epitome of laziness. Why even fucking bother?

Will someone please explain to me what "credibility" means in this context? Because by my understanding of the word, Pearl Jam has always been credible.

This is the first time in my short existence that I've come across a person named matt that is actually spelled Mat, he's most likely the devil.

The Guardian is a shit paper. The only papers worth reading in the UK are The Times and The Independant.

I am fairly certain that the band will get a bad review from the Times, but we're not bothered are we?


Essentially, look back at Yield. On the UK editions, it comes with a sticker full of all the editorial praise for the album.

Its the uk...earnest rock has never gone down well ex Foos and RHCP both of which release more poppy stuff that can be thrashed by Radio 1 e.g. Dani California - compare the chorus with WWS.

You have to be self depreciating etc like the Smiths and everyone loves you, or sound like a rich boy trying to sound poor i.e. Arctic Monkeys. Basically PJ are stuck between NME (written by guys in their late thirties still holding on to the dream that their indie 4 piece side project will become the next big thing) and Q magazine (written by guys in their late thirties who can't believe that the latest Morrisey album didn't sell more and holding onto the hope that they'll be the next one to interview Bob Dylan for the 5000 time)

Cack review...

Roll on Mojo...

Once again no mention of the bloody music. I couldn't care less if someone doesn't like the music but I'm fed up of reading about crap other than the music as the basis of why they don't like the band.

I was unaware that the toll of war was simply a teenage male angst driven problem.

And there goes this review's credibility

I'm embarassed by some of the UK's journalists

Worldwide Suicide = Teenage Angst

What a terrible review. The UK press sucks cock.

It's like a musical where's waldo. find the angst in each picture


What I'd really like is for one of the reviews (pitchfork, this, la post or whatever that paper was) that didn't care for the album to actually take the time to write out WHY? A lot of the sub par reviews for riot act did that, and so at least you could respect that opinion.

It's all there Stip. Our British papers don't feel the need to spell it all out in capital letters just in case any Americans might be reading.

Joke

Like Americans read

Wow. Another British publication ripping PJ. Never heard of it.


This is my favorite......


That describes me, except for the respected part.

They'll read the favorable People Magazine review.

'The Guardian gets pwned'

eventhough the review is ridiculous i would say that guardian is by FAR the best newspaper in england, imho

D.