Rolling Stone's ¡Uno! Review

[Mandy_PunkRock]

Interesting review. 4 stars is a good rating so... I'm sure that I will love ¡Uno! and I'm everyday more excited for the release date!

But...American Idiot 3,5? Really? In my opinion I think AI deserves 4,5 stars or even 5

[Heather.]

It's a really bold gamble, not just on three albums dropping in such a short time but this songwriting style as a whole -- and while I think we can see the rough sketch of where everything is heading at this point, we won't really know whether it's effective or not 'til after Tre drops in January.

And that's when my question will be: is Green Day accountable for that? Does the story need to be effective here? It's only a gamble in the sense that they HAVE put in our heads the general pre-party, party, post-party thing. There's no way that's going to fail based on the music we are already so familiar with, so everything beyond that (more story or less story) doesn't seem like something I could criticize when it's all said and done. It's an interesting thing to deal with and kind of the problem they had with some critics of 21CB, in terms of concept album expectations.

[Heather.]

I also want to point out that if you scroll down the Rolling Stone review page, Green Day has the highest reviewed album of late

http://www.rollingstone.com/music/albumreviews

[That Dude]

So Loss of Control will have a reference to whats-his-face and an "I never liked you anyway" line, that's awesome.

[Vanilla Shake]

So Loss of Control will have a reference to whats-his-face and an "I never liked you anyway" line, that's awesome.

Exactly what I was thinking. Brought me right back to Whatsername. "Did she ever marry old whatshisface?" Sounds like a throwback, or a reference for the hardcore fans.

[Homero]

My favorite part from the review was the quotes from "Loss of Control", not only for what the lyrics say, but because we didnt have any info on that song.

[Edwood]

Just for reference, this is RS' history with Green Day albums:

Dookie - 5 stars

Insomniac - 3.5 stars

Nimrod - 3.5 stars

Warning - 4 stars

American Idiot - 3.5 stars

21st Century Breakdown - 4.5 stars

Uno - 4 stars

(Who dafuq intern reviewed American Idiot? )

'Warning' was originally given 3 stars by Greg Kot in 2000. Rob Sheffield reviewed both 'American Idiot' and '21st Century Breakdown.' 'Dookie' was not reviewed by Rolling Stone when it came out in Feb. 1994. The ratings for 'Insomniac' through 'American Idiot' have since been revised to 4 star ratings by Rollingstone.com.

[WalkingContradictionPL]

Despite the jolt of Slade in the chorus, "Loss of Control" isn't about sucking up every drop at the bar.

Slade... I know that will be only chorus, just small part but I want to hear Loss of Control now!

[Heather.]

'Warning' was originally given 3 stars by Greg Kot in 2000. Rob Sheffield reviewed both 'American Idiot' and '21st Century Breakdown.' 'Dookie' was not reviewed by Rolling Stone when it came out in Feb. 1994. The ratings for 'Insomniac' through 'American Idiot' have since been revised to 4 star ratings by Rollingstone.com.

Thanks. Note to self---trust not Wikipedia

[Bastard of 1967]

And that's when my question will be: is Green Day accountable for that? Does the story need to be effective here? It's only a gamble in the sense that they HAVE put in our heads the general pre-party, party, post-party thing. There's no way that's going to fail based on the music we are already so familiar with, so everything beyond that (more story or less story) doesn't seem like something I could criticize when it's all said and done. It's an interesting thing to deal with and kind of the problem they had with some critics of 21CB, in terms of concept album expectations.

If the story (to the extent there is one) fails, I think it would mute the artistic impact of the trilogy as a collective, mostly; it wouldn't necessarily spoil the individual songs that make it up in the process. Again, we're getting the trilogy piecemeal right now and have to assume a lot of not-yet-clear story in order to fill in the gaps, so I'm definitely holding back final judgment until we finally have the whole thing to listen to, and can look at the collection of discrete songs as a complete unit.

[StuckWithRob]

The reviewer seems obsessed in comparing Green Day's songs to work by other bands! Just give us your opinion!

[Bastard of 1967]

Love that line from the reviewer "in what now passes for the music business." You read between the lines, it says that Green Day is a stalwart in a field that's now (mostly) filled with shit.

The reviewer seems obsessed in comparing Green Day's songs to work by other bands! Just give us your opinion!

I'd argue this is the best way the reviewer can answer the question "well, what does it SOUND like?" without being able to post song snippets. I really don't see anything wrong with that; it's relating the new to what's come before and attempting to give us a framework for understanding it.

[AlissaGoesRAWR]

The reviewer seems obsessed in comparing Green Day's songs to work by other bands! Just give us your opinion!

That's what I was thinking too... a song can be a good song without sounding like another song... y'know?

Either way, very excited it got 4 stars!

Love that line from the reviewer "in what now passes for the music business." You read between the lines, it says that Green Day is a stalwart in a field that's now (mostly) filled with shit.

I'd argue this is the best way the reviewer can answer the question "well, what does it SOUND like?" without being able to post song snippets. I really don't see anything wrong with that; it's relating the new to what's come before and attempting to give us a framework for understanding it.

The only problem I see with it is people like the woman who commented saying something like, "oh, see, all the bands the reviewer referenced, they copied off of." I think it kind of implies that to some people reading the review, even if it's not true. I would have liked to see the reviewer maybe compare it the songs to more of GD's past songs, or even their side projects... but maybe the songs are just that amazingly awesome, it's unlike anything we've ever heard before!

[SynthwaveTrooper]

i should work for RS, my number points would be...

Dookie- 5

Insomniac- 5

Nimrod- 5

Warning- 3.5

American Idiot- 2.9

21st century Breakdown- 2.1

Uno- ???

[21stcenturyidiot]

Why are AI and 21CBD so low?

Also Warning too

[live freaky die freaky]

if you go to the page of Green Day the review of the albums will be:

1,039/SOSH--- 2,5

Kerplunk---3

Dookie--- 5

Insomniac---4

Nimrod---4

Warning---4

AI---4

21st CB---4,5

UNO--4

it seems that they revisited all the reviews

[gerardsangel4977]

From Rolling Stone - 4/5 stars Read more: http://www.rollingst...3#ixzz26MkPhY1B Just for reference, this is RS' history with Green Day albums: Dookie - 5 stars Insomniac - 3.5 stars Nimrod - 3.5 stars Warning - 4 stars American Idiot - 3.5 stars 21st Century Breakdown - 4.5 stars Uno - 4 stars (Who dafuq intern reviewed American Idiot? )

Ahhh, Rolling Stone and it's retroactive adjustments....at least the AI rating is real. I'd bet $100 Dookie did not get 5 stars when it first came out.

Also, I don't like he continued assertion that all three of these albums are the same....even with what little we've heard from Dos and Tre so far, it seems obvious that each album has it's own distinct flavor.

[GuitarPunk94]

"American Idiot - 3.5 stars

21st Century Breakdown - 4.5 stars"

"it seems that they revisited all the reviews"

i just cant this magazin serious

well..i guess 4 out of 5 is pretty good...in my opinion for many critics DOS will be the worst of the 3 albums and TRÉ will maybe be a bit better than UNO or the same or a bit worse

[tvrman]

Being an older git than many here; I liked the reference to the number of releases. As written 2 or 3 albums per year was the norm for the Beatles and Stones (and Beach Boys) in the early 60s. Now most bands struggle to do one every 2 or 3 years, ... and along comes Green Day with 3 releases. it puts so many bands to shame but also reinforces Green Day is THE band that most others wish they could be. Great stuff.

[gerardsangel4977]

'Warning' was originally given 3 stars by Greg Kot in 2000. Rob Sheffield reviewed both 'American Idiot' and '21st Century Breakdown.' 'Dookie' was not reviewed by Rolling Stone when it came out in Feb. 1994. The ratings for 'Insomniac' through 'American Idiot' have since been revised to 4 star ratings by Rollingstone.com.

if you go to the page of Green Day the review of the albums will be: 1,039/SOSH--- 2,5 Kerplunk---3 Dookie--- 5 Insomniac---4 Nimrod---4 Warning---4 AI---4 21st CB---4,5 UNO--4 it seems that they revisited all the reviews

I hadn't seen both of these yet when I made my comment. Thanks!

[The Disappearing Boy]

Good review, looking forward to hearing the whole thing. But swap their ratings for AI and Breakdown and they have it just about right.

[Femme Gauche]

Everyone's complaining about American Idiot... But what about poor Insomniac? :sad:

Interesting reading btw

You can understand Insomniac not getting as high a rating, with Dookie being the only thing they had heard before - it's very different from Dookie. Insomniac has some great pieces but I imagine for someone expecting it to "top" Dookie it would be very disappointing, just because it is different.

I think the "loose storyline" of the trilogy is just sort of like a bonus that gives the albums a sense of unity - allowing the experience of the trilogy all together to be potentially elevated from the experience of each album individually. But it's a loose thread and for it to not hold would not diminish the experience of the trilogy - it would only mean that they are mostly face-value albums.

[PaulS]

Being an older git than many here; I liked the reference to the number of releases. As written 2 or 3 albums per year was the norm for the Beatles and Stones (and Beach Boys) in the early 60s. Now most bands struggle to do one every 2 or 3 years, ... and along comes Green Day with 3 releases. it puts so many bands to shame but also reinforces Green Day is THE band that most others wish they could be. Great stuff.

This isn't entirely fair. The early Beatles albums included numerous covers, which meant you only had 6 or 7 original tracks per record. While still a noteworthy achievement, it is clearly less time consuming to do that than writing and arranging all your own material. It's the same reason Rhianna can put out a new album every year for 7 years, whereas your average rock band can't.

Further, tours are far longer now than they ever were. The Rolling Stones weren't touring the world for 2 years at a time. Neither were The Beach Boys. Remember, too, that The Beatles were a studio band for nearly half their career. The great records that people look up to? Revolver through to Let It Be? All the result of spending every day in the studio.

It is the industry that's changed, not the bands. To suggest they somehow got lazy in the decades since is to really misunderstand how the business works now.

[WhiteTim]

This isn't entirely fair. The early Beatles albums included numerous covers, which meant you only had 6 or 7 original tracks per record. While still a noteworthy achievement, it is clearly less time consuming to do that than writing and arranging all your own material. It's the same reason Rhianna can put out a new album every year for 7 years, whereas your average rock band can't.

Further, tours are far longer now than they ever were. The Rolling Stones weren't touring the world for 2 years at a time. Neither were The Beach Boys. Remember, too, that The Beatles were a studio band for nearly half their career. The great records that people look up to? Revolver through to Let It Be? All the result of spending every day in the studio.

It is the industry that's changed, not the bands. To suggest they somehow got lazy in the decades since is to really misunderstand how the business works now.

While not a Rhianna fan at all but her albums dont have cover songs...

[tvrman]

This isn't entirely fair. The early Beatles albums included numerous covers, which meant you only had 6 or 7 original tracks per record. While still a noteworthy achievement, it is clearly less time consuming to do that than writing and arranging all your own material. It's the same reason Rhianna can put out a new album every year for 7 years, whereas your average rock band can't.

Further, tours are far longer now than they ever were. The Rolling Stones weren't touring the world for 2 years at a time. Neither were The Beach Boys. Remember, too, that The Beatles were a studio band for nearly half their career. The great records that people look up to? Revolver through to Let It Be? All the result of spending every day in the studio.

It is the industry that's changed, not the bands. To suggest they somehow got lazy in the decades since is to really misunderstand how the business works now.

The Beach Boys never stopped touring, meanwhile Brian (replaced by Glenn Campbell and then Bruce Johnstone on the road) was at home writing and laying down tracks with the wrecking crew. All the band had to do was complete the vocals between tours. Sadly Brian paid a price. But I stand by the fact that they were more productive than bands these days, and without the technology available back then.

Either way Green Day releasing 3 albums is immense.