Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
Arctic Monkeys album - 10/10.
Clearlake album - 5/10.
Well done guys. Have a biscuit.
I have to say the Arctic Monkeys album is alright. Not worth 10/10, but not bad at all.
... I should have made something clear.
I do like Arctic Monkeys. I think they basically have one trick, but that they do it well. I will be getting the album. It's just ... like... perspective? 10/10? "The most anticipated debut album of all time?"
but I notice you give both Muse and Keane 10/10 in your profile, the same score as Madness. Unless you were being ironic, I hardly think your perspective is anything to write home about.
As for the Arctic Monkeys, loathe as I am to stick up for those fascist cunts at the NME, I don't see how they could've given the album anything less than 10/10 without it being an enormous dereliction of duty.
with no faults?
the title is shit for a start off... don get me started about the musak...
in any position to criticise the title of anything?
seated... it is most comfortable to criticise, thanks...
not a literal one. Nevermind.
was a metaphor? A metaphor for what? Go back to your english books, kid...
you're a thick twat.
That's literal, foo!
a thick twat who washes farts. I'm glad we've got that one cleared up.
someone's name clearly affects their critical faculties?
you utter tosser.
than the title of an album affects the contents of said album. That was the point I was making, you div.
than Ryan Adams is.
nicer hair though
why can't you answer a question with throwing in snide insults? i'm asking you a perfectly valid question, and all you can do is try and insult me and make yourself look clever. newsflash: i neither want to know or care about what you think about my taste in music. if i did, i would have said:
"what do you think of my taste in music?"
"so it's an absolutely perfect record with no faults?"
do you see the difference?
you'd realise that I did answer your question and that I didn't insult you. If you want me to explain how, I'll tell you, but frankly I wonder if it's worth it.
now go away.
You just didn't like it because it proved my point and made you look like a twat.
seriously. go away.
I was asked by guntrip if the Arctic Monkeys album was an absolutely perfect album with no faults. This question was asked because I stated that it deserved 10/10 status in the NME.
I then noticed guntrip gave Ryan Adams 10/10 in his profile. From this I came to the conclusion that either Ryan Adams is absolutely perfect and without fault in the eyes of guntrip, or that guntrip doesn't think something has to be absolutely perfect and faultless to be given 10/10.
From this, I decided I would answer the question with a cheeky nod to the
between rating someone who's put out 11 albums of material and one specific record though.
Should Ryan Adams get special dispensation cos he's been going longer? He's either perfect and without fault, or he's not.
to rate any sort of artist and is includes a lot more than just their albums - their live show, their videos, their career in general.
For this instance, while I would not say that any of his particular albums is smack on perfect, I would say that over the course of his career (ten years, eleven-ish records) he would earn that monkier as his body of work as a whole is (personally speaking) of a fantastic quality, and this allows him (for me) to transcend above the dodgy album tracks he puts out sometimes.
if you see what i mean, that is.
as it goes, i would personally, be hesitant to call any record a 10/10.
has ever made a perfect album but you think he deserves to be called a perfect 10/10 artist. Surely that completely contradicts your theory that only absolute faultless perfection deserves 10/10?
the rating system is there to show people how much you like an artist. It is a way of expressing your OPINION. Guntrip may not think Ryan Adams has made a perfect album but if he loves him above just about every other performer then he has the right to say he is a 10/10 artist, non?
album be judged to a different standard of perfection?
So your definition of perfection changes according to what you're describing? Brilliant. So what does a guinea pig have to do to qualify as perfect compared to a hamster? Is a hamster allowed to have a serious drink problem and still be perfect, whereas a guinea pig must be teetotal?
that different scales should be applied when rating the entire career of an artist/band, and one particular record, yes.
or, put it another way - if an artist/band produced seven albums that were absolutely fantastic, peerless in their time, and then one steaming heap of shit somewhere along the way, would they be worse than a band who produced one fantastic, peerless in it's time album?
more consistent, maybe. better.. no.
thousands of kids aren't going to say "oooh look, one of the users on Drowned In Sound gave Ryan Adams 10/10, i must go purchase his entire back catalogue". Hence why we should be more angry with NME.
If guntrip thinks 10/10 means absolute faultless perfection then he has to stick to that or risk looking like a hypocrite.
In that case, the Artcic Monkeys' album can afford to have at least one shit track on it and still be faultlessly perfect. Thus contradicting your argument.
different scales should be applied to rating an individual piece of work and an entire body of work.
i'm bored of this now, you're clearly just ignoring everything i'm saying so.. whatever.
Either something's faultless or it isn't? What's being described as faultless is irrelevant. That's like saying an apple can still be faultless even though it's got a bruise on it just because it's an apple and apples have a different scale of perfection to an orange. It's bollocks.
but if you had a bag of apples on and one had a bruise on it you probably wouldn't give a shit. get what i mean?
as perfect and faultless?
i would describe a bag of apples as what appears to be knocking around in your head, son...
you're still called Andrew Fartwasher and I'm not.
Nonsense was quite right aboot you...
you give Bowie 10/10. So does that mean you love EVERYTHING he's EVER done? i love Bowie too, but i can't say i like 'Dancing In The Street', or the coke-addled Nazi salute he gave, or the idea of giving The Lord's Prayer at Freddie Mercury's rememberance concert, or all that BowieBonds bollocks. It's the good stuff that has meant i'd consider him a 10/10 artist.
Nobody's perfect. Look at you, you love Tin Machine for a start.
that was for The_Glory OBVO.
I've disliked pretty much everything Bowie's done since 1983. But then I've never defined 10/10 as meaning perfect and faultless, unlike guntrip. My definition of 10/10 is different to guntrip's, but I haven't contradicted my defintion, unlike guntrip.
your definition of perfect changes in accordance to what you're describing?
What gave you that idea?
you saying that andrew giving Ryan Adams 10/10 isn't right because Adams hasn't made consistently perfect albums or been a continously excellent performer, yet you are allowed to give Bowie 10/10 even though, as you yourself admitted as your own opinion, that his post-83 efforts have been a bit poor?
Hello Mr Pot. Have you met Mr Kettle?
Never said that.
I've never defined what 10/10 means to me, guntrip has. If I'd defined 10/10 as faultless perfection like guntrip, you'd have a point, but I haven't. I don't require something to be faultlessly perfect to give it 10/10. The imperfections of Bowie's career are glaringly obvious to me, but that just makes the 70s Bowie even better. Hence the 10/10.
And why should the 10/10 rating for an artist use a different scale from the 10/10 rating for an album? In my opinion, it shouldn't. Do you disagree?
You seem to want to define it anyhow...
or it means absolutely bugger all. The whole point of the word perfect is that it describes something without imperfections. Whether it's applied to an album or an artist is irrelevant. Once you find one fault, no matter how small, it ceases to be perfect. I don't see how Ryan Adams' career can be deemed perfect if you've already admitted he's done things that aren't perfect.
how can you define, say, Bowie's output as perfect if you hate everything he's done since 1983? Do tell, please.
I've not once said it was perfect.
the 10/20 rating, obviously.
10/10 obviously. Bloody fat fingers.
10/10 equals faultless perfection. You'll struggle.
it's a rating on his career, which encompasses everything he does, and thus expands beyond just his records. it contradicts nothing.
then tell me how your rating of Ryan Adams' career doesn't contradict that definition.
i have to admit to loving everything they've ever done ever ever ever EVER?
Then tell me how Ryan Adams' career doesn't contradict that definition. It's pretty simple.
You got the gist of it though.
i think, he just decided to answer it in a non-answering way which really said nothing.
If you can't handle my answers, don't ask me any questions.
To you it might mean the same thing, but my answer would have been different if the wording of guntrip's question had been the same as yours.
the impertinence of the question.
was perfectly reasonable.
Well, the Muse rating I stand by. The Keane rating I put in after first seeing them live and hearing the early singles. The over-polished album and their lack of anything to say in interviews knocks a couple of points off I reckon. Otherwise, a good enough pop band. No apologies.
The fact that you rate the same as Madness? Okay. That's your prerogative. I just think maybe people in glass houses and that.
with the Colonol.
And until I've heard the new Clearlake record, I can't comment on that. The first single wasn't that great though, so it doesn't bode well...
probably both get seven.
I bet they gave some of Clearlake's points to the Monkeys.
still haven't heard any artic monkeys apart from 'the hit'.
it's all really opinion at the end of the day (if that isn't too glaringly obvious to say). But i wonder exactly how much payola is driving that opinion? I think they sound like an ok band, but not deserving of a 10 out of 10 review. If anything it's a testament to how lean the last few months have been so far in terms of good albums.
That's kind of the point.
they are an ok band, that's why i said that (the whole "I think" part). Some one at the NME doesn't, and it is my contention that they have been paid to have this opinion.
And your point is caller?
I was of the opinion they were a brilliant band long before I'd read anything about them in the music press. I first encountered them on the radio without knowing a damn thing about them. I tuned in halfway through a song and immediately the voice and the lyrics struck me as being something special. It was similar to the way I felt when I first heard Pulp.
Just as I wouldn't call Pulp an OK band, neither would I call the Arctic Monkeys an OK band. That's my point.
Anyone else think this is a very telling opening statement?
i used to love NME. There's a copy behind me with Mogwai on the cover. *sigh*. They even used to give Eve albums 10/10 rather than the sort of album they assume their readers will want them to hype to the hills.
And sorry i just find Arctic Monkeys irritating, they'll sound dated within a few years (or months?) i reckon.
Yeah. It was meant to be. That's why I wrote it, you tit.
it suggests that you're not looking at the argument as objectively as you should.
OK bands don't do what the Arctic Monkeys have done. Special bands do what the Arctic Monkeys have done. That's the point.
I thought -
"is this Pete Doherty's new band? Doesn't sound quite like him, but it's very similar... must just be some soundalike band that'll be famous for the next few minutes."
However, the day I start agreeing with you about music is the day I have a penile lobotomy. Your taste in music is so self-consciously 'cool' you lost any ounce of genuine individuality long ago. The more you try to be different, the more you stay the same.
But I wouldn't be surprised if it was one of Brainfart's favourite bands. He's so cutting-edge and underground he even likes bands that don't exist.
what's wrong with that?
It doesn't stop me liking Sophie Ellis Bextor. That's the difference.
about stuff like this. eg how you think most people slate Oasis because it's the cool opinion, or American comedy does better because it's the trendy thing to say.
he might just, y'know, not like Sophie Ellis Bextor. I don't. She has a nice voice (see that Manics b-side she sings on) but it's completely wasted on bland music.
I know how Brainfart's mind works. He's a stereotype of a stereotype of a stereotype of a music fan. His personality is defined by his taste in music, not the other way around. Trust me.
to have discovered every band ever.
they still love oasis for heaven's sake.
someone has too.
This isn't Communist Russia.
and thought they sounded like a really shit no-name local support / first year student indie band.
then all of a sudden they were everywhere with an even worse song, and getting loads of praise because of it.
plus the singer has what i would refer to as a horrible and annoying singing voice.
They have a talented lyricist on board. They have an average sound. They sound a bit like the Libertines and the Streets combined. Obviously, that's something of a seller. Yes, ok is a very good word.
though i fear the wrath of the glory, i'd say that guntrip can rate whoever he likes as 10/10 cos he doesn't have any responsibilty for people's purchases of music and isn't in a position where he should retain a certain level of objectivity. the nme is, and though i haven't heard it, and it might be quite good, i very much doubt that its among the best albums ever. so, no it shouldn't be 10/10. i suppose its in the nme's interest to do its best to create a buzz band, it equals more sales of its weekly indie bopper news, but its obviously critically corrupt and morally bankrupt.
how you can give an album a mark out of ten or whatever.
Also, the NME used to very rarely give a 10. I think OK Computer and possibly Ladies and Gentlemen... got 10 when I read it avidly, but giving average albums at best like the Strokes, Eve and Artic Monkeys 10 devalues your marking system.
why not just mark albums out of nine and be done with it? And how can you argue about a devalued marking sytem when you rate so many bands 10/10 yourself?
I rated 10 are just bands I like.
the marking system?
...that, by no fault of their own, sound vital in the current climate of below-par 'indie'. See: The Kooks, Editors, Paddingtons, etc.
Compared to them, Arctic Monkeys are revelatory: their songs are blistering storms of fiery guitars and considered lyrics. Pick apart said lyrics, do, but even the AM's sixth form creative writing essays knock spots off the best Borrell et al can muster, with their additional years.
I have nothing terrible to say about AM in the same way I can't overly priase them. They're average; but, in the NME world where 90% of acts won't get a look in - there are only so many pages you understand - they're the best thing since the last great white hypes.
13 minutes and counting.
is unprecedented amongst bands of their type. The NME haven't hyped them into the position they are in. The band have done it themselves. They were already No.1 before they got an NME cover. If anything, the NME have been playing catch-up. The word-of-mouth support preceded the NME hype by many months.
Which begs the question, how have a so-called 'average band' managed it? And why hasn't it happened before?
...just so happened AMs got lucky. Alex says so himself in an interview with The Fly this month.
I'm not saying they don't deserve it - like I've said, they're totally in the top bracket of the current commercial indie-rawk crop - but they did strike lucky. They developed a fanbase that propelled them to number one in the exact same manner of Nizlopi.
Of course, the NME is duty bound to cover such a phenomenon - after all, they are a New band making Music that's fairly Express(ive). I wonder if they're really claiming Ams as some kind of discovery, or whether NME-knockers are simply reading between the lines however they wish...
and not anyone else? If it's pure luck, why hasn't it been done before by A.N. Other average band? What seperates Arctic Monkeys from every other band out there that has failed to get a No.1 so quickly? Luck can't explain why I loved them the moment I heard a song of theirs on the radio without knowing who the fuck they were. Seems to me the biggest difference is talent.
1: Weak competition. With a fanbase such as theirs AMs were always going to chart highly; nobody, though, held out much hope of number one. Their success can therefore be attributed in some way to other singles underperforming.
2: Instant appeal. Like you said, you loved them from the outset, and I can hear why. Songs are short and shocking, like the intensity of 76 punk with a contemporary 'urchin' (or whatthefuckever) overcoat. The longevity may be doubtful, but to people of a certain age embittered by the neverending Doherty drama and the pitiful returns of one-time heroes (see: Oasis. Call it their best for years but that record and the singles from it were Radio 2 blandouts), 'I Bet You...' sounded like a fucking bomb going off behind their eyes. YES! GET IT! etc
3: Talent. They have it, true enough, but hardly spades more than a handful of acts I saw last week. It gets you so far; luck carries you from there.
So, they WERE lucky. Okay, they've worked hard to produce these songs, but alterior forces pushed them to the top of the singles summit. For sure.
The whole DIY/underdog/punk/fuck the music industry type stuff that seems to follow them around. I would say a lot of people who wouldn't usually buy singles picked it up on such lines..
...the notion that something is more 'real' that the other alternative, or so-called, releases that week is a certain factor. That this is the sound of the underground, what the real indie kids are rocking to in basements you don't know about...
...which is, of course, bullshit: we're all watching Lost.
And that wasn't the reason I bought the single. Methinks you're just being overly cynical.
but it certaintly got them a hell of a lot of press from pretty much across the board - before and after that single came out you couldn't move for articles espousing their "DIY revolution" or whatever.
by your own overly cynical standards. I suspect 99% of people bought it cos they liked it.
but they're wholly rooted in reality, and that's how they were sold, initially.
They'd have sold well without the surrounding quasi-hype (incomparable to most hyped acts) but around the single's release they were everywhere, a blitz certain to tempt the curious into a Â£1.99 give-a-shit buy.
Radio: "This is a brand new band that are going places, etc etc etc..."
That's how you heard them, right? How'd they get on the radio? Cos a single's coming out. People power? Sure, that'd account for playlisters giving it a once over, but surely the giant "this promotional CD remains the property of DOMINO RECORDS" made a few suited and booted types it straight up with FF flashing in their eyeballs...?
No? Am I rambling? Yeah, probably.
Oh well. We'll agree to sort of disagree, sort of. Even though we're kind of saying the same thing, albeit with a slightly different intent.
we're not even remotely saying the same thing.
I first heard the Arctic Monkeys on the radio around eight or nine months ago and formulated my opinion of them without anyone else saying a word. I didn't even hear it introduced. All I had to go on was the music. I remember thinking the lyrics and the vocals were bordering on genius.
All the subsequent hype has happened because other people have had a similar reaction to the one I had. Fuck the hype. This is above hype.
for this fella right here... goddamn hero...
some record company exec is snorting the best of your incredulity off a glass panelled table.
1: Weak competition? To date, I Bet You Look Good... has sold more copies than Tripping by Robbie Williams. Name another 'indie' band that can claim that in 2005. Getting to No.1 wasn't a fluke. It slaughtered the opposition. Will you still be using this argument if/when their next single gets to No.1?
2:Instand appeal? Damn fucking right. And there's nowt wrong with that. Nothing lucky about writing songs that grab people by the balls.
3: Talent? Wasn't really a point, was it? More a subjective comment.
Sorry, but you've failed to convince me that the Arctic Monkeys have managed to become so successful whilst being merely 'average'. It just doesn't add up. Average bands don't make this kind of impact because of a few demos on the internet. This is different. This is people power.
And thus, we agree.
If Aminal Collective released a single on CD, 7" and cheap download formats, their MASSIVE fanbase would ensure it made top ten. That's what I mean by people power; that's what happened here.
(PS: Animal Collective are average)
On the Arcitc Monkeys front, kids now just want to be part of something and this whole downloading malarkey had to end up with something, it was too big a thing to miss out on. The music is Ok and it's not lyrically better than what's been coming out of Roots Manuva's or Mike Skinners mouth over the last few years. Only now it's with the some sort of 'Do It Yourself' ethic that indie's had for years (indie computer geeks rool) and there's some guitars and some scatty drums which everyone's Dad liked in the 70s so we can identify with it.
Animal Collective haven't had a No.1 single in the big charts. When they do, I'll accept your argument. However, the fact that Arctic Monkeys have managed it and Animal Collective haven't proves my point, not yours.
Possibilities are newar endless - the charts mean nothing. Downloads count, so flog them for 49 pence. Become a star in a minute on a website; sell nothing in a store and rock up to the top ten. It's all a crock of meaningless nothing. Number ones are as relevant as number twos; the sole difference is that it gives headline writers an easier ride.
That's a mighty big 'if' you're talking about there. I suspect 'if' Animal Collective released a single it would barely scrape the top forty. And I Bet You Look... was sold at the same price as all the other singles. You're talking shite.
You could insert any band with a substantial following - that you've not heard them is neither here nor there.
When I was at the Scala late last year, sweating my tits off in the presence of a full house, it was fairly obvious that they have a sizable following.
But, like I said, you could insert any band: Broken Social Scene, Lightning Bolt, etc.
And 10/10 for the Arctic Monkeys was the only possible move for the NME at this point. It was a forced move.
An 8 or 9 would just look dull and non-committal, and anything less would look like a backlash - and it's far too soon for that. So it's a ten. It's entirely meaningless.
i mentioned the Eve thing though, it was a pleassant surprise to see because it was hardly expected and at the same time reflected the opinion of one of the writers, surely, as it hardly seems NME were really 'claiming' Eve (or whoever really before the Strokes) as their own, unless it was some sort of tokenist offer of approval towards the entire American arrandbee scene at the time.
It just seems so...forced, so formulated, like some poor sod has been told at enemee towers that 'you MUST like AM and proclaim them the BEST thing EVER or your position at the UK's most influential rag is OOOOOVERRRRR'. *sigh*
I bought that album too, showing what an impressionable young man I was. Although it was a pretty decent record, now I think about it.
The Arctic Monkeys' success is down to the Arctic Monkeys themselves. You and your NME conspiracy theories can fuck off. Perish the thought that people actually love them, regardless of the NME and their rating.
I know people love the Arctic Monkeys, and good for them. I'm just saying that the NME are hardly in any position to be impartial about their new LP.
And thommo deserves it. He's being an overly cynical tosser.
...you misunderstand. All AMs did was play a few decent shows. Word of mouth spreads and fanboys go nuts. The internet combusts and CDs fly from shelves. Only, they didn't - downloads did. Downloads that AMs had nothing to do with. Their number one was a fluke in the grand scheme of pop; a one-off unlikely to be repeated.
(Although the album will go to number one.)
They only wrote, recorded and performed the tunes? Rrrrriiiight.
You might as well have though, the amount of credit you give the band for their success. Without the music all the rest of what you said is irrelevant. As your comparison with the largely unheard of Animal Collective proves.
The NME's more or less claimed AM's for themselves. They claim they discovered them etc., so they're in no position to slag them off.
Don't be shocked by their album reviews though. They are worse than Q's.
No magazine's reviews are as poor as Q's. Live 'reviews' aside (which more often than not double as small interviews/features).
least Q are honest. They are reviews written by past-it 30 year olds, about Katie Blunt Gray Melua Tunstall Fretwell FOR past-it 30 year olds.
The last one I read had no mention of "this band looks SO COOL!", but for NME, that's standard for every review almost.
Half the time they've not listened to the records; at least, that's the impression many a 'review' leaves.
Yes they write to their audience, but they needn't do it in such a base-level manner.
I especially like their New To Q section - last month, Arctic Monkeys and, um, Editors... surely even the oldest Q reader was aware of these bands some months earlier?
has achieved perfection for me.
i'd rather listen to his as he doesn't sing like a diseased chimp.
like a constipated emu being felched by an alligator.
some weird shit goes down at your house...
I'm just more imaginative.
as i said, all opinion. although i'm sure it's interesting to note that i've seen it written in several publications that when noel plays it live now, he often plays in the style ryan covered it in..
He improved wonderwall...
Is that the editorial policy is to maintain a forced emotional distance from the music they review. They mistake this for a "mature" approach, but it's actually a "boring, past-it bastard" approach.
P.S. 30 is not old.
made wonderwall different.
Noel like Wonderwall again, so i'm not sure why you're complaining Mr. G...unless it's to be awkward?
is that it combines the worst elements of NME (crap reviews, band wagon jumping) with the worst elements of Mojo (middle-aged market targetting, cloying nostalgia), and then varnishes the result in a bland MOR sheen. I'll read NME, even Mojo every once in a while, but not Q.
Probably not a claim that too many people can make...
Didn't he have a Pipettes-esque backing band and a shoddy hairpiece?
arctic monkeys aren't bribing anyone. They're far too pure and working class.
>P.S. 30 is not old.
Thank you. I'm 33 and perfectly at ease with it. Anyone who isn't at ease with the idea will struggle when they get there and here's an insight for you: your critical faculties don't fail you after you reach 25...
Anybody, ANYBODY, who fails to take an NME album review with a pinch of salt needs their head examined
And the fact that The_Glory has spent pretty much his entire day on here amuses me muchly
Arctic Monkeys are average. But guess what, that's my FUCKING OPINION. I wouldn't expect anybody to spend 6 hours arguing with me on it
And yes, I like cap locks. I LIKE THEM A LOT
THAT'S NOT YOUR OPINION,. Don't come back saying it is, cos IT'S NOT.
so did mike flowers (or whatever he was calleD)
retarded? agreed. there's half an hour of last years reading I won't be getting back.
As in a washer of farts?
That's a tad...arrogant isn't it?
Still, at least you can't take the piss out of it like Andrew Fartwasher.
do you think the voices you hear in your head, the ones that tell you what to type stuff, are the same words hitler heard inna bunker?
Surely you can think of something more worthwhile to defend than this very 'special' band?
Don't click reply when you read a the_glory thread.
I mean 'post'
By far my favourite idiot on here. What with his hilariously self-righteous 'I'm right 'cos I love Oasis and you're wrong 'cos you don't schtick' and his complete inability to accept reason, he's great.
chime in. The Glory is funny. He's right, his opinion is spot on, and every one who disagrees is an alligator felcher. hehe! OK, whatever. Personally, I prefer his rigid opines better than a wishy-washy, whichever-way-the-wind-blows, character...even if the Glory's blinder's do run him into the occasional wall from time to time. :-)
The Artic Monkeys, to me, are mediocre personified. But don't think I'm just taking sides with the DiS elite cos I canna tell you how tempted I was ridicule those who voted The Cribs into DiS's Top 46. Both bands are passable Libertine's tribute acts, at best. I remember listening to the radio and the DJ saying and that was the AM and I'd say, Shit I canna remember what song was them. This happened half a dozen times! As for the Cribs, well, I never made it through their whole album. It tried for Supergrass's I Should Coco sound and came up way short. Way short.
Maybe I need to take more vitamins. Usually, this sort of thread cracks me up, but tonight I'm just tired and hungry. I ask myself how The Ponys, The National, The Kills, BRMC, Broken Social Scene etc didn't make the Top 46, and The Cribs and _____ and _____ did. Well, at least DiS isn't championing System of a Down. That's comforting. :-)
but they haven given them some top marks in the pask ;-)
Having now enjoyed a fine dinner (an onion bagel w/ cream cheese and a chocolate chip cookie)...erm, having eaten and put on me ol' slippers for the night, I'm now able to fully appreciate the comedy here within.
"The Glory jabs, jabs, jabs... and oh! it's Brainlove countering with a one-two combo. It's bedlam in cyberspace, ladies and gents! Lennox Lewis has nothing on these chaps. The Glory shakes it off, dances in the middle of the ring, cuts over both his eyes...and there's the bell ending the round. DiS is fun!" (think I'll start a thread for the feck of it...hehe)
...so it's all my fault. Please accept my apologies!
What I take objection to is not that they gave AM 10/10 as such, but having done so go on to review Mogwai's "Friend of the Night" and say it's as original as Snow Patrol. I just don't know how their heads don't just explode.
John Brainlove was pwn3d.
Its just so irritating that someone can come along and say a couple of sentences of words to Brainlove, and sum up everything I've tried to say since day 1.
The Guardian gave it 5/5 too today
annoys me a bit. Cos in Q SO many things get 4*, and I bet they vary hugely as to how good they are. And they feel that they can hardly ever give things 5*.
got four out of five. In some ways that's worse.
"Your taste in music is so self-consciously 'cool' you lost any ounce of genuine individuality long ago. The more you try to be different, the more you stay the same."
Oh, fuck off. I like what I like, and I'm not self-conciously anything. Maybe you're so used to having your terribly pedestrian music taste ridiculed that any time anything has even the vaguest whiff of "cool" around it you have to lash out like a fool. But while you continue to go to pasture on braindead meat-and-veg guitar stodge, I'll continue to wolf down things that break new ground and set my imagination alight. Things that are quite obviously way out of your frame of reference.