Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
Pretty spot on methinks... well, 'spot on' in so much as it's a good review
but then again, they are rather young, so its worth giving them a chance. Im sure theyve got a decent album in them somewhere along the line
I've not listened to the alb yet and don't want my own opinion clouded. Erm I noticed the line about maximo park kaisers and monkeys not being very different. That was rubbish.
pretty well really, i think
and i'd agree with what it says about this current wave of bands not being as individual or imaginitive as the bands from the mid-90s
and complete nostalgia - which equivalent bands were more imaginative/interesting and unique in the mid 90s then? I liked Suede, Pulp and Blur and yes they're more polarised than this lot BUT there was an awful lot of sameyness in the 90s stemming from Oasis and the many soundalikes. I thought people might just have chosen to forget that to strengthen their journalistic point.
it's probably quite an accurate review (I base this on what I have heard/seen of them which is about half the LP) BUT the reviewer does sound like a 'britpop was much better when I was a kid' patronising type which is fine, if you like that kind of thing.
Fairplay to a bunch of kids for causing a fuss and a racket rather than just dreaming about it but they'll look back one day and laugh/be amazed that they pulled it off
but I like the line
'George Formby at the moment his balls dropped' - although if the reviewer had a decent knowledge of the works of George Formby he'd realise that George never let his balls drop ever!
Hmm. I've got Northern Uproar. Help!
we have this:
Spends more time congratulating itself and its own interpretive history than actually reviewing the record.
"And as it was with those boasting boys with the cut-off ties at school, so it is with 'Whatever People Say I Am, That's What I'm Not' and The Arctic Monkeys - no-one really wants to run counter to the prevailing orthodoxy and tell the truth that this is merely a half-decent indie pub rock album riding on a whopping cloud of hot air."
Erm, isn't that just what every critic in the country IS doing?
Personally I don't much care for what I've heard of them but that review is a bit silly.
to put down a band they don't like without ever having to go into why?
'Pub Rock' is commonly used as a derogatory term for a rock band with little inspiration, and possibly no ability to sing of.
i.e. they're fine down the local boozer playing to people that just want a drink, but you'd never pay to see 'em specifically.
See: Stereophonics (prime example)
That's the why, then. I guess. It's not ALWAYS used to put a band down - if that's their angle and they're good at it, great - but when it's used in THIS context, it's bad. Aye. Bad.
Mmmm a cup of tea...
But I still think it's a useless, lazy term for a critic to use.
To my mind, there's no place for terms like "pub rock" in music reviews. It purports to be a stylistic term but it isn't - it's simply a signifier for a reviewer's dislike of their subject. Okay, so they probably have to be a British guitar band to qualify as "pub rock" in the first place. But if you write "pub rock" in your review, it conveniently evades the need to explain yourself further.
I just think it's damaging for a critic to have "labels" like that in their phrasebook.
If we all know what it signifies - i.e. formal template and qualitative defects - then why not reduce the above review to two words: "pub rock"?
I'd agree with you if it was just a definition but it's not, it's a whole bundle of different things reduced to a two-word concept. Unless all of these bands sounds identical and suffers from the exact same flaws, it is necessarily not a good term to use.
I only ever see it used as a negative or damning with faint praise if it is a generally positive review. It's one of those phrases that's avoidable but easy for a reviewer who either can't say exactly why they hate it or hates something and can't be bothered to analyse it further as they actually have to spend more time than they'd want to listening to it.
I agree more with the NME review. The problem with the Monkey's is that we aren't their target audience anymore. They are aiming at the kids who buy pop idol, go to shit clubs and ddrink reef. They will as nme puts it, influence people to start bands. And that is a good thing.
No, they are not an "important" band for us. They won't change our world, but they will change many many people's. For the better.
I found the two reviews of singles on here to be impeccable, whereas the one up there is more a review of the nme hype than the actual music. In my opinion, Al is a good writer of the pop observation, the band are all good lads having fun, and it's not at all hard to have a great deal of fun with them. Hype or not. Important or not.
yeah they are fun but not longevitous. I don't think they ever changed their target audience or even had one except for that 'people like us' attitude more earthly and seemingly most newer sheffield bands seem to have. They don't seem to have an ambition initially to stray further than their communities and if they do it's a bonus. Their own web spiel and pr mythologisises them a little too much but in a tongue in cheek sense. I honestly don't think they have any plans or intentions themselves. The first review just seems to be reacting to the hype negatively and betraying the opinion of people who can't stand what they see as very average music being given so much attention. It reads like one of those reviews that's done when you've already made up your mind about something and decided to hate it.
that they'd changed audience, more that i'd changed my tastes since joining this site by generally knowing more and listening to more things
in fairness it's a pretty lazy review relying on a few cute comparisons to please the plentiful nay-sayers. bothered. i love the album.
That sentence is a particularly lame example of the "i'm first on the backlash bandwagon" school of internet writing. Top Tip: NO-ONE can claim to spot the naked Emperor - there is no "prevailing orthodoxy" any more, especially not amongst the kind of people who are bothered enough to read DiS/PlayLouder, shirley.
I mean, ferchristsake, Simon "Irony" Amstell was knocking the Arctic Monkeys on T4's Popworld about 3 weeks before "..Dancefloor" came out IIRC...
...but the point remains that it's a bit hard to claim indie reviewing cred points by revealing that the wool is being pulled over everyone's eyes when, er, it isn't.
but is playlouder possibly the worst designed website EVER? I hate it with every bone in my body.
the AM receive is astonishing. Good and bad... when clearly they're such a mediocre band. Only in the UK, methinks. ;-)
is always right...