The Dears
Degeneration Street

by the score Pitchfork gave this record rather than actually listening to the album?

By far the best Dears album since 'No Cities Left' :-(

It's an easy album to dismiss outright. But I think if people just give themselves over to it without and pre-conceived expectations or conventions they'll discover a great rock record. One thing I love about it is it does and goes where it wants and takes it's time to arrive at it's catharsis. L just don't get the hostility over it I mean there is a spine tingly moment around every corner of this record for me. Looks like it's destined to be a misunderstood, great lost album.

the review does make it pretty clear that the reviewer's not heard No Cities Left.

Still, I broadly agree with the sentiment of the review, albeit not with its severity. I agree that it feels too long. And I think that the review is on to something with the crack about "layered, tuneful, angst-ridden apocalyptic bombast with questionable but well-meaning lyrics" — except the problem is not that it's a failed attempt at doing a post-Funeral Arcade Fire, but rather that there's another version of the Dears out there, and once again we've been denied them.

For the number junkies, this is a 6 — maybe a 7 — in my book.

For the record: I like this review. Kinda sums up how I feel, though a 4 is a bit harsh. 5 or 6 would be more fair.

doesn't like this album trust me!

My record of the year so far.

All over the place. The odd moments of brilliance aren't enough to make it a coherently excellent piece of work. I don't care if it is their best record since their really good one, that doesn't make it good enough. Which is pretty much what both this review and the Pitchfork one are saying, and it's oddly off-the-mark of Dom Gourlay to insinuate that two critics spotting the same flaws (that others here have also referred to) means that the DiS review is in thrall to the P4K one. Maybe it just means that the flaws are there if you have ears to hear 'em.

...yes, P4K says it's "a miserable record". This review says it's "Not Quite Right". And that at least some of it ('Thrones') qualifies as a "genuinely great pop moment". That doesn't add up to "shit" in my book.
I like about a third of the tracks. Another third I pray I never have to endure again. I mostly dislike the by-rote histrionics; Jesus, "Galactic Tides" is dreary, plodding AND over-wrought, and despite its building edifices upon edifices, goes nowhere: s'all mouth and no trousers.

What does that even mean? This album is shorter then the Arcade Fire one that's praised in this review. Also up above someone says the album is too long but then says it's not enough like No Cities left which is longer then Degeneration Street. I think the album is supposed to be a little exhausting as it's pretty relentless. I like The Suburbs but not for a minute do I think Arcade Fire would ever have the balls to release a challenging, adventurous record like this one. I've compared this record to Age of Adz where it feels cluttered and over-ambitious at first but many came around to love that record as the melodies had time to settle.

What most of the responses above have in common is that they appear to have only read part of the review. Given that DiS writers are - perfectly reasonably - warned off using scores of 8 and above unless they think the thing they are reviewing is very fucking good indeed, I thought 4 was quite generous for a sprawling dog's dinner of a thing with some good moments.

But beyond that, I guess it depends what you want from your music journalism. I agree there is a responsibility to listen properly to the thing you're reviewing, and to have some awareness of its context, but it doesn't follow from this that you have to try to find something nice to say aboout it. If you want music journalism that functions as a kind of Which?-type buyer's guide, that aspires to "objectivity", whatever that's supposed to be, that "wants to be taken seriously as a critic" in the dull-as-Monday way that following the advice of "Simon Catling, Music Journalist" above would produce, that "represents the site" rather than the views of the writer, it's probably best you just don't bother reading my stuff, because that's parish magazine stuff. It's not what I'm interested in doing, and it's not what any music journalist worthy of the name does or ever has done.

... there's an unspoken premise in what auteur55 says above that there's a wrong and a right answer for any given record, some kind of objective standard by which it can be judged. I not only don't believe that but don't see how it could possibly be true. For example, one of the posters above lists Starsailor, Elbow and Keane on his FB page as his favourite bands. Honestly, when that person and I listen to the new Dears album the ways we contextualise their music will be so different that it's debatable whether we can even be said to be listening to the same thing. And while one would *think* that anything with ears would have to agree with auteur55's assessment of the appalling White Lies, I also can't accept that some acts can objectively be said to be the "real deal" and others "phony", or that having produced one great record at some point in the past entitles an act to some kind of get out of jail free card for future releases.

I do appreciate that auteur55 is trying to open a genuine dialogue here and not just calling me names because I was equivocal about the new Dears record. And as a DiS newbie I'm enjoying the interactive element...

is a good example of what i'm talking about. Though of course I disagree with the 6/10 the review is written as though the individual understands the fractured legacy of the band, respects the back catalogue for what it truly is and has connected with what this band has been and their real potential. Even though it's critical it's a review that makes sense.

The fact that there is a back catalogue counts for something, you know? And, No Cities Left is widely regarded as one of the best albums of the last decade, at least within Indie Rock circles and fans. So, yes, maybe the rest is a little pock marked, but that record, that moment, that collection of songs, meant something back then.

I ain't saying that you are wrong, because you are quite entitled to your opinion of the album, sure, and even of the band, but the thing I take umbrage at is the mutual exclusiveity you seem to place upon both "Montreal" bands having. The fact that the last paragraph is 70% about how Arcade Fire and The Dears meet in some sort of venn digram in your mind, I wonder what you were measuring the album against?

Anyway, welcome to the site. I like being able to talk to the reviewers and, seeing you are actually responding, it is a good outlet.