a) Loads of Darkness fan boys/girls have come on here and just slagged off the reviewer without critically engaging with the review.
b) People were criticising the structure of the review, when the structure is fine. The content of the review is up for question but people were criticising the structure.
c) The Darkness have never shown any artistic development up until now, this is unlikely to change given what their whole shtick is, which is tiresome rehashed 80's hair metal. Therefore presumably this album won't be much better than their stuff before, which was reheated shite. That's why I could use the words "presumably" and "never" in that context in that paragraph.
D) Go and suck a dick. (Just lowering myself to the critical standards of you and other Darkness fans here).
A) If you're a Darkness fanboy/fangirl encouraged by the band's management to sing their praises, fuck off.
B) Dan Lucas's review is stylistically fine and accurate in content. He gives a couple of paragraphs of background and then three paragraphs of analysis. This is a pretty standard set up for an album review.
C) The Darkness's new album has been given a bad review because it's presumably quite poor. A positive attribute for bands is a certain level of invention, of stylistic progression during their career. By engaging in a synthesis of styles over time, the band develops musically and can lay claim to a certain degree of longevity. The Darkness have never done this.
D) Sam Patrick, I don't know who you are, but as a fellow journalist (Writer at Hewitt Sports Network? Never heard of them) I'm surprised your first response is "shithouse journalism". It seems that as a writer you fail to understand what a balanced article is, or show respect to your peers.
So basically run away from the internet and pretend the last 10/15 years never happened? That's not really possible is it?