average_jon

"Burn My Eyes"?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWGKzgUCNzs

That's what happens when you try to make people's lives easier. Ahem.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWGKzgUCNzs">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWGKzgUCNzs

The new(-est? Any sackings/hirings this week?) guitarist's solo stuff is very very silly. And also quite incredible. Just wait for the solo. Oh yes: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWGKzgUCNzs">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWGKzgUCNzs</a>

Sorry, I believe I've been misinterpreted. Instead of saying "no matter whether the review is good or not.", I should've said "no matter whether or not the review is well-written and well-reasoned." That's what I meant.

I should never comment on anything again. Not here, anyway.

...I would agree. However, I was meaning was that it's simply that this reviewer's choice of review subject matter, i.e. not listening of choice for a large majority of this site's visitors, is going to line her up for abuse, no matter whether the review is good or not.

...isn't great, I'm afraid. Sorry. It's just that it comes across firstly as defensive, and clearly written by a fan of the band. Sure, all music reviewers are fans of particular bands/artists, and there's going to be an element of bias in any review - but reviews need to at least written in an impartial style to retain any credibility. Both Panic! At The Disco and Arctic Monkeys have their merits, and you need to accept that before put fingers to keyboard. Even James Blunt has... actually, no. He *is* shite.

This review isn't really worth anyone's time, simply because although you have attempted in part to disect the song and pick out its virtues, it's all futile when you attack those who don't like the band or pigeonhole them as 'emo' (whatever *that* is), and then go ahead and pigeonhole them as Arctic Monkeys fans. Anyway, think about it. Keep at it, but don't expect to win many plaudits from this site's readership, regardless of what you write, because the indie-snobbery is rife.

I believe that this is a fairly well-written, well-executed pop song. And for sure, their sound is quite interesting, and fairly unique, at least in the mainstream. It's over-produced, and they've been over-hyped and over-promoted for sure - and wasn't this released ages ago? Sounds like a cash-in to me. Meh.

Are people not allowed to like/respect a good pop band, if they also like Sleater Kinney and My Bloody Valentine? My Chemical Romance are COMPLETELY relevant to rock music. They're not revolutionary, it's true. But their last album is a good pop-rock record. It wouldn't be on any list of even my 200 favourite records, but it's NOT a bad record. It has catchy tunes, anthemic choruses etc. GOOD SONGS. What's wrong with that? Faux-punk? In it for the money and to get laid? Oh PLEASE SHUT UP! 'Punk' means nothing. I'm sick of indie-snobbery-elitist bullshit. Stop it. To say that this band are 'a corporate product' is quite simply fucking rubbish. Had you heard of them before their last album was released? They got popular because they have catchy songs that a lot of people liked. They're not indie-bullshit-cool like most of the stuff that DiS reviews (OK, that's a personal opinion, I apologise.) They're a rock band. Just because it's easy to listen to (although this immediately makes them figures of hate amongst a lot of this site's readership) doesn't make it bad music. Some would argue to the contrary. My Chemical Romance are not clever people. They don't have an art-rock agenda, no matter what they say - they probably refer to each other in convesation as 'dude'. What's wrong with that? Most bands have nothing of worth to say. The Beatles sang about silly nonsense. Nirvana were miserable and not musically ground-breaking, and hyped-up far beyond My Chemical Romance will ever be. The White Stripes? I never got it. They're a two-piece band with minimal production. Well done. But i'll admit that they all are/were genuinely great bands in their own right, whether I like them or not. Anyone's definition of 'art' is hugely debatable, and to say that The Beatles were a more artful or credible than My Chemical Romance is a lazy, typical thing to say. This is a typical defensive arguement, granted. I don't care. People wouldn't hate this band if they hadn't got big. It's as simple as that. You may not like them, but that doesn't make them irrelevant.

I don't know what DiS is 'for', exactly. But it's become simply a place for indie wankers to slag off anything approaching 'mainstream'. I appreciate the fact that DiS writers will at least give time-of-day to anything approaching 'Music'. Sure, even they have, and express their opinions, but that's what being a critic is all about. And to imply that a band is effectively manufactured, just because they're popular with the black-hair/black-hoodie brigade, is ridiculous. Booooo to you, sir.

it has a sequence of chords, notes, lyrics... a defined verse/chorus/verse/chorus/instrumental section/chorus structure. I do not know how anyone could call your comment a valid evaluation of this single. Your opinion is idiotic; please refrain from your stupidity. Thanks.

is so vastly overrated, it scares me more than any rapper ever could.

innit.

may? that's like... ages away.

most musically-talented band in britain. i just wish they'd get the fuck on with it, though.

... 5. its writers bum aereogramme, so to speak. and aereogramme are exceptionally bearded. and good.

...rules. recognise. where would any of us be without whitesnake?

dragonforce are coasting. at 200bpm. buy another copy of the debut instead.

this record contains scratching and a vocoder. FACT.