tape-hiss-orchid

It would be awful if he read this, because he seems like a nice bloke, and I think it might make him cry.

MUSIC JOURNALISTS: KNOW YOUR LIMITS.

It's good, not that amazing but it might grow on me. It's a shame this has to be one of the heights of British music at the moment.

You can't NOT. Even more so with musicians, because the history is closer. Nothing is original, it's just re-configured in a new way. It's not a difficult concept to grasp.

It's also pretty obvious that the reviewer's saying the first record was criticised for being a 2D pastiche, while the new one is made with a bit more sophistication and thought. Besides, the Horrors have both been battered and chatted-up for their releases.

'Souverian' is the best new song I've heard in absolutely ages.

Can everybody just listen to Pete and the Pirates instead?

But that list is awful, and inaccurate.

There's so many records with so little to give. In fact most of those records are notorious for being disappointing more than anything.

and I hope they become kings.

lots of dull shit.

he was set up with a bassist and a drummer like a proper band, rather than a backing band.

Still not sure about the new material. 'The Art of Fiction' is still one of my personal favourite records ever..

and well-considered review, but it's entirely pointless.. Oasis, Kaiser Cheifs, now the Paddingtons; hardly relevant, are they.

and then we'd steal a labrador and play frisbee with the dog. Then we'd lie in the long grass and discuss the ways of the world, petting the dog and each other. Then I'd take him to TGI Friday's where he'll obviously feel right at home and buy him a steak or a burger, and I'd make him stand on a chair while everybody sings 'happy birthday' to him. And then I imagine he'd sample it and loop it and breath heavily over it, and then he'd play a live set in TGI's and the whole world would be converted to Cox.

I actually hate criticising reviewers because I do/did it too and people can be very sharp-tongued over the internet. But that reads like a fill-the-blanks newspaper review, when on websites you're given a bit of leeway to be adventurous or interesting. I don't see how you could watch Kevin Barnes reel around the stage for an hour and come out with something so uninspired. It's not the sentiment, I don't care about that so much, it's just the insipid style.

You're saying nothing of interest and your understanding of the band seems pretty superficial. Why even mentioned Mika and Rufus Wainwright when they're entirely irrelevant?

It's just.. so weak.

What they played at Glasto was good - more 'disco' I guess, for want of a better word.

'I first caught The Dears before their 2005 UK tour. Not sure what to make of their sullen hopefulness at first, I was eventually won over by the epic nature of their songs, an element that fellow Canadian rockers Arcade Fire have hijacked to great effect.'

I like the Dears, I'm not sure why, but I'm sure they're not victims of rip-off merchantism from the Arcade Fire.

softens the blow of Diver's loss.

where they'd gone and everything. Shame this isn't great, but I'll give it a listen nonetheless.

Listen to this record ten times and it's painfully clear that it's more than a rag bag collection, to even claim Barnes would bother throwing something together for the sake of it completely ignores the whole feeling of the records he makes.

Self-indulgence is established as a negative connotation I guess, but it needn't always be. When a man makes a perhaps self-indulgent record that's stunning and interesting and passionate and original, why the fuck should the negative connotation of 'self indulgence' even ever matter? Accept it as a Kevin Barnes record - if you don't like what he does then I guess I can't change your mind, but anybody who's ever been faintly interested in his work or persona should consume this work in its entirety. It's got so much to give.