Go to previous topic
Go to next topic
Last Post 10/30/2006 3:04 PM by  Antistar
Brilliant demolition job of 'The Cost'
 38 Replies
Author Messages
Antistar
Advanced Member
Advanced Member
Posts:544


--
10/30/2006 3:04 PM
    http://entertainment.ie/reviews/review.asp?ID=4722&subcat=CD What can you say? Absolutely spot on in every respect.
    jmc105
    Basic Member
    Basic Member
    Posts:188


    --
    10/30/2006 4:00 PM
    somebody should sit lauren murphy down and explain the concept of professionalism to her, preferably over a nice, soothing cup of tea. interestingly, here's another review written by someone who was looking forward to ripping "the cost" apart before ever actually hearing the album: "I’m at the stage now with Irish band the Frames that I’m almost hoping that a new album will be a disaster, and for once I can demolish it...". http://www.shakenstir.co.uk/feature.php?a=585 what can you say? absolutely spot on in every respect.
    Gar
    Veteran Member
    Veteran Member
    Posts:1676


    --
    10/30/2006 4:03 PM
    Nah, I'd disagree with that completely. I really like 'The Cost' and feel that people are looking for reasons to slate the band, because its almost become cool to dislike The Frames.
    Antistar
    Advanced Member
    Advanced Member
    Posts:544


    --
    10/30/2006 4:35 PM
    quote:
    Originally posted by jmc105
    somebody should sit lauren murphy down and explain the concept of professionalism to her, preferably over a nice, soothing cup of tea. interestingly, here's another review written by someone who was looking forward to ripping "the cost" apart before ever actually hearing the album: "I’m at the stage now with Irish band the Frames that I’m almost hoping that a new album will be a disaster, and for once I can demolish it...". http://www.shakenstir.co.uk/feature.php?a=585 what can you say? absolutely spot on in every respect.
    What, exactly, is 'unprofessional' about her review? It's concise, unpretentious,informative and scathingly hilarious: 'Ginger Messiah' 'more tedious than not only watching paint dry, but waiting for it to flake off the wall' Rather than just attacking the band and their music (which is now apparently 'cool',) she backs up her hatchet job with some merciless yet insightful arguments that, to be honest, most would find hard to disagree with.
    Gar
    Veteran Member
    Veteran Member
    Posts:1676


    --
    10/30/2006 4:47 PM
    It's a good review, but I just don't agree with it.
    nerraw
    Basic Member
    Basic Member
    Posts:475


    --
    10/30/2006 4:50 PM
    I thought the review was completely pretentious and tried far too hard to be funny. "eggy fart" hilarious. I've yet to see a watching paint dry analogy funny. No matter what The Cost sounded like, the writer was going to slate it. She hardly gives any reason for disliking it. And i think hansard is a prat much like the reviewer
    Antistar
    Advanced Member
    Advanced Member
    Posts:544


    --
    10/30/2006 4:59 PM
    quote:
    Originally posted by nerraw
    I thought the review was completely pretentious and tried far too hard to be funny. "eggy fart" hilarious. I've yet to see a watching paint dry analogy funny. No matter what The Cost sounded like, the writer was going to slate it. She hardly gives any reason for disliking it. And i think hansard is a prat much like the reviewer
    It's her variation on the 'paint dry' analogy, ie watching the paint 'flake off'...that's funny. 'No matter what The Cost sounded like, the writer was going to slate it' How do you know this? 'She hardly gives any reason for disliking it'??? Have you read the review.....? Oh, I give up.
    dera
    Basic Member
    Basic Member
    Posts:163


    --
    10/30/2006 5:13 PM
    quote:
    Originally posted by jmc105
    somebody should sit lauren murphy down and explain the concept of professionalism to her, preferably over a nice, soothing cup of tea.
    This kind of attitude is why the vast majority of music journalism is unreadable reheated press release. If a record offends you - if you think it's unworthy of the time of day - then you should be as polemic and vitriolic as you please. If that review actually were a hatchet job, then fair enough, and I'd agree with you. But it's not. She's quite clearly talking about the record, and in the context of the band's history. As Antistar says, the most trenchant of her points (rather than the throwaway digs) are about the record itself - not the band. There's a couple of songs on there I like (I think People Get Ready is immense, and a worthy twisting of the 'epic' beloved of Sn*w P*trol et al, and the song 'The Cost' is a fine piece of Jason Molina-esque miserablism) but she pinpoints exactly where this band have gone off the rails.
    nerraw
    Basic Member
    Basic Member
    Posts:475


    --
    10/30/2006 6:21 PM
    "Watching paint dry" is a tired analogy and by changing it to say and 'watching the flakes off' is beyond obvious and tedious. I'm only commenting on it as someone has posted it saying what a great review it is, but christ, the only thing worst than the frames, are reviews pointing out how bad they are.
    aidan
    Advanced Member
    Advanced Member
    Posts:638


    --
    10/30/2006 6:35 PM
    I thought it was very well written, and that's all that matters. Fair? Unfair? That's for people listening to the album to decide. She hated it and said so in a very entertaining and well-written (i.e.'professional') review.
    MarkO
    New Member
    New Member
    Posts:93


    --
    10/30/2006 11:05 PM
    I haven't heard the album yet but that review is brutal. Since when are The Frames, or any band, supposed to do something for Irish music ?? Four songs are referenced in the review. What about the others ? I'm an extremely cynical person at the best of times but have never found Glen's persona to be contrived. His humility is genuine IMO and I've seen them 9 times.
    jmc105
    Basic Member
    Basic Member
    Posts:188


    --
    10/31/2006 12:33 PM
    quote:
    Originally posted by Antistar What, exactly, is 'unprofessional' about her review?
    in my opinion a reviewer has a responsibility that extends beyond writing something that is merely entertaining and well written. that is to be informative - to assist the reader by giving them a sense of what the album is like, and to help shape the readers decision as to whether to buy the album or not. the only information i can safely take from lauren murphy's review of 'the cost' is that she hates the the frames; that she expected (even wanted) to hate the album, and, unsurprisingly, does; that she hates glen hansard, both as a musician and as a person; and that she is not above demonstrating her hatred in a series of childish, petty insults. that's a lot of hate. apart from her inability to rise above her own prejudices, much of what she says just doesn't stand up. here's an interesting line from another 'entertainment.ie' review of a frames album, andrew lynch writing about 'for the birds': Given the number of false starts and changes of directions they've had, it's something of a miracle that Glen Hansard's band are still around at all - let alone that they're making new albums as good as this one. compare that with murphy's: There are a small number of Irish bands who are constantly evolving, challenging both themselves and their listeners, pushing boundaries and experimenting with new, exciting ideas. The Frames, however, are most definitely not one of them how anyone could listen to the frames back catalogue and say that their sound hasn't evolved is beyond me. her accusation that the frames have done nothing for irish music is doubly wrong - firstly because the frames have fostered so many irish musicians (giving support slots to the like of damien rice among others - maybe that's why she hates them...) and secondly because the frames have been, on the whole, very well received internationally by both critics and audiences. and anyway, since when has any of that had anything to do with what a new album sounds like? the rest of the review criticises the songs for being boring, and for sounding like the frames. the latter is not a valid criticism, in my view, espeicially in the light of the reviewers inability to recognise any change or development over the course of the frames' recorded work, and as far as i can see, the difference between 'boring' and 'brooding' (to use two of murphy's adjectives), is in the ear of the belistener. yes, belistener, you heard me. it's telling that the review ends with an admission that it is "easy is to slate The Frames, or seize upon any kind of personal vendetta", because that's exactly what this review amounts to. and that may be entertaining, polemic, vitriolic, and well written, but it's also unprofessional.
    palace
    Basic Member
    Basic Member
    Posts:392


    --
    10/31/2006 12:43 PM
    i'm gonna sit on the fence here... ...i do think it's a fairly hastily written review by someone who has brought prejudices to the table... ...however, i do think she has written intelligently about it and i do agree with a lot of her comments... she singles out the song "the cost" for praise and she is right in doing that... it is one of the only risks they take throughout the album... ...i disagree with jmc105... the frames have not been evolving since 'for the birds'... i think they have been tremendously guilty of hedging their bets, writing some reasonable stuff but not taking the final step... i am convinced they have one eye on the possibilty of commercial success... they need an outside producer again to make them take some risks...
    El Duderino
    Basic Member
    Basic Member
    Posts:179


    --
    10/31/2006 12:56 PM
    I really don't see the professioanlism some people seem to in this piece. If I read a review that was the exact opposite (ie singing the praises of the frames and nominating Hansard for cannonisation) I would dismiss it as the musings of an over zealous fan. Why then do we treat negative reviews with more credibility. Apart from personnal attacks it's obvious that this reviewer had this review written 5-10 years ago. I haven't heard this album so I can't dismiss the reviewer's claim that the album is just one big long bore fest, but the manner in which she tears the album, the band and the lead singer apart just seem neurotic and way too personnal. Every reviewer as a duty to be honest and objective about the material they are reviewing but I can't see any objectivity in this piece. Also the fact that she draws attention to Hansards "hackneyed" lyrics and then goes on to make a crack about watching paint drying does bring pot, kettle and black to mind. The very fact that this piece was lauded as an excellent and accurate review just shows that there is a nearly pathological dislike of Glen Hansard out there (not something I really needed evidence of) and I really can't understand why
    PeterQuaife
    Basic Member
    Basic Member
    Posts:436


    --
    10/31/2006 1:16 PM
    have seen the frames live a few times and they've given a fine performance evertime. whilst i only own a couple of their cd's, the breadcrumb trail one and for the birds, i'm in no position to post as a fan...but i really dont understand people's major beef with glenn hansard, or indeed damian rice (whom i've also seen live a few times and thoroughly enjoyed), and why it needs to get so personal?!!? Lobbing faceless vicious verbal personal assults on either is pathetic imo. PQ
    Punchbowl
    Basic Member
    Basic Member
    Posts:205


    --
    10/31/2006 1:41 PM
    Well, again it's typical of the small music dictatorship that operates in this country. Reviewers, particularly in Hotpress, but now this one too, all too regularly vent their personal agendas and issues with these bands, rather than getting on with the task on hand and actaully reviewing the record. It's obvious that she's not a Frames fan, so I doubt the review was going to be too favourable in the first place, esp. considering the world and it's mother realise that the two albums mentioned are bona fide classics (She calls Birds and Devil semi-enjoyable).
    Unicron
    Veteran Member
    Veteran Member
    Posts:1696


    --
    10/31/2006 1:49 PM
    I think For The Birds is a good album but Dance the devil? Good songs live but bad on CD.
    dera
    Basic Member
    Basic Member
    Posts:163


    --
    10/31/2006 2:52 PM
    quote:
    Originally posted by jmc105 compare that with murphy's: There are a small number of Irish bands who are constantly evolving, challenging both themselves and their listeners, pushing boundaries and experimenting with new, exciting ideas. The Frames, however, are most definitely not one of them how anyone could listen to the frames back catalogue and say that their sound hasn't evolved is beyond me. her accusation that the frames have done nothing for irish music is doubly wrong - firstly because the frames have fostered so many irish musicians (giving support slots to the like of damien rice among others - maybe that's why she hates them...) and secondly because the frames have been, on the whole, very well received internationally by both critics and audiences.
    You've missed the point. When she says evolving and experimenting with new ideas she doesn't mean new ideas for the Frames - she means new ideas in the context of modern alternative music. When she says 'doing something for Irish music' she doesn't mean giving stage time to irrelevant, derivative songwriters like Rice. I don't know why you continue on with this rather meaningless accusation of unprofessionalism. What does it matter if she doesn't like the people involved? All that's of interest to you the reader is the depth of the critical points made. The rest is fluff - entertaining or not. And there are critical points made - with regard to the lyricism and arrangements, for instance. Do you think those points are without merit?
    stephen
    Basic Member
    Basic Member
    Posts:201


    --
    10/31/2006 2:57 PM
    What a dreary, wretched review. I haven't heard the record but I've learned little or nothing about it from this review. This writer has produced a sloppy, cantankerous effort that seems churlish in the extreme. If the record is a bad record, a step back for a band that have aspired to greatness in the past, I'd prefer a sober reflection on the reasons why it's gone wrong. This brand of sensationalist drivel is symptomatic of a general malaise in rock criticism, especially in the Irish media.
    Una
    Veteran Member
    Veteran Member
    Posts:1721


    --
    10/31/2006 3:08 PM
    good Lord. I wish something I wrote was entertaining enough to spark off such a conversation. Why doesn't everyone go out and buy the record and do a review of their own? We can put 20 reviews of the album up on the site just in case one doesn't suit someone's opinion. Anywhoo, for the record, I didn't like The Frames' last two albums, but thought The Cost was great.
    palace
    Basic Member
    Basic Member
    Posts:392


    --
    10/31/2006 3:29 PM
    dera - correct una - well said antistar - don't like your continual anti-frames stance but you weren't a million miles off the mark with this thread
    PeterQuaife
    Basic Member
    Basic Member
    Posts:436


    --
    10/31/2006 3:44 PM
    quote:
    Originally posted by Antistar
    http://entertainment.ie/reviews/review.asp?ID=4722&subcat=CD What can you say? Absolutely spot on in every respect.
    to agree with the reviwer on every respect, you've obviously listened to the album, maybe a few times to generate a concrete platform from which to form an opinion..one wonders why you've spent your valuable time and energy doing this esp, when you have such hatred towards the band? PQ
    Rev Jules
    Veteran Member
    Veteran Member
    Posts:1041


    --
    10/31/2006 4:22 PM
    One of the other moderators once said to me that if you want to start a fight on cluas, all you have to do is mention Damien Rice or The Frames; maybe listening to all the anguished fragile stuff leaves you with a very thin skin and constantly on the verge of a nervous breakdown, whereas listening to, say, AC/DC gives you a more robust outlook on life? For the record I hate damien rice and his latest single 9 crimes sounds like a drunk pissing in a goldfish bowl whilst his girlfriend whimpers for some unspecified reason, maybe because she cant deal with his oversensitive nature anymore. That said I wouldnt vote to review one of his records because that is not playing fair, life is far too short, and he's not good enough to make my eat my words, if he was then he would be Prince (who is a genius). Although I did once get sent to review an erin mckeon gig on the basis that I might revise my opinion of her, I did, downwards. I suspect though that Lauren was given the now disputed CD and told to review it in the line of duty and that is just the luck of the draw because lets face it very few reviewers get to only review artists they like and many of the most entertaining reviews are bad ones. As for the Frames, I appear to have bought most of their albums over the years which surprises me as I dont listen to them and dont remember buying them, but I did buy The Cost after seeing them in Vicar street and, for what its worth, thought they were very fine live and that 'People All Get Ready' is a brilliant reworking of a ton of classic soul songs such as 'People Get Ready (theres a train coming) and 'This Train is Bound for Glory' with a violin section reminiscent of John Cale's work on the original VUs recording of Venus in Furs, in other words it is the only song they have produced that I can relate to. Frank Zappa once said that music journalism was created by people who cant write for people who cant read, but I think you have to separate the opinion from the ability to express it and usually its people who cant really express their opinions who get most angry when they read stuff by people who can, I saw this review by chance when I was checking out movie times and thought it was well written and amusing, but I think Frames fans have an almost religious attachment to the band so for them it was a bit like reading The Satanic Verses. Since I have never followed a band in this manner, I cant really empathise with their pain but the world would be a very dull place if we have to kowtow to such sensitivities.
    easyvision
    New Member
    New Member
    Posts:21


    --
    10/31/2006 5:42 PM
    The Frames need to be forgotten about
    jmc105
    Basic Member
    Basic Member
    Posts:188


    --
    10/31/2006 6:13 PM
    Originally posted by dera
    quote:
    You've missed the point. When she says evolving and experimenting with new ideas she doesn't mean new ideas for the Frames - she means new ideas in the context of modern alternative music.
    i don't think i've missed the point. she says that: the frames are not one of a 'small number of Irish bands who are constantly evolving, challenging both themselves and their listeners...' ; that 'the cost' is 'indistinguishable from any other Frames album since the dawn of time'; and even songs she describes as slightly better than most 'say nothing they haven't said before'. i think that listening to the albums provides plenty evidence to the contrary. as for services to music in general, well, no band has a duty to use their recordings to redefine the landscape of any musical genre. the frames presumably make the music they want to make. if in doing so they push back boundaries then that's great, but i wouldn't say that setting out with such a goal in mind is something that each and every band should do, or that failing to do so is grounds for criticism.
    quote:
    When she says 'doing something for Irish music' she doesn't mean giving stage time to irrelevant, derivative songwriters like Rice.
    that's just one example of a way in which the frames have 'done something' for the irish music scene. taking damien rice or mark geary on tour with them helps some of the musicians that make up that scene in a real and practical way. incidentally, fionn regan has recently signed to damien rice's label drm, now called 'heffa'. whether it's the frames helping damien rice, or rice returning the favour by inviting the frames to tour with him, or a successful irish musician using his position to support someone at the beginning of their career, musicians helping musicians in this way can only be good for the irish music scene. the frames have also, as i pointed out, earned quite a lot of positive international press both for their live shows and for their albums - i remember seeing a very positive review of 'burn the maps', for example, in the new york times. this raises the profile of the irish music scene, whether lauren murphy likes it or not. it's also worth mentioning that the frames have proved that it's possible to survive for a decade and a half (and still counting) by building a strong fanbase in ireland, and that you don't need a record label behind you to make music, you can do it yourself. lauren murphy chooses to see this as negative, whereas i would see it as an achievement, at best a model for other musicians to get their music out there, at the very least a kind of inspiration. you may not like them, but they've survived. like cockroaches surviving a nuclear holocaust, surely that is worthy of some respect, however reluctantly it might be felt. there's far more to a music scene than boundaries, and if murphy can't see beyond them, perhaps she start writing something else. obituaries, maybe.
    quote:
    I don't know why you continue on with this rather meaningless accusation of unprofessionalism. What does it matter if she doesn't like the people involved? All that's of interest to you the reader is the depth of the critical points made. The rest is fluff - entertaining or not. And there are critical points made - with regard to the lyricism and arrangements, for instance. Do you think those points are without merit?
    i'm 'continuing' because that's the nature of a discussion. i have an opinion - it is that lauren murphy was unprofessional in her approach to this review because she allowed personal prejudices, which are relevant only to herself, to completely dominate a piece of writing intended to be accessible to everyone. you disagree, at least in part, i would suggest, because you share her opinion of the band/hansard. i don't see the point of your question. as for the reviews critical points, they amount, basically, to saying that this album sounds like the frames, that it is boring, and that some of the lyrics are weak. her dismissal of 'for the birds' and 'dance the devil' is criminal, but begs the question: how can 'the cost' sound just like two albums the reviewer found (semi-) enjoyable, yet at the same time be declared bland, boring, monotonous, piteous and even at times embarassing? her critical points, such as they are, are too weak to support the overall tone of the piece, which is hardly surprising, since the tone has nothing to do with the new album, and everything to do with her old preconceptions. if you were new to the frames, maybe even a tourist looking to check out the local scene, that review would be useless. actually, it would only be useless if you knew that frames-baiting is a local hobby of certain music-journalists, if you didn't know that it would be less than useless, it would be misleading. and unprofessional.
    Vent My Spleen
    Advanced Member
    Advanced Member
    Posts:500


    --
    10/31/2006 6:37 PM
    Not exactly sure where you are getting "unprofessional" here? It is a scathing review alright, pure and simple but the no reviewer has a 'professional' responsibility not to be trite or off hand. I'm equally baffled that you can't bring pre-conceived notions when the band have another 6 (or so) albums. I do that every time I buy an album. Should an album be reviewed scientifically as a unit? I don't think so. I don't need to listen to any new Stereophonics album to decide that I will not like it. That said, if I read some glowing reviews of same, I might dabble. Reviewing by it's very nature is subjective. The IMHO is implicit. For me, I read the review, laughed and took it with a grain of salt which I generally do with any review either kicking or overly praising anything. But it certainly doesn't make it any less valid an opinion.
    jmc105
    Basic Member
    Basic Member
    Posts:188


    --
    10/31/2006 6:55 PM
    quote:
    Originally posted by Rev Jules usually its people who cant really express their opinions who get most angry when they read stuff by people who can
    jesus man you've outdone yourself! the problem isn't lucidity-envy, and dismissing it as such is lazy. people are free to hate whomever they like (if that doean't sound a little too zen...). for example your latest and, if you don't mind me saying so rather tired assault on damien rice is perfectly harmless. you don't have a national audience, and what you say won't carry any weight with anyone apart from a handful of fellow cluasers. most importantly you're not being paid to provide a balanced and useful review of 9 crimes, you're just sounding off on a pet hate. as you said yourself, you wouldn't review one of damo's records - which is a pity because, with the necessary disclaimers it would undoubtedly be great fun to read. but journalists have a responsibility that you don't have to worry about, namely to rise above their pet hates, or to admit when they can't. in other words, to be professional. if having thick skin means not caring about journalistic integrity, get thee behind me, ac/dc. cleanse, tone, moisturise!
    dera
    Basic Member
    Basic Member
    Posts:163


    --
    10/31/2006 7:02 PM
    quote:
    Originally posted by jmc105 i don't think i've missed the point. she says that: the frames are not one of a 'small number of Irish bands who are constantly evolving, challenging both themselves and their listeners...' ;
    You're selectively quoting. Continue that quote to the 'push boundaries and experiment with new ideas' part. As for your points about raising the profile of the Irish music scene, you could substitute 'The Corrs' where you've said 'The Frames' to the same effect. The point is the quality/interestingness of the output, and that's why we're talking about the Frames and not the Corrs- because they claim to be an interesting/original/artistic band, and this record simply doesn't live up to what someone earlier in the thread called their aspirations to greatness. I used to think they had the potential to be a really interesting band too, incidentally.
    quote:
    as for the reviews critical points, they amount, basically, to saying that this album sounds like the frames, that it is boring, and that some of the lyrics are weak.
    I think it's a bit much to pass over the lyricism like that - for a band that used to be centred around an interesting, distinctive lyricist, this record marks a significant change, wouldn't you say?
    quote:
    if you were new to the frames, maybe even a tourist looking to check out the local scene, that review would be useless. actually, it would only be useless if you knew that frames-baiting is a local hobby of certain music-journalists, if you didn't know that it would be less than useless, it would be misleading. and unprofessional.
    Again, I couldn't disagree more. Reading the review, I discern that the record (for the most part - she praises the only moments that do stand out) is a Snow Patrol/Damien Rice-esque collection of slowburning ballads and overwrought emotion. If I'm interested in experimental/altcountry/postrock/artrock/free jazz/free folk/etc music, the review tells me exactly where this record sits on the musical landscape.
    jmc105
    Basic Member
    Basic Member
    Posts:188


    --
    11/1/2006 2:53 PM
    quote:
    Originally posted by dera You're selectively quoting. Continue that quote to the 'push boundaries and experiment with new ideas' part.
    well what i was doing was highlighting the part of what she said that i think is just wrong. when she talks about bands evolving, which the frames have certainly done over the course of 5 albums, and about bands challenging themselves and their listeners, which really just amounts to another way of saying 'evolving', then she is referring to the development of the band itself. the rest of it may well be referring to a broader, overall context, but as i said, i don't think every band will want to 'push boundaries' in the way you mean, and i don't think it'd be a good thing if every band tried to.
    quote:
    I think it's a bit much to pass over the lyricism like that - for a band that used to be centred around an interesting, distinctive lyricist, this record marks a significant change, wouldn't you say?
    not really, no. she picks out two lines for criticism - and in the case of 'rise' it's not clear whether it's the lyrics or the vocals or the 'emotion' or what she has a problem with. the line she quotes from 'true' is actually one that glen hansard discussed in an interview i saw somewhere - colm didn't like (it grew on him, apparently) it but glen defended it saying that it was one of the most lyrically honest (uncomfortably so) songs he's written. overall i don't think the lyrics are weak, but i guess it's a very subjective thing.
    quote:
    Reading the review, I discern that the record (for the most part - she praises the only moments that do stand out) is a Snow Patrol/Damien Rice-esque collection of slowburning ballads and overwrought emotion. If I'm interested in experimental/altcountry/postrock/artrock/free jazz/free folk/etc music, the review tells me exactly where this record sits on the musical landscape.
    she praises one song! and doesn't even bother to say why she likes it, apart from telling us that it's 'ace'. it's a lazy, self-indulgent piece of writing. when i read a review i don't need to marvel at the writer she attempts to squeeze in a world-record number personal insults, especially when it's at the expense of actually writing about the music. in fact i think you managed to do a better job of reviewing the album in three lines than lauren murphy did in her entire piece. not that i actually agree with you or anything...!
    Una
    Veteran Member
    Veteran Member
    Posts:1721


    --
    11/1/2006 5:20 PM
    get. over. it. EVERYONE.
    dera
    Basic Member
    Basic Member
    Posts:163


    --
    11/1/2006 5:30 PM
    quote:
    Originally posted by Una
    get. over. it. EVERYONE.
    What on earth is the problem with discussing a review? What arises from the review (the nature of reviews, music journalism, writing aesthetics) has more than no relevance to people who write about music, wouldn't you say?
    Una
    Veteran Member
    Veteran Member
    Posts:1721


    --
    11/1/2006 5:50 PM
    I know, it's just a bit pedandic, don't you think? Maybe if it wasn't so predictable - THE FRAMES - it would be more interestlng. I'll just stop reading the thread then**
    Antistar
    Advanced Member
    Advanced Member
    Posts:544


    --
    11/1/2006 6:45 PM
    I don't mean to be pedantic but 'pedantic' is spelled P E D A N T I C not 'pedandic', Yours, A. Pedant
    Pandora
    New Member
    New Member
    Posts:11


    --
    11/1/2006 8:02 PM
    Have to say, I don't mind "The Frames" but Glen Hansard makes my bowels move. I think the review is excellent, i burned a copy off my mate Dave and it's the same ol predictable, monotonous rubbish. Lyrics are very poor this time around which is unusual. Well done reviewer, your article has captured the imaginations of many and managed to piss a lot of people off at the same time...nice one!
    nerraw
    Basic Member
    Basic Member
    Posts:475


    --
    11/2/2006 12:09 AM
    "Captured the imaginations of many" lol
    Pandora
    New Member
    New Member
    Posts:11


    --
    11/2/2006 12:45 AM
    Sorry, was just trying to be dramatic! Please forgive me...
    El Duderino
    Basic Member
    Basic Member
    Posts:179


    --
    11/2/2006 7:18 AM
    quote:
    Originally posted by Pandora
    Have to say, I don't mind "The Frames" but Glen Hansard makes my bowels move. I think the review is excellent, i burned a copy off my mate Dave and it's the same ol predictable, monotonous rubbish. Lyrics are very poor this time around which is unusual. Well done reviewer, your article has captured the imaginations of many and managed to piss a lot of people off at the same time...nice one!
    I don't quite see how pissing people off is a good thing in a review. Being contentious is all well and good but being downright offensive on a very personal level is a completely different matter. Easy, cheap shots do not a good review make. And this would be my opinion no what who the subject matter was
    Pandora
    New Member
    New Member
    Posts:11


    --
    11/2/2006 11:51 AM
    El Duderino, your grasp of the english language is mind-boggling, very concise and intricate. How the hell has this article been "downright offensive on a very personal level"? Are you Glen Hansard or another scruffy member of The Frames? If not, then shut up! If so, then shut up and take the criticism.
    PeterQuaife
    Basic Member
    Basic Member
    Posts:436


    --
    11/2/2006 12:19 PM
    quote:
    Originally posted by Pandora
    i burned a copy off my mate Dave ]
    yeah yeah....my mate once had a rash PQ


    ---