1. avatar flmcasey
    http://blog.myspace.com/fightingwithwire

    Seems the illiterate, indie victims didn't like 'em very much.

    My initial rage subsided to laughter after I read the comments further down. (:
  2. avatar POSITIVExYOUTH
    People still read NME?!?
  3. avatar Arcane
    Well you cant please everyone, cant say I like FFW or even understand why people love them so much but when you think about it they dont really bring anything to the table other than emo'ness.
  4. avatar Mickeycolensoparade
    What the christ is emo'ness?
  5. avatar The Grace Jones
    [img:a5664236a6]http://www.hardgeus.com/updateimages/emo_philips_old.jpg[/img:a5664236a6]

    [b:a5664236a6]?[/b:a5664236a6]
  6. avatar POSITIVExYOUTH
    [quote:70f11a65cc="Arcane"]Well you cant please everyone, cant say I like FFW or even understand why people love them so much but when you think about it they dont really bring anything to the table other than emo'ness.[/quote:70f11a65cc]

    Fair enough, I personally can't say I like them either. But bloody hell, it is quite obvious that the guy that wrote the review is as professional as plank of wood and that he perhaps went in the gig already knowing he was not going to like, or perhaps even hate, FWW.
    Naturally a reviewer has the right to say they don't like a band, but there is a difference between being professional about it (as you would expect in this case) and being a complete arse about it.
  7. avatar Danny McCormack
    [quote:5e4d2a07a9="Mickeycolensoparade"]What the christ is emo'ness?[/quote:5e4d2a07a9]

    Loch Ness' slightly more sensitive sister lake
  8. avatar JTM
    If I didn't know better I'd have said FWW were being trolled.


    Say what you want about FWW but that review was a complete load, designed to sell copy by provoking rage, and not to constructively criticise at all. All the journalistic integrity of a dried cat turd. Cockwankery.

    My respect for the NME is now so negative they physically owe me an article entitled "JTM - we are sorry for inventing the term Nu-Rave and also being shite. Sorry."

    I also hope, for his sake, Stephen Kelly is a pseudonym.
    Last edited on , 1 times in total.
  9. avatar ryanego
    I'm feeling quite chuffed that I spotted an incorrectly spelled word in his review.
  10. avatar Arcane
    it is a balls review like, even though I dont like there music I know they are a hard workin band that deserve more than that!
  11. avatar flmcasey
    Do you reckon NME heard about Cahir's rant in AU?
    "NME is a rag, I want nothing to do with their scene..."

    Like, Cahir hasn't made it a secret how much he hates indie bands either. Belsonic was a laugh...
    "Who's looking forward to The Enemy?"
    *crowd screams*
    "Well, I'm not"

    Classic.
  12. avatar gerry norman
    this review makes me like fww more than ever. nme is the worst mag out there, if I ever buy it it's to entertain myself by disagreeing with everything they say. their aim is to piss us off which works. hey wait a minute that's kinda cool, I enjoy pissing people off sometimes. does that make NME cool then? nah. wankers.
  13. avatar frajam
    Yea it was a bit harsh all the same like, Clearly the guy had heard them before and didnt like them, so perhaps felt the need to put that to paper. I think they're pretty decent like. Cant wait to gig with them next week!
  14. avatar DontPetABurningDog
    It's a stock hack-job by some fuckwit aiming to make a name for himself, hoping in years to come to figure in or around the same position as Johnny Cigarettes for talking heads "I :smt049 last week" shitehawk TV shows. He can be "that chap that writes harsh reviews".

    I don't mind a destructive, nasty review, like, but that's not even vaguely funny, creative or well written. I could pull a better slating out of my arse, and I'm barely literate. if that's the best a fucking music journalist can do, it's conclusive proof the NME is dead on it's feet.
  15. avatar anty
    fuck it, free press for fww
  16. avatar JTM
    It's not hard to knock FWW, I've seen better criticism on Fastude ffs, but let's just call a troll a troll and boycott the NME from now on and have done with it.
  17. avatar Thedevilsfavouriteson
    surely it comes with the job.not everyone is gonna like them.so why get so up in arms about it.like that other guy said you know cathair had a go at them.not everyone is gonna like the nme.im sure they dont get all bent outta shape about it.its gonna happen.its.no.big.deal.
  18. avatar POSITIVExYOUTH
    The point is not about NME not liking them, everyone is entitled to liking or disliking someone.
    The point is about that reviewer being a complete knobhead and lacking any kind of sign of being a professional music journalist.
  19. avatar Steven Dedalus
    "as professional as plank of wood"

    "lacking any kind of sign of being a professional music journalist"

    "All the journalistic integrity of a dried cat turd"

    I don't realy see how any of those satements can be qualified, to be honest.

    [i:50f02703cc]Reviewer goes to gig.

    Reviewer doesn't like gig.

    Reviewer writes for NME, and composes nasty, overblown review, entirely in the style of the NME.

    Review recieved by editorial staff, and printed in following issue.[/i:50f02703cc]

    I don't know about you, but as far as being 'professional', that sequence of events makes sense to me.

    It's just a bad review, peeps! Sure it's crap writing, but that's what the NME do! That's their house style, and everything else in the rag is written in the same way.

    Such is life.
  20. avatar JTM
    Yes, but it doesn't make it right.
  21. avatar my-angel-rocks
    Rock music: The last great bastion of professionalism.
  22. avatar Thedevilsfavouriteson
    [quote:97759117b0]Yes, but it doesn't make it right.[/quote:97759117b0]

    i actually burst out laughing when i read that.

    some one doesnt like the band they write a bad review,ff ppl call him unprofessional,dedalus points out that the whole process was in fact professional...but it still: it doesnt make it right.

    sweet holy mother of christ.its just a bad review.

    'it still doesnt make it right' sounds a bit childline or red nose day to me.shocking.
  23. avatar TheJaneBradfords
    I think the point here is that this is an unnecessarily over the top review. I generally am not a fan of fighting with wire's genre but can see that they are a good band that deserve a big following. They certainly are not shite.

    It screamed petty grudge rather than cleverly cynical. It sounded less like a professional review and more like a school playground rant.
  24. avatar goatboy
    [quote:101aaa4432="TheJaneBradfords"]I generally am not a fan of fighting with wire's genre[/quote:101aaa4432]

    What genre would you say that they are and what other bands would be in the same genre? Just wondering, like.

    Pretty crap review, but I doubt it's going to really make any difference to anything that they are doing.

    Ignore it...... move on.
  25. avatar T Entertainment
    Ach, I've no doubt they will treat a snide review from the NME as a badge of honour.
  26. avatar tinpot anto
    Yeah I'd have stickers of it stuck on their album ffs.

    "Shite", NME (why yes it is!) :)
  27. avatar SweetDickWilly
    Don't read NME.
  28. avatar my-angel-rocks
    [quote:1e4b11c1b8="goatboy"]What genre would you say that they are[/quote:1e4b11c1b8]

    Easy listening.
  29. avatar POSITIVExYOUTH
    And you people that defend this idiot's right to review a band as he pleases, please explain how this:
    "...is about as funny as the fact people have actually paid to witness this absolute trainwreck of unrivalled shite".
    can be classified as professinal musical journalism.

    If you really think this guy did no wrong, you people have a fucked up concept of how music journalism should be and have an even more fucked up concept of what a review on a well established music magazine should be.
  30. avatar tinpot anto
    What they should do is put [i:7a0b4495fb]"Unrivalled" - NME[/i:7a0b4495fb] on all their promo stuff.
  31. avatar JTM
    [quote:d0146bb517="Thedevilsfavouriteson"][quote:d0146bb517]Yes, but it doesn't make it right.[/quote:d0146bb517]

    i actually burst out laughing when i read that.

    some one doesnt like the band they write a bad review,ff ppl call him unprofessional,dedalus points out that the whole process was in fact professional...but it still: it doesnt make it right.

    sweet holy mother of christ.its just a bad review.

    'it still doesnt make it right' sounds a bit childline or red nose day to me.shocking.[/quote:d0146bb517]

    I'm glad you got a laugh out of that line. It wasn't intended to be funny but it was either that or a 6-page tirade. :)

    Yes, a bad review is a bad review, but it was a poorly written bad review. That's what pissed me off. Not that I really care for either FWW or the NME to be honest, but I have a stick up my arse about people writing for "professional" publications and doing a patently shit job. This is where I'm coming from. I should really chill about it but, there you go. My $0.02.

    Maybe my problem is I don't give the NME the contempt it deserves, it's like the Daily Sport calling itself the Guardian and claiming the high ground.
  32. avatar JTM
    [quote:9cb52d9989="tinpot anto"]What they should do is put [i:9cb52d9989]"Unrivalled" - NME[/i:9cb52d9989] on all their promo stuff.[/quote:9cb52d9989]

    :lol:

    Tinpot Anto - the voice of reason. Who'd have thunk? :)
  33. avatar my-angel-rocks
    [quote:3350f58177="POSITIVExYOUTH"]
    "...is about as funny as the fact people have actually paid to witness this absolute trainwreck of unrivalled shite".
    can be classified as professinal musical journalism.[/quote:3350f58177]

    How is it not?

    I got into this before when discussing the album reviews that gave a 1/2 star or whatever. Maybe it really was the worst thing he'd ever seen. What are the boundaries between professionalism and unprofessionalism. If he'd said "It was very unenjoyable" would that have been "professional"? Would it have conveyed the same level of dislike? What is an acceptable level of dislike? What if he'd called it a "trainwreck of unrivalled crap"? If you take out the extremities of expression by labelling them unprofessional, then reviews get more MOR.

    People should be allowed to express themselves using whatever language they want, without having to watch out for the professionalism police.

    And who gives a fuck about professionalism anyway? Should all bands be onstage wearing suits and ties?
  34. avatar exitonline
    [quote:14564b593b="anty"]fuck it, free press for fww[/quote:14564b593b]

    Exactly. Publicity is Publicity, it doesnt matter what they say as long as they spell their name right.

    All magazines are the same, they are looking to shift units so they go with what is deemed to be "cool" at the time to sell magazines. So any band that doesn't fall into the magazines choosen style of music that week then your going to get a bad review. That goes for any magazine.

    I actually prefer bad reviews, as they usually make you waht to check out the band to see if they are right. As soon as I read glowing reviews I just tend to think that the bands press agents, label or someone who knows someone has put in a good word or even a good cash incentive.

    I gave up on believing magazines after every magazine slated Travis' Man Who album then when they saw the album was the biggest thing that year all the magazines who slated it were suddenly stating that the album was a piece of genius.

    Who cares anyway, alot of the legendary bands always got slated by the press, Led Zep, Queen, Cream, Clapton, Pink Floyd, U2 etc..
  35. avatar comprachio
    No no no.

    The review suggests that the band being reviewed is so abysmally rubbish that no one should like them nor pay in to see them.

    Even from the perspective of someone who doesn't really follow FWW's genre I can clearly see that they are good at what they do. At the very least anyone can see that they're a tight band.

    He also said that they're emo but then contradicts it by slagging stage banter. There is nothing constructive at all about the review.

    "Trainwreck of unrivalled shite" conjures up images of a sloppy band that are devoid of ANY redeeming qualities. I know people who don't like FWW and they wouldn't agree with it at all.
  36. avatar POSITIVExYOUTH
    [quote:bb15678bc9="my-angel-rocks"][quote:bb15678bc9="POSITIVExYOUTH"]
    "...is about as funny as the fact people have actually paid to witness this absolute trainwreck of unrivalled shite".
    can be classified as professinal musical journalism.[/quote:bb15678bc9]

    How is it not?

    I got into this before when discussing the album reviews that gave a 1/2 star or whatever. Maybe it really was the worst thing he'd ever seen. What are the boundaries between professionalism and unprofessionalism. If he'd said "It was very unenjoyable" would that have been "professional"? Would it have conveyed the same level of dislike? What is an acceptable level of dislike? What if he'd called it a "trainwreck of unrivalled crap"? If you take out the extremities of expression by labelling them unprofessional, then reviews get more MOR.

    People should be allowed to express themselves using whatever language they want, without having to watch out for the professionalism police.

    And who gives a fuck about professionalism anyway? Should all bands be onstage wearing suits and ties?[/quote:bb15678bc9]

    Oh get off it. You know exactly what I mean when I talk about "professionalism".

    And no, calling someone 'shite' or 'crap' is not professional by the standards one would expect from a so-called 'music reviewer' that writes for a well established (albeit shite) music magazine.
    It is common sense that in this precise context he chose the worst words to describe FWW (but would be the worse words possible for any badnd) and ended up sounding like a complete dickhead.

    Naturally he is entitled to think they are complete bollox, I can't stop him from having a personal opinion. But in certain contexts you are expected to use certain words.
    And I don't agree at all that in this case people should have the right to express themselves with whatever language they like. In certain cases people are expected to write in a certain way. No one would ever write a university essay as if they were writing a letter, for example. And this case is no different, in the context of an established music magazine saying a band is 'shite' is unacceptable. End of.
  37. avatar tinpot anto
    Except that the editorial line in the Music Magazine you write for is that calling bands "Shite" is fine.

    There is an awful lot of whining about "professionalism" in music and for the most part this is why such a huge amount of it is utter shite. Fucking Professionalism like, what are you doing an audition for a Cruise Ship now?



    Get over it sure, the review was shite, FWW care so much they stuck it up on their myspace for a laugh.
  38. avatar Steven Dedalus
    But an important part of this 'debate' is the source from whence the review came (as I pointed out earlier).

    The NME have a house style that is tailored to suit their readership. Inevitably that means that stuff will be written that will be over the top, full of hyperbole, and almost impossible to take seriously.

    In this case, we can take "Train-wreck of..blah,blah,blah" to mean, "Not good live, not a gig I enjoyed."

    You just have to scan the NME for a second to grasp the fashion in which they write! Everything is either amazing, or guff - there is no middle ground.

    It might not be a style of journalism you like, but that's the way they do it, and it's the way they've always done it.

    Par example: Ian Curtis' suicide in 1980 was reported as, "he died for you." Should I be angry about that? Is it unprofessional? No, it's just the way they write things.

    When they told us that Franz Ferdinand would "Change your life", should I be up in arms because they didn't?

    To give this some kind of context, Metal Hammer are not going to review Belle and Sebastien favourably. Terrorizer will most likely sneer at Noah and the Whale. Heat magazine would be inclined to not rate the recorded output of Godspeed! You Black Emporer. Etc.

    If you read in the late, great Smash Hits that the next X-Factor winner was the greatest ever performer the world had ever seen, would you be up in arms as to the "unprofessionalism" of the review?

    Yes, it's a balls review. Yes, it's not very helpful. But did anyone seriously expect the NME to publish a beautifully cosntructed, erudite review of FWW?
  39. avatar Cake
    Well, all I can tell you is that the band, the band's management and all at the label (Smalltown and Atlantic) thought it was a class piece of publicity.

    I mean, let's be honest, Biffy Clyro got the exact same treatment and 12 months later Simon Neil was listed in the top ten of their "cool" *Shudder* list once they had sold a few records.
  40. avatar my-angel-rocks
    [quote:44adc0d6a1="comprachio"]The review suggests that the band being reviewed is so abysmally rubbish that no one should like them nor pay in to see them.[/quote:44adc0d6a1]

    Is that not the point of a review? To tell you whether some product is good or bad, the implications being if it is bad that you shouldn't pay money for it?

    [quote:44adc0d6a1]He also said that they're emo but then contradicts it by slagging stage banter.[/quote:44adc0d6a1]

    Emo bands don't go in for stage banter?
  41. avatar Rocky
    If anyone's feeling strongly enough about it,
    write to the NME and tell them what you think of their output, standards and ability.

    From personal experience of receiving poorly written, factually incorrect reviews from NME, Drowned In Sound, Rocksound.... and many many many more...
    I would say that 8 times of out 10, a review or piece written on my band has been littered with inaccuracies or flat out untruths.

    We are sadly lacking decent publications like the big take over or punk planet in the UK, Alternative Ulster is for me, so far ahead of anything else in the UK,
    it well written and features bands i actually go and check out and even sometimes like.
  42. avatar Mickeycolensoparade
    Anyone get the issue of Q magazine this month? Suspiciously similar to AU in layout and general look.. truely 'london is watching watching belfast'.
  43. avatar The enfant terrible
    I think Stepen Dedalus has hit the nali on the head with this one.

    Here's a good idea how to set things right though. Why don't you do a JJ from the Stranglers on the Journalist in question?
  44. avatar POSITIVExYOUTH
    Still, just because NME works that way still doesn't mean that the reviewer acted professionally. If anything it means that NME is as professional as shite when it comes to music journalism.

    Say what you want and find all the excuses you want, but magazine style or not, i still think it's an unprofessional piece of work.
  45. avatar JTM
    Professional just means you get paid to do something for a living, not that you are any good at it, or care about what you do. If slagging Zane Lowe's band of the month sells copy, the NME will print it. Christ, I'd be willing to bet fingers versus plpectrums would be printed if they thought it would sell.

    It's a disgrace a national magazine behaves like this, but as this thread's gone on, I reckon the true relevance of the NME has become clearer to me. We should stop talking about that publication immediately.
  46. avatar POSITIVExYOUTH
    That is what the word 'professional' means. But there is a huge difference between what the word means and what the concept of 'professional' really is about.

    But i will agree on stop talking about NME. It's shite, let's ignore it.
  47. avatar danbastard
    Wait a minute, who fingered Madonna?
  48. avatar goatboy
    [quote:91041e2da5="danbastard"]Wait a minute, who fingered Madonna?[/quote:91041e2da5]

    Word on the street is that it was Gary Fahy.
  49. avatar danbastard
    If my question was 'Who fingered Bobby Steele?' then I think it would be more appropriate.

    But yes. Damn the NME, and such.
  50. avatar p-t-rebel-mc
    I liked FWW until i read that review. NME is like a weekly older brother who tells me what to do and what is cool every week. At the moment I am wearing coloured sunglasses, have blue hair, hate morrisey and am listening to afrobeat meets skiffle in an apocolyptic rave at the klaxons house on acid. Everything on acid.
  51. avatar JTM
    [quote:773d4c287f="POSITIVExYOUTH"]That is what the word 'professional' means. But there is a huge difference between what the word means and what the concept of 'professional' really is about.

    But i will agree on stop talking about NME. It's shite, let's ignore it.[/quote:773d4c287f]

    Yes. I wish there could be a new word that meant "actually giving a shit about what you do and fulfilling the standards that everyone who has an interest in what you are undertaking, for paid employment, expects from you", because "professional" just isn't cutting it.

    NME sucks donkeys.
    End Thread.
  52. avatar comprachio
    [quote:98ea5bef0a="my-angel-rocks"][quote:98ea5bef0a="comprachio"]The review suggests that the band being reviewed is so abysmally rubbish that no one should like them nor pay in to see them.[/quote:98ea5bef0a]

    Is that not the point of a review? To tell you whether some product is good or bad, the implications being if it is bad that you shouldn't pay money for it?

    [quote:98ea5bef0a]He also said that they're emo but then contradicts it by slagging stage banter.[/quote:98ea5bef0a]

    Emo bands don't go in for stage banter?[/quote:98ea5bef0a]

    My point was that the review was OTT. A point of a review is to provide an objective viewpoint. This didn't in any way.

    As for the emo thing, I meant that laddish, bawdy stage banter is incongruous with emo bands.
  53. avatar thecunnyfunt
    one day the word 'emo' will swallow us all
  54. avatar kypp
    lolnme.

    How could one take such a thing seriously.

    Also, Arcane SUCK! Show some fucking emotion in your gig next time.
  55. avatar trepanner
    [quote:1a0490d9dd="kypp"]Arcane SUCK![/quote:1a0490d9dd]

    Are you trying to get a job at NME?
  56. avatar Chi-Lite
    [quote:612e079e60="comprachio"][A point of a review is to provide an objective viewpoint.[/quote:612e079e60]

    Is it though? Just it not just give you the reviewer's viewpoint? What the hell's an objective viewpoint on music anyway? Somebody who neither likes it nor dislikes it? What's the point of that?

    This guy obviously thought it was shite.

    It probably is, too. I don't know, I've never heard them, so, conversely, they might be class. but your man thinks they're shite. They probably are. I don't know. What's this about again...somebody didn't like a band, and said so..? They probably are shite anyway.
  57. avatar comprachio
    Do you think it is likely that if you and a cross section of 100 music fans go to see FWW that they will all agree that they would be hard pushed to find a more shite band. Not a chance imo. There is no chance in hell that Stephen Kelly has never seen or heard a band as 'shite' as FWW.

    A person reading a review needs a proper critique not OTT mudslinging. If he didn't like them he could articulate it better. As it stood, there is nothing in that review that made me think that Stephen Kelly is a top quality journalist who's reviews could steer me towards good music while avoiding the bad. Surely that is the goal of a review?
  58. avatar Chi-Lite
    I do get what you're saying, but it's still just a matter of opinion like, innit..

    I mean;
    "Do you think it is likely that if you and a cross section of 100 music fans go to see FWW that they will all agree that they would be hard pushed to find a more shite band"

    I don't know, but so what. This guy isn't telling you what a cross-section of people think, he's telling you what he thinks. Maybe all reviews should be written by the consensus of a randomly selected sample of the public, aged between 14-24?

    So really, all this boils down to is that you think that journalist is wrong, and a twat. He may well be wrong, and he may well be a twat, but so are loads of reviewers.

    As for articulating it better, I'd imagine he probably articulated what he felt. Are you really saying, "no, that's not how you feel...this is"? he obviously thought the review adequately summed up his feelings towards this particular band. You may want him to say it in prose, or in a haiku, but he probably thought he expressed it well enough. Reviews don't always have to be comprehensive, or well-written, or even cohesive, particularly if you think the subject under review barely deserves it. Like that famous one "Shit Sandwich", what was that for again...? Or was it just in an episode of Brass Eye? Actually, it was Spinal Tap wasn't it....still, good review. Says it all.

    As for FWW, a review like that is probably significantly more likely to make me want to see for myself than a review written by some wanker talking about how class they are.

    But then, I'm a bit contrary like that.

    And anyway, I'll probably not bother, either way.

    Ha, reviews like that probably aren't aimed at me like, are they. :lol:
    Last edited on , 1 times in total.
  59. avatar thesacredhearts
    [quote:280baad104]Reviews don't always have to be comprehensive, or well-written, or even cohesive, particularly if you think the subject under review barely deserves it.[/quote:280baad104]


    Good ones do though.
  60. avatar Chi-Lite
    No, good reviews of really bad music will say something like

    [size=18:42abd6abe7]BALLS[/size:42abd6abe7] in big giant letters, or the classic "WANK!"

    That's the kind of review of shite music I like to read. S'a matter of opinion, like, innit. What are you, the good review police?
  61. avatar thesacredhearts
    Well a good piece of prose generally has substance, meaning, a start middle and end etc etc

    "Balls!" while you can construe this to be a review, will leave you asking the question "Why?".

    But yeah, thats what you like to read. I mean theres no accounting for taste, or indeed sanity.
  62. avatar tinpot anto
    This thread is a Train wreck of unrivalled shite.
  63. avatar Chi-Lite
    [quote:4dc20a7fac="thesacredhearts"]Well a good piece of prose generally has substance, meaning, a start middle and end etc etc[/quote:4dc20a7fac]

    And all of a sudden a good review has to be prose does it?

    [quote:4dc20a7fac]"Balls!" while you can construe this to be a review, will leave you asking the question "Why?".[/quote:4dc20a7fac]

    Aye, and it's very valuable to talk about "why" something's shite, is it? That's the objective way to do it, is it? No doubt we'll all come to agreement. Like when we talk about how "valid" music is, you want something like that, do you?

    At the end of the day, all reviews are just one person's opinion. Whether they feel like explaining their opinion, in prose, or not, makes no odds. Their opinon may, justifiably, be "THIS IS SHITE, AND NEEDS NO EXPLANATION". If I were to start asking everybody "Why" they don't like something, I'd have a head full of useless information and other people's personal preferences. If its just REALLY BAD, SHITE will cover it. Sometimes one need say no more.

    [quote:4dc20a7fac]But yeah, thats what you like to read. I mean theres no accounting for taste, or indeed sanity.[/quote:4dc20a7fac]

    Ha, to be fair, i can't remember the last time I read a review of anything.

    Oh, yes, it was Dexy's "lost" mid-eighties classic, "Don't Stand Me Down"....somebody said it was good, and i agreed. :-D Made all the difference.
  64. avatar fastfude
    A review and an opinion are two different things, Shirley?

    "Review" implies at least an element of reportage and objectivity, whereas an "opinion" can be entirely subjective and unaccountable.

    [quote:269931f5ae="Chi-Lite"]If I were to start asking everybody "Why" they don't like something, I'd have a head full of useless information and other people's personal preferences.[/quote:269931f5ae]Nah, you'd have the reasoning behind the statement. Either it'd be a rational argument that supports the claims, ie a review, or an "it just is, you big shite", ie an opnion.
  65. avatar Chi-Lite
    I don't know, flip me, the definition of "review"...

    I would imagine that a "review" neccessarily expresses one person's experience of an event, or listening or viewing experience.

    I mean, would reportage and objectivity not just be something like;

    "the band arrived on stage at 9.30am. The guitar player started off with a G chord, and it was quite loud. then the drummer came in, and they played a song, that was sort of fast, with a bit in the middle that slowed down. after that, they done anoher, different song, that was a bit slower..."


    Ach well, i suppose the reasonable answer is that a review is generally probably a bit of both. But surely the salient feature of a review is that it's the review of a person...an expression of one person's experience of the thing in question.

    And sometimes you do go to a gig, and you don't experience any real grasp of the music, or consideration of "WHY" you don't like it. sometimes a thing is so bad that you're whole experience of it is AAAAHHHH SSSHHHIIITEE!!!

    I've had experience of things like that. A "review" is precisely a "representation of a view". And if your view was nothing more sophisticated than WHAT A LOT OF BALLIX, why not tell it like it is, eh?
  66. avatar trepanner
    [quote:a0b5e0fb81="fastfude"]"Review" implies at least an element of reportage and objectivity, whereas an "opinion" can be entirely subjective and unaccountable.
    [/quote:a0b5e0fb81]

    Aye, but as a couple of folks have said before wandering off to find something more useful to be annoyed about : [b:a0b5e0fb81]It's in the NME[/b:a0b5e0fb81]. What did you expect?
  67. avatar Chi-Lite
    [quote:baf60a0ca4="fastfude"][quote:baf60a0ca4="Chi-Lite"]If I were to start asking everybody "Why" they don't like something, I'd have a head full of useless information and other people's personal preferences.[/quote:baf60a0ca4]Nah, you'd have the reasoning behind the statement. Either it'd be a rational argument that supports the claims, ie a review, or an "it just is, you big shite", ie an opnion.[/quote:baf60a0ca4]

    But hold on, Roger, when are we talking about anything OTHER than an opinion?

    We're talking about music, for fuck sake. Are you seriously saying we should expect rational arguments about why one kind of music is good and another isn't?

    No, all we're ever gonna be talking about is opinion. Reviews aren't rational arguments about how "valid" something is...surely we've all learnt what a useless argument that is. Reviews are no more than expressions of opinion, thus they can be as concise and sharp and pithy as they want.

    That's, like, opinion, man. Get a grip with the programme here like.
  68. avatar Recycled Alien
    The things is, virtually anyone who has commented in this thread (apart from Chi-Lite) is really complaining because the review disagrees with their own opinion.

    It's nothing to do with "professionalism" or "objectivity" or "quality writing": you're all just taking the hump because somebody doesn't like the band.

    As it happens, I don't like FWW's music either, and "an hour-long drone of emo-nonsense" pretty much sums up how I felt when I heard them play; and like that writer, I was disappointed, after other people's enthusiasm for the band.

    Music is a subjective topic. All music reviews, as Marty says, are an expression of one person's experience.
  69. avatar Steven Dedalus
    [quote:f13667c27d="thesacredhearts"][quote:f13667c27d]Reviews don't always have to be comprehensive, or well-written, or even cohesive, particularly if you think the subject under review barely deserves it.[/quote:f13667c27d]


    Good ones do though.[/quote:f13667c27d]

    What about ones like Happy Mondays "Yes Please!"

    REVIEW: No thanks.

    Or the Jet one on Pitchfork with the monkey widdling into it's own mouth?

    Those reviews tell you all you need to know about those albums without being well written, comprehensive or whatever.

    Music journalism is an almost entriely uniquie form of criticism in that the form frequently attempts to emulate the subject.

    Ergo: Music is about attitude, etc, I'll write my stuff in the same way.

    I'm not saying it's an ideal way of working (and I wouldn't do it myself, although I am prone to some flamboyant prose from time to time) but it's the nature of the beast, and it has been that way since the early days of popular music journalism.

    [quote:f13667c27d]It's nothing to do with "professionalism" or "objectivity" or "quality writing": you're all just taking the hump because somebody doesn't like the band.[/quote:f13667c27d]

    I couldn't care less about the review in question, but it angers me when people tarnish my delporable trade.
  70. avatar thesacredhearts
    No,l those reviews tell you the reviewers opinion but gives no reason as to why they came to that conclusion. How can i accept something that comes under the argument "just cos"?

    Sure they work as a bit of tongue in cheek humour, but really dont reveal any understanding of what made the music good or bad in the reviewers opinions.
  71. avatar Chi-Lite
    [quote:14b0cf979a="thesacredhearts"]How can i accept something that comes under the argument "just cos"?[/quote:14b0cf979a]


    Because it's one person's opinion. If their opinion actually IS "just cos", then that's it, simple as that. This isn't about argument. How can you make a rational argument about opinion? You just don't like it. Sometimes "just cos" is all there is to it.

    [quote:14b0cf979a="thesacredhearts"]Sure they work as a bit of tongue in cheek humour, but really dont reveal any understanding of what made the music good or bad in the reviewers opinions.[/quote:14b0cf979a]

    Perhaps you would like a complete self-psycho-analysis about why a particular person has particular emotional responses to certain sights, sounds and smells.
    I'd rather read; "It's just shite; I don't like it". sometimes, that really is all there is to it. If you want a rational argument, go read a review of Russell and Whitehead's [i:14b0cf979a]Principia Mathematica[/i:14b0cf979a]

    if we're talking about music, "SHITE, I don't like it, it's a lot of balls" will just have to do ye.
  72. avatar POSITIVExYOUTH
    [quote:a661673515="Recycled Alien"]The things is, virtually anyone who has commented in this thread (apart from Chi-Lite) is really complaining because the review disagrees with their own opinion.

    It's nothing to do with "professionalism" or "objectivity" or "quality writing": you're all just taking the hump because somebody doesn't like the band.

    As it happens, I don't like FWW's music either, and "an hour-long drone of emo-nonsense" pretty much sums up how I felt when I heard them play; and like that writer, I was disappointed, after other people's enthusiasm for the band.

    Music is a subjective topic. All music reviews, as Marty says, are an expression of one person's experience.[/quote:a661673515]

    I don't like FWW either, yet I am stressing the pint of 'professionalism' being absent from this review.
    People can disagree with what he says, but still make a reasoned argument for the case for the reviewer not being 'professional. Just because someone disagrees with the reviewer doesn't make their argument wrong.
  73. avatar Chi-Lite
    What fucking argument!

    Yer man thinks it's shite, and he said so. Who are you to argue about that?

    And unprofessionalism? what a load of ballix. his profession is to tell you whether he thinks something is good or shite, and he's done that, amply.

    What a lot of ballix. As Recycled alien rightly points out, yous just don't like what yer man has written. But I'll bet ye he likes it, and obviously his editor didn't mind it so much either. Thon's your professionalism.
    Last edited on , 1 times in total.
  74. avatar The enfant terrible
    A lot of people are missing that the reviewer does back his opinion up with reason:

    "they've clearly read funeral for a friend for beginners"

    He's comparing them to another band. Though he doesn't specify if this is based on their look or sound or both, so maybe some clarity here would be an improvement.

    "their set seems to mesh into an hour of bland, emo-nonsense"

    He thinks they're bland. He also thinks they're emo-nonsense -two descriptions of how they sound to him.

    "Their collection of crude, cock-swinging 'banter' about "tight arses" and fingering Madonna, too, is about as funny as the fact people have actually paid to witness this absolute train-wreck of unrivalled shit"

    He thinks their stage manner is lacking and gives examples of the sort of things he doesn't find funny.
  75. avatar thesacredhearts
    Sorry i wasnt talking about that review in particular but more the you have to accept that a one word review/poorly written/poorly reasoned etc is some how critical thought.

    I dont have to accept someones opinion, but if they put forward some reasoned thought about ill respect it.

    But you know thats just like my opinion man...
  76. avatar Mutts Nutts
    [quote:3480c9296b]How can i accept something that comes under the argument "just cos"?
    [/quote:3480c9296b]

    stop reading magazines then and fly blind on every purchase.

    What's wrong with this review other than they think your fave band is just another band treading the boards?

    The reasons within the review are quite clear. The writer thinks their music is bland and not unlike FFAF and other "here today, gone later today bands". Personally I find them to be more like Diet Foo Fighters Lite but hey, that's subjective and we can't have that in a review surely.

    Even an obvious (and easy) cover proves to be an anti-climax to the "...drone of bland, throw-away emo nonsense" That's pretty clear cut in my reading, can't fathom why the reader needs further clarification on that point either.
    Also, finding their bullish swagger to be tiresome and tissue thin is quite revealing too.

    I think this review is fair in that it covers, the band, the crowd and the prevailing sensibilties of the evening's fare.

    The fact that, unlike most people on this forum he is not nursing a semi when faced with the prospect of another night with FWW is his prerogative.
    He is not alone either. Having shared a stage with them on several occasions I fail to see why there is such a fevered passion for them either. That is my prerogative too. Bully for me.

    Yeah, they work hard and they're tight and well-rehearsed. So what. That's as newsworthy and commendable as "Professional footballer able to kick ball for 90 minutes."

    Face it, in his opinion, they turned in a mediocre performance, appearing to rest on their laurels, finishing on a weak version of someone else's tune that wasn't the trump card they'd hoped for and they've been pulled up for it.

    There is a positive outcome though. As a trainwreck of unrivalled shite, they seem to be well, unrivalled.

    The bands reply (from the safety of their own blog) pretty much typifies the bullish swagger that was referred to earlier. Hmmm, impressive.

    I think this would have been more apparent and incisive if the author adopted the Haiku form instead of all that prose though as pointed out earlier in the thread.

    Quite.
  77. avatar Chi-Lite
    Fair enough like, i sort of agree with what you're saying anyway (The sacred hearts, that is)...

    I'm just trying to make the point that, particularly when you're talking about music, it doesn't neccessarily have to be a long-winded, point by point critique of every aspect of the sound and appearance. sometimes a couple of words like "Shit Sandwich" adequately expresses how you feel about something.

    but then, Stephen said that earlier, and used actual real examples. I don't read enough reviews to give such examples. In fact, i didn't even read this one. sure who gives a ballix, what is it, the joe NME? Shit Sandwich, that's what i think about the NME.
  78. avatar thesacredhearts
    [quote:301b793ebd] someone wrote:
    How can i accept something that comes under the argument "just cos"?

    stop reading magazines then and fly blind on every purchase.[/quote:301b793ebd]


    Orrrrrrrr (and heres the crucial part) read reviews with some substance. They do actually exist.

    Given that Cahir has passed comment on the NME before, id be suspicious of the review.

    Btw im not really a FWW fan. Dont know how anyone could presume that i am from what i wrote. Im hardly on the defensive.
  79. avatar trepanner
    [quote:cbfc86dc3c="thesacredhearts"]
    Given that Cahir has passed comment on the NME before, id be suspicious of the review.
    [/quote:cbfc86dc3c]

    What did he say?
  80. avatar tinpot anto
    I'm also in the camp who would utterly ignore swathes of glowing reviews as a load of cliquey drivel. I've read loads of good reviews of FWW but this is the first that would ever make me want to check them out.

    To incite the wrath of a clearly fuckwitted NME skinny jean sewer rat like that means they are doing something right in my book.

    If the TPO ever got a review with that level of hystrionic bitterness I'd be using it on posters.

    Oddly we never have, all our published reviews have been glowing, that never fails to disappoint me!
  81. avatar The enfant terrible
    In all honestly if you're covering any song off Bleach it has to be Big Cheese (or maybe Blew if you're in the mood for something else).
  82. avatar Mutts Nutts
    So, Cahir throws a dig, gets a dig in the mush back and suddenly everyone's all "no fair".

    Wiseek.

    Even if it is all so petty, fair enough. The FWW boys are playing with the big boys now and should offer the same professional courtesy they expect to receive. Or else they'll find out the hard way when doors start to slam in their face like they would in any other industry.

    Gift horses, mouths, hands that feed and other vacuous clichés all spring to mind.

    Fingering Madonna though? That's just fucking sick mate.

    Anto, that's just a contrary load of cobblers too.

    Didn't Louis Walsh reject Leona Lewis too?
  83. avatar fastfude
    So if it's all just opinions, what actually is the point? Why would I want to know the opinion of some embittered two-bit NME hack or any other journalist anyway? I have no frame of reference or reason to care what he thinks of FWW or anything else for that matter.

    I would, however, be interested to read about their performance from the perspective of someone experienced and literate enough to give a reasonably objective account of the show and how it stands up to the standard of performance for bands of their ilk in the current musical environment.

    If it was shite then fine, but I want to read the account of someone who can explain WHY it was shite in terms I (and the band) can relate to, not the dribbling whinge of some inarticulate troll.
  84. avatar tinpot anto
    [quote:1d9c761886]Anto, that's just a contrary load of cobblers too. [/quote:1d9c761886]

    Not at all, to paraphrase Mr Wilde, the only thing worse than people talking badly about you is people not talking at all :)
  85. avatar The enfant terrible
    But he does give a reasonably objective account Roger (though the word reasonable is subjective itself), he says they're bland, they're emo nonsense, he paints a picture of them as boring and shambolic, and coompares them to FFAF. It maybe isn't up to your standards but it's already been pointed out that you can't expect much more from the NME.
    Last edited on , 1 times in total.
  86. avatar feline1
    [quote:f4fb50b703="tinpot anto"][quote:f4fb50b703]Anto, that's just a contrary load of cobblers too. [/quote:f4fb50b703]

    Not at all, to paraphrase Mr Wilde, the only thing worse than people talking badly about you is people not talking at all :)[/quote:f4fb50b703]

    "Fighting Like Wire are like a stream of bat's p1ss", you mean?
  87. avatar Chi-Lite
    [quote:c41b2e30d7="fastfude"]So if it's all just opinions, what actually is the point?[/quote:c41b2e30d7]

    Sometimes you might agree.

    [quote:c41b2e30d7="fastfude"]Why would I want to know the opinion of some embittered two-bit NME hack or any other journalist anyway? [/quote:c41b2e30d7]


    I haven't a fucking clue, why would ye? Personally, I have no interest in reading it, and i don't even know who the fella is.

    [quote:c41b2e30d7]I would, however, be interested to read about their performance from the perspective of someone experienced and literate enough to give a reasonably objective account of the show and how it stands up to the standard of performance for bands of their ilk in the current musical environment.[/quote:c41b2e30d7]

    Opinion, man. Where's the objective criteria of "how it stands up to the standard of performance for bands of their ilk in the current musical environment"? Eh? Or the criteria of "the dribbling whinge of some inarticulate troll".

    Obviously, lots of people, his editor included, read that review and knew exactly what he was talking about. Even some people on this here website knew what he meant. I suspect that you also know exactly what he means, but just don't agree.

    Shit Sandwich, that's what i think of that post. :P
  88. avatar tinpot anto
    Your ma is an trainwreck of unrivalled shite.
  89. avatar Mutts Nutts
    [quote:c205ed7c39]Anto, that's just a contrary load of cobblers too.
    Not at all, to paraphrase Mr Wilde, the only thing worse than people talking badly about you is people not talking at all
    [/quote:c205ed7c39]

    which was my original, well disguised point Anto!

    Roger, inarticulate troll? What?

    As I pointed out this is actually a cogent, highly concentrated argument that covers all the important points that any review should. That, is good writing my friend.

    Calling him an embittered, inarticulate troll is however just the embittered unsubstantiated opinion that you seem to rail against.

    Furthermore, the writer's decrying of this particular emporer's lack of clothing is his job. His smug inference that at least he didn't pay to witness it is, I think, his coup de grace.

    Now swap FFW's name for any other and suddenly the earth's axis is restored.
  90. avatar Recycled Alien
    [quote:ed3f3c662a="tinpot anto"]Oddly we never have, all our published reviews have been glowing, that never fails to disappoint me![/quote:ed3f3c662a]Give me a press pass to your next gig and I'll write a review of such vitriol as to make NME seem like Woman's Weekly.

    In fact, I'll write it now in advance.
  91. avatar POSITIVExYOUTH
    [quote:34b2b42443="Chi-Lite"]What fucking argument!

    Yer man thinks it's shite, and he said so. Who are you to argue about that?

    And unprofessionalism? what a load of ballix. his profession is to tell you whether he thinks something is good or shite, and he's done that, amply.

    What a lot of ballix. As Recycled alien rightly points out, yous just don't like what yer man has written. But I'll bet ye he likes it, and obviously his editor didn't mind it so much either. Thon's your professionalism.[/quote:34b2b42443]

    He thinks it's shite, fair enough. But for a music review for a well established magazine is not the place for that sort of talk that I would have with mates about a band, not a magazine.

    Then don't put into discussion that his 'profession' is to say what he thinks, but as I pointed out there is a huge difference between what one's 'profession' is and what truly is the concept of being 'professional'.

    And finally, as I already said, I don't like FWW and simply an pointing out at how NME is shit for allowing stuff like that to be published and what a waste of wages that reviewer is. I could do a better job for God sakes.
  92. avatar The enfant terrible
    [quote:1c2d1743c7="POSITIVExYOUTH"]

    He thinks it's shite, fair enough. But for a music review for a well established magazine is not the place for that sort of talk that I would have with mates about a band, not a magazine.

    Then don't put into discussion that his 'profession' is to say what he thinks, but as I pointed out there is a huge difference between what one's 'profession' is and what truly is the concept of being 'professional'.

    And finally, as I already said, I don't like FWW and simply an pointing out at how NME is shit for allowing stuff like that to be published and what a waste of wages that reviewer is. I could do a better job for God sakes.[/quote:1c2d1743c7]

    firstly, in light of some of my recent posts, I have to point out that this next bit doesn't refer to the guy who wrote the review but in reference to the post above

    "What the hell do you think music journalists are? Musical philosophers measuring everything they do against the work of Nirvana or The Beatles? They're not! They're just a bunch of seedy, squalid bastards like me: drunkards, queers, hen-pecked husbands, civil servants playing cowboys and Indians to brighten their rotten little lives. Do you think they sit like monks in a cell, balancing shite against good?
  93. avatar Mutts Nutts
    or maybe, just maybe they did a *shock*horror* duff gig? What the fuck do you think are the odds?
    And without the wealth of fading drunken memories of such great previous gigs that you all seem to share on this board to keep his flimsy professionalism buoyant, he is forced to call a spade a spade and dig someone with it!

    And if it is some kind of a bitter retort to Cahir and Co whose mouth seems to be writing a lot of cheques then it'll larn him.
    Although, why a particular writer would take a personal umbrage at such a general and clearly off-target swipe is beyond me . It's not like they covered "Get in the Ring" or summat.
    :roll:
  94. avatar The Natural
    It's the only time I've agreed with anything the NME's said in the past ten years, unfortunately.
    I've seen them many times, but eventually just got bored with them running around banging guitars and making noise.
    They've started writing recognisable songs more recently, but for me that's probably four years too late.
  95. avatar JonnyTiernan
    [quote:8d63e60a78]They've started writing recognisable songs more recently, but for me that's probably four years too late. [/quote:8d63e60a78]

    How much more recently are we talking here? The majority of the FWW songs in their set have been around for a good few years. And four years too late for what exactly?

    Plus, does 'more recognisable' mean 'better'? Whigfield's 'Saturday Night' is pretty recognisable, as are many more fairly terrible songs.
  96. avatar Cake
    Exactly Jonny - The vast majority of FWW's set is about 3 years old. Which I guess makes it a year too late, rather than four. In fact, "The Quiet" was actually a Clearshot song originally!

    As I mentioned earlier, the band and everyone involved with the band have found the whole thing to be rather amusing, not to mention a great piece of publicity.
  97. avatar The Grace Jones
    http://fastfude.org/topic.php?id=15532

    To try to put such subtle [i:68ff218498]je ne sais quoi[/i:68ff218498] into words would defeat the spirit of the phrase itself, and would further defeat the spirits of both left-handed-mutes-played-distorted and not-quite-enough-success-to-hate-you-for.
  98. avatar The Natural
    The power of the adjective.
    Does "synth fuelled" equate Cut-Copy with Soft Cell?
    Are In Case Of Fire as "tantalising" as Kylie?
    What I meant is that songs like "Nemesis" and "Long Distance" have become more coherent with time, particularly on record as opposed to live.
    They may have been around longer, they just weren't "recognisable".
  99. avatar JonnyTiernan
    But you said 'They've started writing recognisable songs more recently' not 'Their current songs have became more coherent over time'. You implied that they just started to write good tunes, I'm saying that these tunes have been around for ages, and they were always good. Even 'Long Distance' and 'Nemesis' have been around for donkeys.
  100. avatar exitonline
    Is this still goin on, ha ha.

    Its only a review, one persons opinion, and I bet that person has never touched an instrument or wrote a song in their lives. Reviews are only someone's opinion, who's to say if they are right or not. Also, how do you judge what is good and what is bad music, surely its all down to personal taste.

    Now Im not a fan of FWW but I apprieciate what they are doing and fair play to them. Im sure the band will just see this review as good publicity, regardless of what the review said. The fact that its a bad review may get peoples notice faster than a good review, as they will all go off to see what the band is really like. Because normally as soon as I read glowing reviews I just tend to think that the bands press agents, label or someone who knows someone has put in a good word or even a good cash incentive.

    Just to echo my other post, All magazines are the same, they are looking to shift units so they go with what is deemed to be "cool" at the time to sell magazines. So any band that doesn't fall into the magazines choosen style of music for that week is going to get a bad review. That goes for any magazine. Just to state how fickle all these "cool" magazines are you dont need to look any further than the fact that every magazine slated Travis' Man Who album then when they saw the album was the biggest thing that year all the magazines who slated it were suddenly stating that the album was a piece of genius.

    All publicity is Publicity, it doesnt matter what they say as long as they spell their name right. But still, anyone who reads NME, Q etc and believes what they say without using their own ears first really needs to get a life.
  101. avatar The Fires of Hell
    [quote:b9992914ee]That goes for any magazine. [/quote:b9992914ee]

    Back in reality, however, it doesnt.
  102. avatar POSITIVExYOUTH
    [quote:45fc649f04="The enfant terrible"][quote:45fc649f04="POSITIVExYOUTH"]

    He thinks it's shite, fair enough. But for a music review for a well established magazine is not the place for that sort of talk that I would have with mates about a band, not a magazine.

    Then don't put into discussion that his 'profession' is to say what he thinks, but as I pointed out there is a huge difference between what one's 'profession' is and what truly is the concept of being 'professional'.

    And finally, as I already said, I don't like FWW and simply an pointing out at how NME is shit for allowing stuff like that to be published and what a waste of wages that reviewer is. I could do a better job for God sakes.[/quote:45fc649f04]

    firstly, in light of some of my recent posts, I have to point out that this next bit doesn't refer to the guy who wrote the review but in reference to the post above

    "What the hell do you think music journalists are? Musical philosophers measuring everything they do against the work of Nirvana or The Beatles? They're not! They're just a bunch of seedy, squalid bastards like me: drunkards, queers, hen-pecked husbands, civil servants playing cowboys and Indians to brighten their rotten little lives. Do you think they sit like monks in a cell, balancing shite against good?[/quote:45fc649f04]

    Naturally not. But if you really feel passionate about something you would like to make it as good as you can and in the context of music journalism you'd like to think that someone that does it because of passion would try and do his best in describing a determined band. Not write a pile of shite.
    Fuck sake, any idiot is capable of going to see a band and say "They sound like FFAF, emo nonsense blah blah, they are shite". Any idiot.
  103. avatar Chi-Lite
    Indeed....what's the point again?

    Tell me, what do GOOD music journalists write then?

    As far as I know, it's all about describing music by comparing it to something else, and then saying whether you like it or think it's a lot of shite.

    Would you like to share a good music review with us, that doesn't utilise those elements? Sounds like this, sounds like that, I like it, it's shite. It just depends how flowery you like your language, doesn't it.

    Sometimes Shit Sandwich suffices.
  104. avatar rentaghost
    [img:9e5e9f8243]http://crave.cnet.co.uk/i/c/blg/cat/mobiles/Barley.jpg[/img:9e5e9f8243]
  105. avatar merten_4_mcguffin
    'hour-long drone of bland, throwaway emo-nonsense' is exactly how I would describe every FWW show I've been to.
  106. avatar belezabaub
    Personally I think all music reviews are shite, they rarely offer much insight into the music/performance itself. They are usually controlled by in house style/fashion at the time.

    The review of ffw is a bad review. Personally I'm not a very big fan, I don't know any of their records very well but I have seen them live and I thought they were mightly impressive.

    What I do know of their songs I'm not very fond of, it is catchy but I think it lacks substance but live I thought they were energetic, fun and above all pretty rock and roll. Perhap if this was a review of their album I would think fair enough but the guys put a lot into their live shows and I think Stephen Kelly is just jealous cause he is probably a douche bag who got as far as "Wonderwall" on the guitar and gave up.
  107. avatar Steven Dedalus
    [quote:e57d718a6c="belezabaub"]

    I think Stephen Kelly is just jealous cause he is probably a douche bag who got as far as "Wonderwall" on the guitar and gave up.[/quote:e57d718a6c]

    Nice one.

    Thanks for invalidating any opinion you might have been attempting to share with us.
  108. avatar T Entertainment
    "Just keep off my side Mancini, OK?"
  109. avatar The enfant terrible
    I think Stephen Kelly is jealous because

    he's never had a ride in his puff
    he bokes his ring up after even Panda Shandy
    he still asks his mum if he can stay out late
    he comes home early if she says no
    he roars with laughter if watching American Pie with his friends
    he sits confused and tearful watching it on his own
    he puts photos of other people on his facebook and pretends they're him
    he cried when his pet goldfish died
    he called his pet goldfish "Stephen Kelly is cool" and that's what killed it

    unlike FWW who are totally cool and rock and stuff

    (if anyone should find this libelous this Stephen Kelly is fictional and any relation to persons living or dead is purely accidental and intentional).
  110. avatar tinpot anto
    [quote:1255e15bad]he called his pet goldfish "Stephen Kelly is cool" and that's what killed it[/quote:1255e15bad]

    :lol: :lol: :lol:

    10/10 *****
  111. avatar Steven Dedalus
    [quote:8c4a186874="tinpot anto"]

    :lol: :lol: :lol:

    10/10 *****[/quote:8c4a186874]

    That's the most unprofessional review I've ever read.
  112. avatar tinpot anto
    [quote:b4b3924fb9]That's the most unprofessional review I've ever read. [/quote:b4b3924fb9]

    1/10 :(

    That review of my review of gerard's review of stephen's review was a trainwreck of unrivalled shite :lol:
  113. avatar fastfude
    Anto and Steven Watch The Watchmen: a new blogging sensation wherein our intrepid duo review reviews. At last, the accountability in music journalism we've all been waiting for.

    High time this was done.
  114. avatar tinpot anto
    No I think that for every level of review of review there needs always to be a further level of reflection commenting upon it.

    Stephen can review an initial review, I will review his review of the review, and he can counter with a review of my review, after about a dozen levels of counter reflection, subject and object will have been counterposed at a level where the relationship between the two positions is itself the object and the subject, we will have reached a transcendent level of conscious reflection and understanding and thus achieved enlightenment.
  115. avatar trepanner
    [quote:916eea49f4="tinpot anto"]No I think that for every level of review of review there needs always to be a further level of reflection commenting upon it.

    Stephen can review an initial review, I will review his review of the review, and he can counter with a review of my review, after about a dozen levels of counter reflection, subject and object will have been counterposed at a level where the relationship between the two positions is itself the object and the subject[/quote:916eea49f4]

    "... and that to me proves that there must be a God"
    - Chi-Lite.

    ?
  116. avatar tinpot anto
    See now you are going to be assailed with a 10,000 word thesis on the Lonerganian Epistomological process, and how the inherent understandibilty of reality and the questions arising therein is the extant proof of it arising from an intelligence. I think this is nothing more than an obvious tautology being extrapolated into an obfuscation to suit an a priori belief, but then that's just me.
  117. avatar Steven Dedalus
    [quote:cacefbdb4d="tinpot anto"]See now you are going to be assailed with a 10,000 word thesis on the Lonerganian Epistomological process, and how the inherent understandibilty of reality and the questions arising therein is the extant proof of it arising from an intelligence. I think this is nothing more than an obvious tautology being extrapolated into an obfuscation to suit an a priori belief, but then that's just me.[/quote:cacefbdb4d]

    Anto's ironic riposte to the legendarily long-winded Chi-Lite philosphical bickering initially showed promise, harking back to some of his earlier work as a highly quotable shit-stirrer, but in light of his recent posts, it arguably lacks the longevity that made his initial work so vital.

    Where he goes from here remains to be seen, but surely the public have not heard the last from this wry observer.

    6/10.
  118. avatar tinpot anto
    [quote:4e35372b62]Anto's ironic riposte to the legendarily long-winded Chi-Lite philosphical bickering initially showed promise, harking back to some of his earlier work as a highly quotable shit-stirrer, but in light of his recent posts, it arguably lacks the longevity that made his initial work so vital.

    Where he goes from here remains to be seen, but surely the public have not heard the last from this wry observer.

    6/10.[/quote:4e35372b62]

    Stephen's review was an hour long barrage of sub FFAF emo-tinged crap, well it felt like it took me an hour to read it, it was so dull. His opinion is a trainwreck of unrivalled shite, plus I had his ma. :)
    4/10
  119. avatar trepanner
    [quote:fb6ac9ba8c="tinpot anto"]See now you are going to be assailed with a 10,000 word thesis on the Lonerganian Epistomological process, and how the inherent understandibilty of reality and the questions arising therein is the extant proof of it arising from an intelligence. I think this is nothing more than an obvious tautology being extrapolated into an obfuscation to suit an a priori belief, but then that's just me.[/quote:fb6ac9ba8c]

    I don't fully understand what you're driving at here, could you extend it by 10,000 words and hand it in again please?
  120. avatar Chi-Lite
    Sir,
    The repeated attempts to review, through paraphrase - the lazy mans extrapolation - a pseudo-chi-litean epistemological theism misses the obvious salient features, at the expense of full understanding and genuine critique, in favour of hackneyed cliches, facile comparisons and ingnorant dismissal.

    Shit Sandwich!
  121. avatar tinpot anto
    That post made the baby jesus cry.
  122. avatar trepanner
    [quote:cc825e1d3d="Chi-Lite"]Sir,
    The repeated attempts to review, through paraphrase - the lazy mans extrapolation - a pseudo-chi-litean epistemological theism misses the obvious salient features, at the expense of full understanding and genuine critique, in favour of hackneyed cliches, facile comparisons and ingnorant dismissal.

    Shit Sandwich![/quote:cc825e1d3d]

    10/10!!
  123. avatar trepanner
    In other news, nobody ever comes on ranting going [i:f594b22040]"You can't just say this is GREAT! or AWESOME! or it ROCKED MY WORLD! or THEY'RE THE BEST BAND EVER! - that's a lazy asswank of a review! You need to break it down and justify WHY it's so GREAT! You useless bastard!".[/i:f594b22040]

    Just sayin'.
  124. avatar tinpot anto
    You don't see as much graffiti nowadays that says "*INSERT NAME* WANKS DOGS"

    This is a great loss to society.
  125. avatar rentaghost
    as was Kafka.
  126. avatar tinpot anto
    Apparently the crime Josef K. was actually accused of was Dog Wanking.

    He was innocent of course, his dog was female - he was merely milking her for his tea, you can see how the misunderstanding arose.
  127. avatar Chi-Lite
    Ha.

    The last words of The Trial actually are;

    "'Like a dog!' he said; it was as if the shame of it must outlive him"

    No joke. Dog wanking all the way. :lol: :lol:
  128. avatar The enfant terrible
    If he paid for the dog, the powers that be should just leave him alone; he's not hurting anyone.
  129. avatar Chi-Lite
    Aye, but he himself was the court, and on trial was his own, dog-wanking existence.

    "it was as if the shame of it must outlive him."
  130. avatar The Fires of Hell
    [quote:2b69a91425]as was Kafka.[/quote:2b69a91425]

    Yes but this thread is no appalling vista. No Kafka-esque farce.
  131. avatar Daithi jasper
    Well no, very little would compare to that.
  132. avatar rentaghost
    everybody needs a well-read lawyer.
  133. avatar T Entertainment
    More Frank Spencer than Franz Kafka, I thought.
  134. avatar Daithi jasper
    Who the prosecution? :)
  135. avatar tracyjacksmusic
    i like NME...
  136. avatar whipchorus
    Melody Maker was always better, apart from the last 2 or 3 years of its existence when the NME was actually superior.
  137. avatar captain a
    i thought the guy had a few valid points.