Most inaccurate EN review ever?

[The Monkey Hanger]

I just came across this gem (in the 'wtf?!' stakes at least) of a review...

Endless, Nameless finds the Wildhearts opting for an indie label after their time with Warner failed to yield any hits. Stylstically, the album doesn't sound that different from their earlier releases, but it is a surprsingly consistent and appealing set of thunderous hard-rock. The album may take its name from Nirvana's unlisted noise symphony at the end of Nevermind, but the record owes more to straight-ahead glam-rock and metal and its the better for it.

The part in bold leads me to conclude that the reviewer, Stephen Thomas Erlewine, is either completely deaf or didn't listen to the CD for longer than 10 microseconds which is probably more of an insult to the band, his employers and anyone unfortunate enough to read that review without being familiar with EN than if he'd wrtten "It's shite!" a thousand times.
There is one silver lining, it proves that people with serious mental deficincies can find employment in the entertainment industry.

[davejnick]

Where on earth did you find that????

[markE]

straight ahead glam rock

now that came out of leftfield.

[SteveP]

He didn't listen to it AT ALL

Not that different from their other releases???
You could say that about just about every album they've done APART from EN

And to think I haven't got a job, and this fucker has!!!, the world is wrong!!

[Jimmy79]

Actually!!
that makes perfect sense to me.......

I think basically what the guy is getting at is that if you were to remove the massive industrial
wall of sound that covers the album then most of the songs fit along alot of The Wildhearts back catalog and with that in mind is saying it may be an industrial sounding album but the core songwriting influence is still from bands such as cheap trick etc

plus its a thumbs up!
and after all Endless Nameless is one of Gingers finest moments
I bloody love it!

[Assmask]

Yeah I agree, he could just be ignoring the mix. The biggest glaring error is that the album doesn't take it's name from the Nirvana track of the same name, it's just coincidence. Ginger claims he had never heard of that name when he titled this song. Although I do believe that Ginger believes it, I think it possible that someone told Ginger the name of that track in during some hazy bender and it was recalled at a later stage.

[Ean]

He's not wrong, it's perhaps a poor choice of word though.

Whilst it may be buried in a production that's waay out of leftfield, stylistically speaking - refering to writing style and structure, it's still recognisibly the Wildhearts and very much business as usual: shout along verses; sing along choruses; odd middle eights; melodies you can hum, even pretty Wildheartsy song structures. You can rightly praise his ingenuity with it, but Ginger's very fond of the classic 'verse, chorus, verse, chorus, bridge, chorus' structure.

It's really not much different to the way Geordie..., Sky Chaser High, and Bad Time... branch out in the opposite direction. Different sounding, but same band.


The first sentence is more incorrect than the second one.

(Props to everyone who beat me to it while I was fannying about trying to word this reply right... )

[seventieslord]

I've read that review before, too, and I really think he's way out to lunch. I think he spent 10 minutes listening to the damn thing and wrote something generic.

The guy reviews TONS of albums and is generally involved in the reviewing of all the mainstream stuff - saying things like "Britney's latest release is a blend of irresistible catchy pop" and he was not involved in reviewing any of the other Wildhearts albums so I would wager this was a toss-off of a review.

[Cwej]

In interviews Gingers said he thought it was Metallica that did Endless Nameless , and just liked the name