The Wildhearts

Two out of five.

Cunts.

"In fairness, and for the benefit of Wildhearts fans, your boys have delivered about as good an album as could be expected from them, full of mudchurning, hectic, heavy riffing and emotive overkill, not least on the concluding 'Destroy All Monsters', a raucous slab of fantasy metal vengeance against an ex-lover. They've also benefitted from the recruitment of young bassist Scott Scorry (no, I'm not typing this while I'm pissed-up, that really is what they call him in the review). But so hardened are the arteries of The Wildhearts' idea of real rock, that in 2007 this album is as extraneous to requirement as a Lemmy-sized wart. and what's the deal with 'The New Flesh', a Billy Joel knock-off, of all things?"

I've been meaning to cancel my subscription to that fuckin' rag for a while........

davejnick wrote:Two out of five.

Cunts.

"In fairness, and for the benefit of Wildhearts fans, your boys have delivered about as good an album as could be expected from them, full of mudchurning, hectic, heavy riffing and emotive overkill, not least on the concluding 'Destroy All Monsters', a raucous slab of fantasy metal vengeance against an ex-lover. They've also benefitted from the recruitment of young bassist Scott Scorry (no, I'm not typing this while I'm pissed-up, that really is what they call him in the review). But so hardened are the arteries of The Wildhearts' idea of real rock, that in 2007 this album is as extraneous to requirement as a Lemmy-sized wart. and what's the deal with 'The New Flesh', a Billy Joel knock-off, of all things?"

I've been meaning to cancel my subscription to that fuckin' rag for a while........

The thing with a review like that is, it straightaway guarantees no die-hard fan of the WH is gonna buy the mag again. Why would you want to cut your readership like that? WH fanbase isn't massive, but it also is not insubstantial.

I certainly won't buy it, and not out of vindictiveness. Why would I want to buy a mag who publishes a review by a writer who has fuck all taste in music? If the guy missed this much of the essence of an album in just one review, how much has he missed elsewhere? Fuck 'em. Anyone else think the "arteries" comment completely unnecessary too? Not to mention completely missing the point.

They make ALL of us sound like a bunch of idiots by basically saying that it would please us but no one else. No one reading that who has never heard WH before will wanna buy the album.

Dont worry guys, that fucker will be working for nme soon. Giving 5 out of 5 to shit bands like the kooks and razorshite, just because theyre the in thing. We as fans dont nedd to be told how good it is . We no by now that anything ginger or the boys do is the fuckin tits.

'Extraneous in 2007' is a bit of a laugh from a magazine obsessed with analyzing and re-analyzing ad nauseum the work of artists who generally did their best work pre-1979. And then trying to claim that the surviving artists' new music is still good or relevant in some way.

Who/Dylan/Beatles/Roxy Music/Clash/New York Dolls/Stooges round and round for ever and ever. There might be a lot of good music there, but most of their journalists are stumbling around in some decades-old wet-tent-smelling sepia mist of self-congratulatory anorak-wankery.

I think indistinguishably dour one-mood, one-chord, no-tune, no-point mumbly alt.country pish is more their thing, judging by the cover CDs. Why not just tape a fluorescent light humming or your cistern re-filling and listen to that on repeat? You could even mumble pointlessly away to yourself while you do it. Oops, but then Radiohead would probably sue you.

What a load of shite.

At least they're the only mag giving it that kind of review. With words like this, I wonder how it got even two stars from this fuckwit...

On the bright side, 8/10 on Teletext's Planet Sound today who said it was such a party of a record that it should come with a free bottle of whisky. And their letters page has been full of people raving about it this week...

WiredOut wrote:'Extraneous in 2007' is a bit of a laugh from a magazine obsessed with analyzing and re-analyzing ad nauseum the work of artists who generally did their best work pre-1979. And then trying to claim that the surviving artists' new music is still good or relevant in some way.

Who/Dylan/Beatles/Roxy Music/Clash/New York Dolls/Stooges round and round for ever and ever. There might be a lot of good music there, but most of their journalists are stumbling around in some decades-old wet-tent-smelling sepia mist of self-congratulatory anorak-wankery.

I think indistinguishably dour one-mood, one-chord, no-tune, no-point mumbly alt.country pish is more their thing, judging by the cover CDs. Why not just tape a fluorescent light humming or your cistern re-filling and listen to that on repeat? You could even mumble pointlessly away to yourself while you do it. Oops, but then Radiohead would probably sue you.

Uncut... Consider yourself told!

WiredOut wrote:'Extraneous in 2007' is a bit of a laugh from a magazine obsessed with analyzing and re-analyzing ad nauseum the work of artists who generally did their best work pre-1979. And then trying to claim that the surviving artists' new music is still good or relevant in some way.

Who/Dylan/Beatles/Roxy Music/Clash/New York Dolls/Stooges round and round for ever and ever. There might be a lot of good music there, but most of their journalists are stumbling around in some decades-old wet-tent-smelling sepia mist of self-congratulatory anorak-wankery.

I think indistinguishably dour one-mood, one-chord, no-tune, no-point mumbly alt.country pish is more their thing, judging by the cover CDs. Why not just tape a fluorescent light humming or your cistern re-filling and listen to that on repeat? You could even mumble pointlessly away to yourself while you do it. Oops, but then Radiohead would probably sue you.

With you 99% of the way. Guess which bit I disagreed with. Clue: starts with "Radio" and ends in "head".

29xTheJames wrote:They make ALL of us sound like a bunch of idiots by basically saying that it would please us but no one else. No one reading that who has never heard WH before will wanna buy the album.

Ha but it's true. The guy might as well be saying "you'll only like this album if you like that sort of thing, otherwise you probably won't like it and you should listen to something different, y'know, that you do like." To be fair to the reviewer, at least he actually bothered to listen to the album enough to be able to make a comment about Destroy All Monsters but at the end of the day it's just another very subjective music review.

You ever think that perhaps he genuinely didn't like the album? That maybe....just maybe there's someone out there who doesn't think every single thing ginger does is genius, amazing, classic, faultless and wonderful.

I think it's a pretty poorly worded interview, maybe a bit unnessecarily vicious towards them but in some respects I think he has a point. But that's probably just me

Damian wrote:

WiredOut wrote:'Extraneous in 2007' is a bit of a laugh from a magazine obsessed with analyzing and re-analyzing ad nauseum the work of artists who generally did their best work pre-1979. And then trying to claim that the surviving artists' new music is still good or relevant in some way.

Who/Dylan/Beatles/Roxy Music/Clash/New York Dolls/Stooges round and round for ever and ever. There might be a lot of good music there, but most of their journalists are stumbling around in some decades-old wet-tent-smelling sepia mist of self-congratulatory anorak-wankery.

I think indistinguishably dour one-mood, one-chord, no-tune, no-point mumbly alt.country pish is more their thing, judging by the cover CDs. Why not just tape a fluorescent light humming or your cistern re-filling and listen to that on repeat? You could even mumble pointlessly away to yourself while you do it. Oops, but then Radiohead would probably sue you.

With you 99% of the way. Guess which bit I disagreed with. Clue: starts with "Radio" and ends in "head".

I'm kind of in the 'What-the-fuck-started-going-on-after-OK Computer?' camp. Although maybe I'm a bit ignorant and haven't given a lot of that stuff enough of a 'chance'. Then again, I could probably discern infinite depths of poetry in the gurgling noises coming from the back of my radiator if I indoctrinated myself with them for long enough.

But so hardened are the arteries of The Wildhearts' idea of real rock

When I saw this, I wondered what their idea of "real rock" was supposed to be. Then I read this :

Giving 5 out of 5 to shit bands like the kooks and razorshite

And it told me all I needed to know.

Anyone notice "Uncut" is an anagram of "U Cunt" ?

/shrugs

kitescreech wrote:Anyone notice "Uncut" is an anagram of "U Cunt" ?

/shrugs