The record is irrelevant, using it as the basis of a whine that would embarrass the editorial page of the Daily Mail is the real issue.
|
| |
Deviant is kind of a cunt/ takes sputnik far too seriously/ can't listen to all that music and have a normal life.
|
| |
Deviant is kind of a cunt/ takes sputnik far too seriously/ can't listen to all that music and have a normal life.
Don't forget the part where he's one of sputnik's best writers
|
| |
Album Rating: 3.0
"Deviant is kind of a cunt/ takes sputnik far too seriously/ can't listen to all that music and have a normal life."
Yeah Deviant you cunt. FUCK YOU.
oh wait that's right you're awesome
|
| |
Sputnik's nicest user strikes again!
|
| |
bet he's not nice to that girl in his avatar
tbh ive never listened to this
|
| |
Album Rating: 3.0
"Sputnik's nicest user strikes again!"
I don't see Irving around...
"bet he's not nice to that girl in his avatar"
well only because she needs a good pounding every now and then. and by pounding i mean fucking. and by every now and then i mean all the time.
|
| |
'that girl'?
It's Pam!
|
| |
I don't see Irving around...
That's it, no more compliments for you, Sowing
|
| |
i need to get into the office
|
| |
i mean, i need to get into pam
|
| |
Album Rating: 3.0
2nd nicest is still a compliment. Actually 3rd nicest because there's you.
And yeah you do Crowe. Also, get into Blades of Glory. That's the movie the pic is from.
|
| |
I hated blades of glory
|
| |
Album Rating: 3.0
It was sort of funny. The main reason I watch it is for Pam
|
| |
Deviant is kind of a cunt/ takes sputnik far too seriously/ can't listen to all that music and have a normal life.
Speak up furball, I can barely hear you all the way down there
|
| |
So you guys are saying the reviewer assumes more about the band and its motives than he should have,
going as far as to assume the worst of it actually, and then wrote a well-articulated, if high-brow in
sections, review where he destroys the band as it is now with this debut album and its supposed
intentions and its music in a ruthless manner, more or less?
No, but I'm not a fan of the kinds of reviews where people seem to move past their neutral ground as someone merely expressing their opinions to assuming a band's motives and criticizing their fans in the process
|
| |
but what if an opinion is predicated on those assumptions? should knott force himself to rethink his opinion in the interest of reviewing what the album objectively is?
If you remove trying to figure out what the band are trying to "say" with their art, all you're left with are its parts. So Knott might as well say "this album has guitars and choruses and gang vocals, which is all we can assume mumford and sons meant to accomplish." And if that is what this band set out to do, then fuck em, they deserve this review for the vapidity Knott points to in his piece.
|
| |
I'd had liked Knott to have used interviews with the band here.
Do you not think there should be a limit to just how far a critic can go in mapping out a band's agenda in a review, especially if the band hasn't spoken much on just what that may be?
They may have, but I'm just saying. I guess more evidence here might calm the storm of "get-real" critic that others are expressing.
|
| |
but what if an opinion is predicated on those assumptions? should knott force himself to rethink his opinion in the interest of reviewing what the album objectively is?
If you remove trying to figure out what the band are trying to "say" with their art, all you're left with are its parts. So Knott might as well say "this album has guitars and choruses and gang vocals, which is all we can assume mumford and sons meant to accomplish." And if that is what this band set out to do, then fuck em, they deserve this review for the vapidity Knott points to in his piece.
I'm not saying his opinion is wrong or that it shouldn't be expressed. Or that he should completely re-think his view on the album/band. But I think there's a fine line between criticising an album that contain components that you don't agree with and outright condemning a band's approach to music simply because it didn't sit well with you.
This is why Sigh No More is the worst album ever, because the claims it makes to altering the status quo fall flat before they've even finished being executed. Which claims are these? You surely didn't need to ask that question. It's all too easy to see, and therein lies the first disaster. We will bring folk to the mainstream. We will write lyrics that are meaningful. We will be inspirational. It's actually difficult to imagine that Mumford & Sons used any words other than "meaningful" and "inspirational" in writing their debut album, such is the transparency of the mission statement.
To me this just reads as overly spiteful for the sole purpose to generate controversy/heated discussion. I'm not saying he's wrong but I don't agree with the way with which Knott's presented his case
|
| |
Album Rating: 3.0
I think the only reason people perceive this review as being too presumptuous and subjective is because he states his opinions as if they are facts.
This is why Sigh No More is the worst album ever, because the claims it makes to altering the status quo fall flat before they've even finished being executed. Which claims are these? You surely didn't need to ask that question. It's all too easy to see, and therein lies the first disaster. We will bring folk to the mainstream. We will write lyrics that are meaningful. We will be inspirational.
Like monkeys on typewriters, of course, Mumford & Sons occasionally type not quite the entire Iliad but maybe a couple of lines which do make sense next to each other.
For example, I took the above passages as Knott simply trying to convince us of his opinion. He is allowed to interpret this album, and this band, as a contrived, money-grabbing dribble. And as a reviewer, it is his job to state his opinion in a way that is well-written, convincing, and perhaps humorous. This is all three. I don't get the backlash over the indie/hipster comments, because all he was stating is that there are people out there who pretend/force themselves to like bands to fit their self-proclaimed image as sophisticated, unique, or whatever.
As far as letting his predetermined opinions influence his review, to the point where it is no longer objective, I say we all do that. Reviews are glorified opinions. There is no such thing as an objective evalutaion of music, as Electric City said, "this album has guitars and choruses and gang vocals, which is all we can assume mumford and sons meant to accomplish." If we just dissected every detail of an album when reviewing it, we wouldn't actually learn anything useful about the album.
The only complaint about the review that I really agree with is that he shouldn't have called it the worst album ever and rated it a 1.5, then talked about how good "Little Lion Man" and "Winter Winds" are. I'm sure there are worse albums out there with absolutely no redeeming qualities, which he rated a 1...don't want to speak on Adam's behalf, though.
|
| |
|
|
