Brooklyn-based singer/songwriter/musician/music geek and critic who, as a blogger, has been listening, reading and writing about too much crap for other people's sake since 2001.
Isn't this a variation on The First Wives Club?
We get it: you hate classic rockers and Gen-Xers, but would it kill you to be objective? What am I asking? Of course it would kill you.
While the current state of rock and roll is in a bit of disarray at the moment, only someone on the Cloud Nothings payroll could even remotely think this is the quartet to right the ship, especially if their knowledge of '70s power pop is as deficient as demonstrated above.
"...now she’s found this other guy that she also wants to have a relationship with, and I’m not cool with it...it’s just not who I am. I can’t imagine breaking up with her, but I also can’t imagine a lifetime of her being with other guys."
As someone who is also not willing to share their significant other--whatever floats the boat of consenting adults is fine by me; just don't want to be involved in a polyamorous relationship, which strikes me as "legal" cheating, btw, but I digress--I'd recommend this dude walk away from this woman. It's done. Gonna hurt like hell but staying will be even worse.
"...being refused, even a kind refusal like the ones you are giving, feels hurtful."
So, having all that power and being "the gatekeepers of sexual desire" is still not enough to be understanding or to at least avoid reacting inappropriately? What are you saying here? That women can act like assholes because they're not used to being rejected? So, instead of saying to this guy, "Yeah, dude, that's fucked up. But you probably shouldn't get involved with any woman that reacts that way", you justify the inappropriate responses given to him. Ugh.
Also, "top-shelf entertainment brands"? WTF?! Bullshit marketing speak will slay us all.
I don't think aloof is the right term here; they're not being cold and distant, they just seem to want to involve as little artifice as possible in how the outside world evaluates their album. And if you come to the conclusion on your own that the album is full of "so-so, belabored songs" and not via the influence of outside factors, then that was the point. The Strokes are many things but "naive to the point of cluelessness" is not one of 'em. At least, not at this stage of the game.
(Btw, for the record: not a fan of the band, can't even believe I'm defending 'em.)
Listen, it's silly to state the obvious, but all music should be judged on its own merits. However, that seems to be a passé concept these days. Furthermore, I routinely find that an artist's current critical standing determines the nature of a review more than the music itself. In other words, short of delivering a musical abomination, a critical darling might as well be made of teflon. But if an artist has fallen out of favor not even a masterpiece can guarantee them more than a passing acknowledgement. Sure, I might be exaggerating but not by much.
Wasn't the point of this article that the album is dead? It's literally in the title. Steve says it's not and proceeds to explain why. So, how is it missing your point?
All Comments »
© 2014 The L Magazine
Website powered by Foundation