Antistar Advanced Member Posts:544  
| 10/30/2006 3:04 PM |
|
|
http://entertainment.ie/reviews/review.asp?ID=4722&subcat=CD
What can you say? Absolutely spot on in every respect.
|
|
|
|
jmc105 Basic Member Posts:188
| 10/30/2006 4:00 PM |
|
somebody should sit lauren murphy down and explain the concept of professionalism to her, preferably over a nice, soothing cup of tea.
interestingly, here's another review written by someone who was looking forward to ripping "the cost" apart before ever actually hearing the album: "I’m at the stage now with Irish band the Frames that I’m almost hoping that a new album will be a disaster, and for once I can demolish it...".
http://www.shakenstir.co.uk/feature.php?a=585
what can you say? absolutely spot on in every respect. |
|
|
|
Gar Veteran Member Posts:1676
| 10/30/2006 4:03 PM |
|
|
Nah, I'd disagree with that completely. I really like 'The Cost' and feel that people are looking for reasons to slate the band, because its almost become cool to dislike The Frames.
|
|
|
|
AntistarAdvanced Member Posts:544
| 10/30/2006 4:35 PM |
|
quote:
Originally posted by jmc105
somebody should sit lauren murphy down and explain the concept of professionalism to her, preferably over a nice, soothing cup of tea.
interestingly, here's another review written by someone who was looking forward to ripping "the cost" apart before ever actually hearing the album: "I’m at the stage now with Irish band the Frames that I’m almost hoping that a new album will be a disaster, and for once I can demolish it...".
http://www.shakenstir.co.uk/feature.php?a=585
what can you say? absolutely spot on in every respect.
What, exactly, is 'unprofessional' about her review? It's concise, unpretentious,informative and scathingly hilarious: 'Ginger Messiah' 'more tedious than not only watching paint dry, but waiting for it to flake off the wall' Rather than just attacking the band and their music (which is now apparently 'cool',) she backs up her hatchet job with some merciless yet insightful arguments that, to be honest, most would find hard to disagree with. |
|
|
|
GarVeteran Member Posts:1676
| 10/30/2006 4:47 PM |
|
|
It's a good review, but I just don't agree with it.
|
|
|
|
nerrawBasic Member Posts:475
| 10/30/2006 4:50 PM |
|
|
I thought the review was completely pretentious and tried far too hard to be funny. "eggy fart" hilarious.
I've yet to see a watching paint dry analogy funny.
No matter what The Cost sounded like, the writer was going to slate it. She hardly gives any reason for disliking it.
And i think hansard is a prat much like the reviewer
|
|
|
|
AntistarAdvanced Member Posts:544
| 10/30/2006 4:59 PM |
|
quote:
Originally posted by nerraw
I thought the review was completely pretentious and tried far too hard to be funny. "eggy fart" hilarious.
I've yet to see a watching paint dry analogy funny.
No matter what The Cost sounded like, the writer was going to slate it. She hardly gives any reason for disliking it.
And i think hansard is a prat much like the reviewer
It's her variation on the 'paint dry' analogy, ie watching the paint 'flake off'...that's funny.
'No matter what The Cost sounded like, the writer was going to slate it' How do you know this?
'She hardly gives any reason for disliking it'??? Have you read the review.....?
Oh, I give up. |
|
|
|
deraBasic Member Posts:163
| 10/30/2006 5:13 PM |
|
quote:
Originally posted by jmc105
somebody should sit lauren murphy down and explain the concept of professionalism to her, preferably over a nice, soothing cup of tea.
This kind of attitude is why the vast majority of music journalism is unreadable reheated press release. If a record offends you - if you think it's unworthy of the time of day - then you should be as polemic and vitriolic as you please.
If that review actually were a hatchet job, then fair enough, and I'd agree with you. But it's not. She's quite clearly talking about the record, and in the context of the band's history. As Antistar says, the most trenchant of her points (rather than the throwaway digs) are about the record itself - not the band.
There's a couple of songs on there I like (I think People Get Ready is immense, and a worthy twisting of the 'epic' beloved of Sn*w P*trol et al, and the song 'The Cost' is a fine piece of Jason Molina-esque miserablism) but she pinpoints exactly where this band have gone off the rails. |
|
|
|
nerrawBasic Member Posts:475
| 10/30/2006 6:21 PM |
|
|
"Watching paint dry" is a tired analogy and by changing it to say and 'watching the flakes off' is beyond obvious and tedious.
I'm only commenting on it as someone has posted it saying what a great review it is, but christ, the only thing worst than the frames, are reviews pointing out how bad they are.
|
|
|
|
aidanAdvanced Member Posts:638
| 10/30/2006 6:35 PM |
|
|
I thought it was very well written, and that's all that matters. Fair? Unfair? That's for people listening to the album to decide. She hated it and said so in a very entertaining and well-written (i.e.'professional') review.
|
|
|
|
| 10/30/2006 11:05 PM |
|
|
I haven't heard the album yet but that review is brutal.
Since when are The Frames, or any band, supposed to do something for Irish music ??
Four songs are referenced in the review. What about the others ?
I'm an extremely cynical person at the best of times but have never found Glen's persona to be contrived. His humility is genuine IMO and I've seen them 9 times.
|
|
|
|
jmc105Basic Member Posts:188
| 10/31/2006 12:33 PM |
|
quote:
Originally posted by Antistar
What, exactly, is 'unprofessional' about her review?
in my opinion a reviewer has a responsibility that extends beyond writing something that is merely entertaining and well written. that is to be informative - to assist the reader by giving them a sense of what the album is like, and to help shape the readers decision as to whether to buy the album or not. the only information i can safely take from lauren murphy's review of 'the cost' is that she hates the the frames; that she expected (even wanted) to hate the album, and, unsurprisingly, does; that she hates glen hansard, both as a musician and as a person; and that she is not above demonstrating her hatred in a series of childish, petty insults. that's a lot of hate.
apart from her inability to rise above her own prejudices, much of what she says just doesn't stand up. here's an interesting line from another 'entertainment.ie' review of a frames album, andrew lynch writing about 'for the birds':
Given the number of false starts and changes of directions they've had, it's something of a miracle that Glen Hansard's band are still around at all - let alone that they're making new albums as good as this one.
compare that with murphy's:
There are a small number of Irish bands who are constantly evolving, challenging both themselves and their listeners, pushing boundaries and experimenting with new, exciting ideas. The Frames, however, are most definitely not one of them
how anyone could listen to the frames back catalogue and say that their sound hasn't evolved is beyond me. her accusation that the frames have done nothing for irish music is doubly wrong - firstly because the frames have fostered so many irish musicians (giving support slots to the like of damien rice among others - maybe that's why she hates them...) and secondly because the frames have been, on the whole, very well received internationally by both critics and audiences. and anyway, since when has any of that had anything to do with what a new album sounds like?
the rest of the review criticises the songs for being boring, and for sounding like the frames. the latter is not a valid criticism, in my view, espeicially in the light of the reviewers inability to recognise any change or development over the course of the frames' recorded work, and as far as i can see, the difference between 'boring' and 'brooding' (to use two of murphy's adjectives), is in the ear of the belistener. yes, belistener, you heard me.
it's telling that the review ends with an admission that it is "easy is to slate The Frames, or seize upon any kind of personal vendetta", because that's exactly what this review amounts to. and that may be entertaining, polemic, vitriolic, and well written, but it's also unprofessional. |
|
|
|
palaceBasic Member Posts:392
| 10/31/2006 12:43 PM |
|
|
i'm gonna sit on the fence here...
...i do think it's a fairly hastily written review by someone who has brought prejudices to the table...
...however, i do think she has written intelligently about it and i do agree with a lot of her comments... she singles out the song "the cost" for praise and she is right in doing that... it is one of the only risks they take throughout the album...
...i disagree with jmc105... the frames have not been evolving since 'for the birds'... i think they have been tremendously guilty of hedging their bets, writing some reasonable stuff but not taking the final step... i am convinced they have one eye on the possibilty of commercial success... they need an outside producer again to make them take some risks...
|
|
|
|
El DuderinoBasic Member Posts:179
| 10/31/2006 12:56 PM |
|
|
I really don't see the professioanlism some people seem to in this piece. If I read a review that was the exact opposite (ie singing the praises of the frames and nominating Hansard for cannonisation) I would dismiss it as the musings of an over zealous fan. Why then do we treat negative reviews with more credibility. Apart from personnal attacks it's obvious that this reviewer had this review written 5-10 years ago. I haven't heard this album so I can't dismiss the reviewer's claim that the album is just one big long bore fest, but the manner in which she tears the album, the band and the lead singer apart just seem neurotic and way too personnal. Every reviewer as a duty to be honest and objective about the material they are reviewing but I can't see any objectivity in this piece. Also the fact that she draws attention to Hansards "hackneyed" lyrics and then goes on to make a crack about watching paint drying does bring pot, kettle and black to mind. The very fact that this piece was lauded as an excellent and accurate review just shows that there is a nearly pathological dislike of Glen Hansard out there (not something I really needed evidence of) and I really can't understand why
|
|
|
|
PeterQuaifeBasic Member Posts:436
| 10/31/2006 1:16 PM |
|
|
have seen the frames live a few times and they've given a fine performance evertime. whilst i only own a couple of their cd's, the breadcrumb trail one and for the birds, i'm in no position to post as a fan...but i really dont understand people's major beef with glenn hansard, or indeed damian rice (whom i've also seen live a few times and thoroughly enjoyed), and why it needs to get so personal?!!? Lobbing faceless vicious verbal personal assults on either is pathetic imo.
PQ
|
|
|
|
PunchbowlBasic Member Posts:205
| 10/31/2006 1:41 PM |
|
|
Well, again it's typical of the small music dictatorship that operates in this country. Reviewers, particularly in Hotpress, but now this one too, all too regularly vent their personal agendas and issues with these bands, rather than getting on with the task on hand and actaully reviewing the record.
It's obvious that she's not a Frames fan, so I doubt the review was going to be too favourable in the first place, esp. considering the world and it's mother realise that the two albums mentioned are bona fide classics (She calls Birds and Devil semi-enjoyable).
|
|
|
|
UnicronVeteran Member Posts:1696
| 10/31/2006 1:49 PM |
|
|
I think For The Birds is a good album but Dance the devil? Good songs live but bad on CD.
|
|
|
|
deraBasic Member Posts:163
| 10/31/2006 2:52 PM |
|
quote:
Originally posted by jmc105
compare that with murphy's:
There are a small number of Irish bands who are constantly evolving, challenging both themselves and their listeners, pushing boundaries and experimenting with new, exciting ideas. The Frames, however, are most definitely not one of them
how anyone could listen to the frames back catalogue and say that their sound hasn't evolved is beyond me. her accusation that the frames have done nothing for irish music is doubly wrong - firstly because the frames have fostered so many irish musicians (giving support slots to the like of damien rice among others - maybe that's why she hates them...) and secondly because the frames have been, on the whole, very well received internationally by both critics and audiences.
You've missed the point. When she says evolving and experimenting with new ideas she doesn't mean new ideas for the Frames - she means new ideas in the context of modern alternative music.
When she says 'doing something for Irish music' she doesn't mean giving stage time to irrelevant, derivative songwriters like Rice.
I don't know why you continue on with this rather meaningless accusation of unprofessionalism. What does it matter if she doesn't like the people involved? All that's of interest to you the reader is the depth of the critical points made. The rest is fluff - entertaining or not. And there are critical points made - with regard to the lyricism and arrangements, for instance. Do you think those points are without merit? |
|
|
|
stephenBasic Member Posts:201
| 10/31/2006 2:57 PM |
|
|
What a dreary, wretched review.
I haven't heard the record but I've learned little or nothing about it from this review. This writer has produced a sloppy, cantankerous effort that seems churlish in the extreme. If the record is a bad record, a step back for a band that have aspired to greatness in the past, I'd prefer a sober reflection on the reasons why it's gone wrong.
This brand of sensationalist drivel is symptomatic of a general malaise in rock criticism, especially in the Irish media.
|
|
|
|
UnaVeteran Member Posts:1721
| 10/31/2006 3:08 PM |
|
|
good Lord. I wish something I wrote was entertaining enough to spark off such a conversation. Why doesn't everyone go out and buy the record and do a review of their own? We can put 20 reviews of the album up on the site just in case one doesn't suit someone's opinion.
Anywhoo, for the record, I didn't like The Frames' last two albums, but thought The Cost was great.
|
|
|
|