His point on basement jaxxx and chemical brothers was spot on, not the kind of bands that repeat album purchase or delving deeper are required, but gotta disagree about Roots and J-5. A lot of hip-hop groups have more fillers than killers but saying they have one song is way too harsh and takes away from his point.
But! It is a very interesting idea and would be a welcome addition to any end of year music mags, lets see if he takes it any further. Disagree on Tapes and CYHSY too, still loving them.

That article was pointless and patronising. Guys, there's no right or wrong here, its all subjective. Just because one person doesn't like a certain band doesn't make it so and being a "critic" doesn't give him any particular insight. He's giving his own opinion and whether you agree or not is your own choice.

whatever bout the article, think he's right about Tapes n Tapes, dont really see that they'e worth the hype at all. Mind you, i do like that Clap Your Hands Say Yeah! album.

Whatever about thinking your wrong now, meh, thats just hindsight. And if writers didnt jump on the bandwagon, what would we have to get excited/bitch about!

Whoa, hang on there! Basement Jaxx, yeah point taken, but the Chems?
I mean this is a band who created and entire (admittedly short lived) genre unto themselves and were never really surpassed at what they did. This is a band that released three totally rock solid albums from their debut (how many of todays bands can you say that about?), and only started to experience "second album syndrome" on their fourth album. Only "push the button" really shows them seriously running out of steam. This is a band whose B-Sides are worth tracking down and would have been killer A side material for lesser acts. Please don't tell me they aren't worth delving deeper into. Their "best of" isn't worth bothering with, you're far better off purchasing "Exit Planet Dust", "Surrender" and "Dig your Own Hole" in that order respectively.

With regard to the article itself, does finding you no longer find a particular act as thrilling mean you were "wrong" of just that your perspective on things have changed?

You're all mad.

If reviews didn't jump on the bandwagon we'd have decent bands getting reviews instead of the latest, newest, I bet u never heard of them reviews. Tapes N Tapes being a prime example and dozens of crap that have being hyped on these pages over the last year.


Peejay, you completely missed the point. The amount of crap reviewers give praise to just to appear cool over the year is unreal. At least Carroll is saying yeah I get it wrong and bought into the hype.

There's no point to miss. Reveiwers - whether they were originally trying to look cool or not - can change their opinions just like everybody else. He's just stating the obvious.

Who's to say he's right now?

I think Carroll is just having a laugh because after he says he got it wrong with some new bands, he goes on to slag off bands he's championed for a long time like the Roots. I think he'll say anything to get a reaction and keep people reading.

Ultimately as Peejay pointed out, it is subjective, just because a critic does or doesn't like a band doesn't actually mean anything, you should make up your own mind. Of course, in saying that I understand that 4 star reviews will certainly make you more disposed to shell out the money for a CD or download in the first place.

I think you have to take any music criticism with a serious pinch of salt, it is just one person's opinion after all. In my experience most music reveals its worth only after repeated listens, which is not something a critic is in a position to do. I'm guessing, but if you're a critic, there's so many new releases to be listened to that nothing gets listened to in depth. And it's quite easy to find out online what other critics are saying and factor that into your review too. I would be surprized if most critics form their opinions "in a bubble" impervious to other critical opinion. Few have the courage to stand apart from the rest of the critical pack and risk looking foolish or uncool because they don't rate the latest buzz band. Correct me if I'm wrong...

So I think you can only kind of trust a critic, if you think their taste is similar to yours and you've liked what they've recommended in the past. Music critics are just as susceptible to hype as the rest of us. Chuck D put it best.......

His last statement about what we will or won't be listening to in 20 years time is ridiculous because there's no way of knowing. Generally what seems experimental or weird in one generation becomes ordinary in the next. But, if he means that people will always want to hear songs, I think he right about that. That's why we're still listening to the Beatles.

I'm battling with myself and trying not to take this article too seriously however i can't just ignore it Elevating oneself to the mythical status of music critic is a very nebulous type of thing given that music criticism is al quite subjective despite the reviewers best intentions. Okay, nothing new there and to be honest there's nothing i like better than a good review (and especially a bad review!) once a pinch of salt is generously applied and i've a fair idea of where it's coming from.

Carroll's article however is a lazy-arsed kind of thing. Obviously a quiet week for musical musings on his behalf and, shock! horror! he thinks that some stuff he used to listen to and consider great is now no longer so. It's a patronising article because, as i infer it, this is supposed to be taken as some earth-shattering revelation to all of us muppets who take his word as a guarantee that whatever he recommends is automatically hit or s**t. He's writing himself out of a job and if he was a robot it would be a logical paradox that would cause his motherboard to fry.

Anyway, taking it too seriously as i say.

I doubt very much that Mr Carroll is taking himself too seriously or that the people who have posted on this do not know that reviews are subjective or are not to be used to form your own opinion.
I reckon it was perhaps a quiet week and he just wrote a conversational piece on something that just occured to him. Im sure he has a very large regular readership - judging by the fact we all know his name, i can't say i remember many critics names - and thought people might find it interesting. I'm no fan of Carroll, but the article did interest me in the way a Top 100 or Best of 2006 article would and i would like to read an article like this by critics in various mags. It does take repeated listens to really get an album and if they can't spare their time first time around it would be interesting to read reappraisals later in the year. Although it does smack of laziness consdering video game reviewers put games to repeated testing to see how long a game holds your interest.
Im sure even on this forum we could do a nice thread on bands we used to be into but have lost our interest, or even hate them now.

jim carroll is quite good... but more than any other reviewer, it is obvious he follows local message boards and the like... (he just repeats everything i say first)

...i reckon he's even buying into the hype by saying that some of these bands were just hyped...

Agreed. There is a rush to write the first review. I've seen publications boast that they have the first review of a particular cd.

Peejay has got it dead right here in my opinion.

long time reader, first time poster

over the last few months i've noticed that loads of cluas posters go on about jim carroll over and over again, about how much they think he writes nonsense, how much he doesnt matter, how much he misses the mark etc. he's the one music writer who is referenced again and again on cluas because he seems to be the one who gets under people's skin more than anyone else. i couldnt tell you the names of most music writers i read but carroll seems to hit a nerve every time and not just with irish music.

why doesnt cluas do an interview with him? it would be very interesting to read what one of the regular writers - or even the regular posters who are still here after the redesign - would get from an interview with him. They could find out if he reads cluas, what he thinks of the arguments made here and if they have any bearing on him and what he writes. might make a good piece?

the new design is growing on me!

Windowcleaner, that is an excellent idea! I can't speak for other people on Cluas but apart from the Ticket I don't regularly read any other music publication. And I always read Carroll and Boyd's columns in the Ticket. Boyd doesn't seem to get much of a mention on Cluas......

I would be very interested to read an interview with Jim Carroll because you would like to get some sense of where he's coming from. When you read his column sometimes you're kinda like Will the real Jim Carroll please stand up? I think he takes the piss a lot. Of course, he'd probably do that in an interview too.....but I still would be interested in reading it. I would be surprized if he said yes; he seems to slag off Internet forums regularly in his column. He probably thinks we need to get out more, rather than dissecting his every comment......