LawTalkers  

Go Back   LawTalkers

» Site Navigation
 > FAQ
» Online Users: 196
0 members and 196 guests
No Members online
Most users ever online was 9,654, 05-18-2025 at 04:16 AM.
View Single Post
Old 09-01-2005, 05:29 PM   #3614
Hank Chinaski
Proud Holder-Post 200,000
 
Hank Chinaski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Corner Office
Posts: 86,149
I mostly agree Sebby was mainly correct

Quote:
Originally posted by Pretty Little Flower
You like the bands that Pitchfork hates.

"From the outset, their look is positively loathsome; four clean-cut, Suburbia-ripped pretty boys aspiring to toe the line between indie respectability and commercial adulation."

"That the kind of mindless, commercial monotony that dilutes every hint of vibrancy on the record seems wholly intentional is telling, as a comparatively lo-fi collection of songs were apparently scrapped in favor of this supposedly more accessible dreck."

"For forty minutes, Ok Go drags on laboriously, with each passing song more desperately anticipating the end. Damian Kulash's lyrics are almost uniformly dreadful, but no more so than on "You're So Damn Hot", what seems to be some kind of aggravating rewrite of "Bang a Gong" with all the substance and style drained from it. Lines like, "You're a bad-hearted boy trap, baby doll, but you're/ So damn hot," are enough to make you despise the English language."

http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/record...go/ok-go.shtml

Those Pitchfork kids sure are snotty little pricks, but it's lines like "Lines like, 'You're a bad-hearted boy trap, baby doll, but you're/ So damn hot,' are enough to make you despise the English language," that keep me coming back.

The Louis XIV review is pretty funny, too.
Actually, for Pitchfork that's a pretty positive review. ncs, maybe you should buy the CD.
__________________
I will not suffer a fool- but I do seem to read a lot of their posts
Hank Chinaski is offline  
 
Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.0.1

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:08 PM.