Awful Tower of London review

Message

Jareth · #1 Post by **Jareth** » Tue 04 Jul 2006, 9:41 am

http://enjoyment.independent.co.uk/musi ... 150928.ece

Was that first paragraph really needed? It doesn't even make much sense given the rest of the review.

Trying too hard to be clever I think.

SingleBillingual · #2 Post by **SingleBillingual** » Tue 04 Jul 2006, 1:21 pm

Wanker that is all i'm going to say.

bookshopboy · #3 Post by **bookshopboy** » Tue 04 Jul 2006, 1:29 pm

SingleBillingual wrote:Wanker that is all i'm going to say.

What wrong with it? He gives them a good review.

joncool5 · #4 Post by **joncool5** » Tue 04 Jul 2006, 1:31 pm

Not really a bad review.

SingleBillingual · #5 Post by **SingleBillingual** » Tue 04 Jul 2006, 1:32 pm

Yeah later on... after he has had his homophobic ramblings.

bookshopboy · #6 Post by **bookshopboy** » Tue 04 Jul 2006, 1:33 pm

SingleBillingual wrote:Yeah later on... after he has had his homophobic ramblings.

I don't see anything homophobic there. Am I reading the same review as you?

Burj · #7 Post by **Burj** » Tue 04 Jul 2006, 1:37 pm

If you'd seen and heard Simon Price interview the Human League on their Very Best Of DVD I don't think you'd ever think of him as homophobic, if you know what I mean

SingleBillingual · #8 Post by **SingleBillingual** » Tue 04 Jul 2006, 1:38 pm

Not sure doll, just don't like how he introduces it, but never mind we'll agree to disagree, maybe wanker was a bit harsh!!

! · #9 Post by ! » Tue 04 Jul 2006, 1:56 pm

SingleBillingual wrote:maybe wanker was a bit harsh!!

No, it wasn't

bookshopboy · #10 Post by **bookshopboy** » Tue 04 Jul 2006, 2:04 pm

! wrote:
SingleBillingual wrote:maybe wanker was a bit harsh!!
No, it wasn't

Yes, it was

Nickname · #11 Post by **Nickname** » Tue 04 Jul 2006, 2:09 pm

Jareth wrote:http://enjoyment.independent.co.uk/musi ... 150928.ece

Was that first paragraph really needed? It doesn't even make much sense given the rest of the review. Trying too hard to be clever I think.

The only bad think is when he insinuates it's too much camp (I'm agree).

Burj · #12 Post by **Burj** » Tue 04 Jul 2006, 2:17 pm

nickname wrote:(I'm agree).

I thought you were nickname

Nickname · #13 Post by **Nickname** » Tue 04 Jul 2006, 2:23 pm

Burj wrote:
nickname wrote:(I'm agree).
I thought you were nickname

My girlfriend and ex-girlfriends don't think the same but who knows.

Burj · #14 Post by **Burj** » Tue 04 Jul 2006, 2:26 pm

nickname wrote:who knows.

Least of all you, eh?

How much are your 'girlfriends' rates these days? An hourly rate?

Syncratic · #15 Post by **Syncratic** » Tue 04 Jul 2006, 2:31 pm

INothing wrong with the review I think he more or less makes the observation about the lack of mystery and moodiness about the boys pre-1990, which arguably made them more interesting.

Hardly homophobic. Isn't The Independent gayer than the Guardian? It's no more homophobicv than Shelton or gayer than Nickname.

Awful Tower of London review

Awful Tower of London review

Re: Awful Tower of London review

Re: Awful Tower of London review

Re: Awful Tower of London review

Re: Awful Tower of London review