Pet Shop Boys Community

on www.rockfeedback.com

www.ROCKfeedback ?? lol when did the boys "rock" with Fundy

http://www.rockfeedback.com/article.asp ... 11&nPage=5
No.46

#46 - Pet Shop Boys - Fundamental

The odd couple continue to plough their increasingly distinctive path through the pop landscape. No one else really seems to do what they do anymore, perhaps they never did. They tend to polarize opinion, but this album was, in that glorious cliché, a return to form. From the ethereal, undertaker imagery, to songs, particularly ‘I Made My Excuses and Left’, which is so close to the heart you could see it’s shirt beating beneath the restrained Trevor Horn production. Minimal not only brought spelling back into the charts, but a dirty great Peter Hook bass-line coda to boot. Their commitment to one-word album titles is commendable and with a record as lush and well written as this, they deserve to step out from the gay-tag they have been labelled with since Neil Tennant ‘came out’.

a stupid review here
http://www.rockfeedback.com/article.asp?nObjectID=3405
biatch

So let me get this right: first they slag off Fundamental, give it only 2 stars, and then they put it in their year-end list. Good for your credibility....

I hate it when a reviewer clearly dislikes the group in question and has nothing interesting or even funny to say about why that is.

Know what the Pet Shop Boys’ real problem is? Well, aside from the (slightly unnerving) fact that they’re a pair of balding middle aged men who we are still required to refer to as ‘boys’?

Yes, because the Artic Monkeys are really monkeys, aren't they? C*nt.

It’s that they’re of a time. Any artist who finds themselves chronicling an era, reflecting a certain time or attitude on record runs the risk of finding themselves trapped in that particular age. The best stuff the Pet Shop Boys have done – with its spotlight placed on thoughtless consumerism, avarice and egocentricity - is steeped in a distinctively eighties’ sensibility.

And Blair's Britain is so unmaterialistic, isn't it? W*nker.

And thus in 2006, Messrs Lowe and Tennant are struggling to remain relevant as a pop act. Case in point: ‘The Sodom and Gomorrah Show.’ Set to one of the spunkier tunes on an otherwise largely humdrum LP it may be, but as a comment on our prurient, permissive times, then well… it all just seems so dated. They might be talking about a time ahead of their 80s heyday sure, but really, with its bold spoken world promise of a land of ‘Sun, Sex, Sin, Divine Intervention’ the prevailing feel is too ‘Loaded’ magazine, too Club 18-30, too ‘Girls and Boys’ (‘cept awful). You half expect Keith Allen to turn up and offer a guest vocal half way through.

No, that would be on World in Motion. This sounds more like Dollar than Blur. Motherf*cker.

Lyrically there are some major clangers. ‘Minimal’ starts promisingly with a throbbing, New Order-ish bassline, but is soon regrettably compromised by some particularly inane babble pitched somewhere between one of David Brent’s nonsensical life philosophies and Ali G alter ego Borat’s spoof fashion show interviews (‘Draw a line/More is less is minimal/Form, earth, life/Decide something less decisional’ – que?) However, ‘Casanova in Hell’ manages to out-cringe even that gubbins with its final line: ‘Above all, his erection will live in history.’ Erm, thanks for that, chaps.

Ooh, he used the word 'erection'. Snigger snigger. If Alex Turner had used it, it would be to demonstrate his youthful wit and verve. Ars*hole.

Recalling the OTT bombast of ‘It’s A Sin’, meanwhile, ‘I’m With Stupid’ posits the less-than-revelatory notion that the relationship between George W Bush and Tony Blair doesn’t really do the UK many favours. Yeah, its hearts in the right place, but tellingly, the Pet Shop Boys could have been saying exactly the same things about Thatcher and Reagan twenty years ago.

Erm, when exactly did Reagan and Thatcher invade Iraq? T*sser.

For a band who once specialized in portraying a particular kind of haughty ennui, ‘Fundamental’ is in actual fact a bit of a yawn.

Oh just f*ck off.

dVTB wrote:So let me get this right: first they slag off Fundamental, give it only 2 stars, and then they put it in their year-end list. Good for your credibility....

Uh, you do realise that most music magazines have more than one reviewer, right?

And that the guy who originally reviews an album might not actually reflect the opinions of the guys who didn't review it, right?

DJ Danny C wrote:

dVTB wrote:So let me get this right: first they slag off Fundamental, give it only 2 stars, and then they put it in their year-end list. Good for your credibility....

Uh, you do realise that most music magazines have more than one reviewer, right?

And that the guy who originally reviews an album might not actually reflect the opinions of the guys who didn't review it, right?

Exactly. Only utterly stupid people assume that any magazine has an uniform opinion about any band or album. Sometimes giving an album to a certain reviewer can be a conscious editorial decision, but usually it's just lottery.

OMG JSP superb post there

Eldritch wrote:

DJ Danny C wrote:

dVTB wrote:So let me get this right: first they slag off Fundamental, give it only 2 stars, and then they put it in their year-end list. Good for your credibility....

Uh, you do realise that most music magazines have more than one reviewer, right?

And that the guy who originally reviews an album might not actually reflect the opinions of the guys who didn't review it, right?

Exactly. Only utterly stupid people assume that any magazine has an uniform opinion about any band or album. Sometimes giving an album to a certain reviewer can be a conscious editorial decision, but usually it's just lottery.

I disagree. And I'm also able to refrain from calling people with a different opinion 'utterly stupid'. I know it's one person who reviews an album, but the review is presented in a certain music magazine.

I think, the whole system of just ONE person reviewing an album is completely wrong. OR you should let that one same person compile the year-end list as well. I think it's weird when you first *slag off* an album and then put it high in your year-end list. It's either bad for your credibility as a music magazine, or you ridiculize your own reviewer.

dVTB wrote:I disagree.

Yes, but you're wrong.

dVTB wrote:
I disagree. And I'm also able to refrain from calling people with a different opinion 'utterly stupid'. I know it's one person who reviews an album, but the review is presented in a certain music magazine.

I think, the whole system of just ONE person reviewing an album is completely wrong. OR you should let that one same person compile the year-end list as well. I think it's weird when you first *slag off* an album and then put it high in your year-end list. It's either bad for your credibility as a music magazine, or you ridiculize your own reviewer.

I apologise for insinuating that you are stupid: you're not; I was in a cranky mood last night.

Anyway, I still disagree strongly. For me the sign of a bad music magazine is that all writers think alike. A good music magazine should have room for different writers having different opinions and willing to debate them on the pages of the magazine. The other option is the endless hyping of the band the magazine chooses to like and ingnoring/dissing the bands it chooses to dislike.

Could you spell out the logistics for your suggestion? Suppose you worked for a music magazine and the editor gave you Fundamental for review saying "Oh, you'll have to give that two stars, because us the editorial board have decided that slagging PSB off would fit our image best. Please single out Indefinite Leave To Remain for special disdain, because out Assistant Editor thinks it's utterly wet." Would you go along for that? And how could the magazine work out an opinion for the thousand albums it reviews every year? And how about when the staff changes - if the magazine decided to dislike an album in 1998 that turned out to be a modern classic, should the new staff stick with the old one's (clearly misguided) opinion or are they allowed to re-evaluate the album?

No, the beauty of a review as an art form, that it is indeed one person's (hopefully) eloquent way of putting your opinion across. If even we as similarly-minded PSB fans can't agree on the merits of Before and I don't know what you want but I can't give it any more, how could then a magazine with 50 or so writers, some of which love Bob Dylan, some are into hip hop, some prefer indie and so on, form an opinion about anything at all. For me the sign of a good music magazine is that it dares to put out passionate, conroversial reviews that go against that Q magazine etiquette of giving 4 stars for everyone they ever have on their cover.

There are quite a few people on here that are journo's, or have reviewed albums properly. Can someone tell me how these reviewers can give an honest opinion, when listening to the album once, or a couple of times? Or do they constantly play it?

Dave

Undertaker wrote:There are quite a few people on here that are journo's, or have reviewed albums properly. Can someone tell me how these reviewers can give an honest opinion, when listening to the album once, or a couple of times? Or do they constantly play it?

Dave

There is no rule as to how many times you should play an album. It's up to each journo's personal ethics. For me three is the minimum amount of plays: by that point it's apparent that I don't like the album and listening to it more is most likely a waste of time. But if I like it, than I'll of course keep playing it for my own pleasure.

It also of course depends on how lengthy review you're supposed to write. If it's 1000 words, naturally you'll have to play the album a lot, even if you don't like it. But if it's 100-200 words, three times is enough in my estimation, because there's not that much room to write about it anyway.

In some cases of course record companies won't let you hear it more than once or twice - or further listenings are made difficult, because you'll have to hear it at their office. In those cases I mention the circumstances in the review as a disclaimer that the opinion is based on one or two hearings.

Eldritch wrote:

dVTB wrote:
I disagree. And I'm also able to refrain from calling people with a different opinion 'utterly stupid'. I know it's one person who reviews an album, but the review is presented in a certain music magazine.

I think, the whole system of just ONE person reviewing an album is completely wrong. OR you should let that one same person compile the year-end list as well. I think it's weird when you first *slag off* an album and then put it high in your year-end list. It's either bad for your credibility as a music magazine, or you ridiculize your own reviewer.

I apologise for insinuating that you are stupid: you're not; I was in a cranky mood last night.

Anyway, I still disagree strongly. For me the sign of a bad music magazine is that all writers think alike. A good music magazine should have room for different writers having different opinions and willing to debate them on the pages of the magazine. The other option is the endless hyping of the band the magazine chooses to like and ingnoring/dissing the bands it chooses to dislike.

Could you spell out the logistics for your suggestion? Suppose you worked for a music magazine and the editor gave you Fundamental for review saying "Oh, you'll have to give that two stars, because us the editorial board have decided that slagging PSB off would fit our image best. Please single out Indefinite Leave To Remain for special disdain, because out Assistant Editor thinks it's utterly wet." Would you go along for that? And how could the magazine work out an opinion for the thousand albums it reviews every year? And how about when the staff changes - if the magazine decided to dislike an album in 1998 that turned out to be a modern classic, should the new staff stick with the old one's (clearly misguided) opinion or are they allowed to re-evaluate the album?

No, the beauty of a review as an art form, that it is indeed one person's (hopefully) eloquent way of putting your opinion across. If even we as similarly-minded PSB fans can't agree on the merits of Before and I don't know what you want but I can't give it any more, how could then a magazine with 50 or so writers, some of which love Bob Dylan, some are into hip hop, some prefer indie and so on, form an opinion about anything at all. For me the sign of a good music magazine is that it dares to put out passionate, conroversial reviews that go against that Q magazine etiquette of giving 4 stars for everyone they ever have on their cover.

Interestingly, the US hip-hop magazine The Source seems to have the idea that it's possible to award a hip-hop album some sort of objective rating. This concept has been adopted by a large segment of the hip-hop community, where you can find heated debates on whether for example the new Nas album is a "5 mic" hip hop "classic" or "just" a solid 4½ "mic" album.

Anyway, at The Source they actually hold editor meetings where they discuss and eventually come to an agreement on what "mic"-rating an album should receive. Years later they might choose to "elevate" an album to "classic"-status, if it has grown over time.

Eldritch wrote:For me the sign of a bad music magazine is that all writers think alike. A good music magazine should have room for different writers having different opinions and willing to debate them on the pages of the magazine.

Yes, I agree, but that's something completely different than just ONE person writing his review, on behalf of a magazine! I would be in favour of a system where a panel of 4-5 people all say something about a new album. If one person dislikes it, and three others think it's great, you can draw your own conclusions as a reader. If that one person is the only one who's able to get his opinion printed in the magazine, you - as a reader - might think it's indeed a crap album.

Eldritch wrote:Suppose you worked for a music magazine and the editor gave you Fundamental for review saying "Oh, you'll have to give that two stars, because us the editorial board have decided that slagging PSB off would fit our image best. Please single out Indefinite Leave To Remain for special disdain, because out Assistant Editor thinks it's utterly wet." Would you go along for that?

No. I would suggest that somebody else writes this particular album review instead. I would also protest about the too negative opinion. If the magazine thinks the album is crap, it's their right. Then you should write that down in your magazine and not put the album in your year-end Top 100. If they gave me full freedom, I would write a 5 out of 5 stars review and praise (of course) Indefinite Leave To Remain, as one of the best songs of their career. Yet the magazine doesn't agree with me at all. It's just my opinion, not that of the magazine.

Eldritch wrote:And how could the magazine work out an opinion for the thousand albums it reviews every year? And how about when the staff changes - if the magazine decided to dislike an album in 1998 that turned out to be a modern classic, should the new staff stick with the old one's (clearly misguided) opinion or are they allowed to re-evaluate the album?

Reviewing albums should be MORE about quality and less about quantity. I guess they should put more effort in writing album reviews. You seem to think it's perfectly acceptable that a PSB hater gets full freedom to write a negative review, despite most other people at the magazine loving it. The negative reviewer can sit at home, doing his work, quickly scan the album, using the fast forward button during every song (why on earth would you listen to 50 mins of PSB if you can get an impression in 10 minutes. And besides that: you still have 10 more reviews to do...). I think it's simply NOT accurate, nor correct, nor fair. And worse: publication comes at a moment where the influence on album sales is biggest.

A Dutch internet magazine slagged of Release in 2002, by writing that the album is full of typical PSB synthpop tracks. My conclusion: the reviewer hardly listened to the album! And please know: I *know* she didn't, because I *did* hear Release and it's mostly a guitar-based album. But somebody who hasn't heard Release, will think it's true. - The least I expect from reviews, is that they're done with accuracy.

Eldritch wrote:No, the beauty of a review as an art form, that it is indeed one person's (hopefully) eloquent way of putting your opinion across.

I disagree again. There's a damn thin line between a 'work of art' and a crap, and not carefully written article. And it's difficult to determine where that line is. Let's look back at the review of the Rock magazine that caused this discussion. Do you *really* think of that as a work of art? If I slag off the latest Depeche Mode studio album, because I happen to think DM are terribly overrated, would you call my review 'a piece of art'? I doubt it..

Eldritch wrote:If even we as similarly-minded PSB fans can't agree on the merits of Before and I don't know what you want but I can't give it any more, how could then a magazine with 50 or so writers, some of which love Bob Dylan, some are into hip hop, some prefer indie and so on, form an opinion about anything at all.

I guess the 'truth' is somewhere in the middle, then. I think you will have to find some kind of compromise. That's more accurate than a hip hop lover reviewing a PSB album by coincidence.

Eldritch wrote: For me the sign of a good music magazine is that it dares to put out passionate, conroversial reviews that go against that Q magazine etiquette of giving 4 stars for everyone they ever have on their cover.

I have nothing against being passionate or controversial, as long as it's done with accuracy. And I would prefer it if that's based on more than just the personal opinion of the writer. And if that passionate, controversial review is more or less withdrawn 7 months later, because the same magazine put the album high in their year-end list, what was the actual VALUE of that controversial review in the first place?

dVTB wrote:If that one person is the only one who's able to get his opinion printed in the magazine, you - as a reader - might think it's indeed a crap album.

Those readers aren't very savvy. How many people here only ever read a single review? Magazines have a long history of presenting multiple points of view and I find it baffling that anyone would prefer them to present a hive mind outlook. Lord only knows what you must make of something like Entertainment Weekly, which regularly offers contradictory views in different parts of the same issue!

The negative reviewer can sit at home, doing his work, quickly scan the album, using the fast forward button during every song (why on earth would you listen to 50 mins of PSB if you can get an impression in 10 minutes. And besides that: you still have 10 more reviews to do...). I think it's simply NOT accurate, nor correct, nor fair.

The system you propose would give every album a glowing review, because you're basically advocating that coverage be given to fans. That's ludicrous. Like it or not PSB exist in a wider pop landscape and if their albums can't attract the attention of critics that's a sign of how out of step they are with the times.

There's a damn thin line between a 'work of art' and a crap, and not carefully written article. And it's difficult to determine where that line is.

Nonsense. It's pretty simple. Many readers (and editorial boards to be fair) often mistake reviews for classical criticism. There's a gulf between Roger Ebert and thirty words on the latest Gorillaz album.

I have nothing against being passionate or controversial, as long as it's done with accuracy. And I would prefer it if that's based on more than just the personal opinion of the writer.

How is that even possible?

And if that passionate, controversial review is more or less withdrawn 7 months later, because the same magazine put the album high in their year-end list, what was the actual VALUE of that controversial review in the first place?

It demonstrated the reaction of the reviewer, who ideally contextualized his or her position. Publications aren't Soviet insect hives of opinion, nor should they be. Perhaps most readers aren't as fragile as you are?