Friday, February 1, 2008

It's February!!!

Let's celebrate the monotony with more monotony!!!

This here review tackles Louis XIV's Slick Dogs and Ponies. While I may agree that the album is lackluster, tell me oh Pitchfork, what does the album sound like?

"Electric Six-style stabs at lunkheaded disco or big, dumb, ultra-schmaltzy morning-after ballads."

You know, I hate a couple albums. I think we've skewered a couple songs/albums/artists/canons in our days here on the electronic interweb, but goddamn it what is the point of throwing bile at a group you already hate? Why not move on and listen to something that you might like? Why even waste your time? Why review an album when the lead singer, "...expresses some pathos here, a tad more profound than the pain of getting an erection while wearing tight jeans, but not far off." My guess is that you have a big list of awesomely gnarly put-downs, and you wait for hated albums to arrive. Eagerly. Because, what's the fun of reviewing music you enjoy?!? There is no fun, because without the hate, YOU PROBABLY WOULD HAVE NOTHING TO SAY BECAUSE ANALYZING THE MUSIC WOULD BE TOO MUCH TO ASK FOR.


Here is the only portion of a 4 paragraph review that discusses the music on this record (note: yes, albums actually contain music, what a strange and fantastically outlandish notion!).

"The hushed psychotic thriller "Stalker", a surprisingly subtle, clever song, almost encroaches on Gorillaz territory, with Hill doing a pretty spot-on Damon Albarn impression."

Besides the use of the term "piss-drunk stomper" a sentence later, that's it. I'm sorry, I don't care how trivial the music is, at least you can tell me the instrumentation? Maybe how you listened to it (MP3, CD, Tape), the pace of the album?

Nevermind. How's about a condescending put-down of all American listeners? Oh, that you can do? Thanks.

"The sentimental dimension of Slick Dogs only further depicts Louis XIV as an embodiment of everything American audiences just never "got" about glam rock. They're dazzled by the hedonistic aspects of the genre-- the (heterosexual) sex, the drugs, the big guitars-- but completely overlook the more complicated nuances."

Um, excuse me? What are you trying to say here? What? What are these "complicated nuances" you speak of?

"There are no sci-fi or fantasy themes explored here, and certainly no gender-bending."

Complicated nuances of Glam Rock:

1. Sci-fi/fantasy theme- I better get some goddamn dragons and shit, if not in the songs then in the album artwork. And goblins! Fuck! Goblins flying spaceships as well, otherwise, fuck it, it ain't glam, baby!

2. Gender-bending - Oh, so you think you're glam? What are you wearing? What, no pink thong? No purple mullet and hoop earrings? Stop making music, you aren't allowed, face-ass!

So again, let me conclude simply by saying IF YOU HATE A BAND, WHY IN GOD'S NAME WOULD YOU REVIEW THEM? In all seriousness, don't waste your brains on a band you're determined to abhor. Especially when you can use that time to go to music and writing school, hopefully for the last time.

No comments: