good reviews/bad reviews

good review

derisive review

both reviews mention that the new effort from LA hipsters and professional bandwagon riders Local Natives bears a striking resemblance to recent efforts from Fleet Foxes. the pitchfork review even mentions several other recent indie stalwarts that Local Natives sound exactly like ("sort of a West Coast Grizzly Bear"). faint praise? soft bigotry of low expectations?

pitchfork says something else curious about this band, which is especially curious if you've clicked through the second link. "Local Natives have already gained a foothold in parts of Europe-- their album has received attention in the UK." would you care to know what the guardian UK has to say about this band?

"[T]he unsuspecting could be forgiven for thinking they are hearing demos for the Foxes' second record. As such, it's almost impossible to listen to without making comparisons, and Local Natives are not the beneficiaries of the process. It's like listening to the ­Vibrators after the Clash: decent enough on its own terms, but lesser and later – pop's cardinal sin." so, yeah, they're big in europe.

how does pitchfork address the issue of this band being grossly unoriginal and hacktacular? "In short, the Silver Lake quintet have followed indie rock's major players in recent years-- they knew how to dress for success in 2010. Great for them-- now, what's in it for you? Plenty as it turns out."

wow! so they sound exactly like a band that hit it big about one year ago. to the british writer, this is "pop's cardinal sin" to the american writer, "great for them!"

at the end of the final paragraph of p-fork's thumb on the scale: "True, we tend to bow at novelty and innovation, but Gorilla Manor proves to be a refreshing reminder of the pleasures of synthesis."

jesus fucking christ!