Let's hope the blame lies with the RS editors. Yeesh.
Matt
· 3 years ago
Hey, I don't always agree with the guy, but I still find him interesting. I like the Decemberists and all, but I don't see anything in that review that's unfair. By the way, guarantee you that's only a snippet of it. The whole thing must be in the magazine itself. Besides, he clearly likes the record, but to me their "literary" qualities can be a tad much.
Steve
· 3 years ago
I hope that there's more of a review in the print version. Otherwise, the fact that there's noting "in that review that's unfair" is wholly beside the point. There is nothing in that review, period.
The only things this review says about this new album:
(1) It continues to have obscure lyrics. (2) It has two long songs. (3) It's on a major label.
Again, that ain't criticism. And, again, I hope there's more in the print edition.
Brad
· 3 years ago
Exactly. As Steve said, it's not that it's badly written or unfair, it just says exactly nothing about the music.
Sal C
· 3 years ago
I dunno, it says enough about their new album to convince me that I haven't made a mistake ignoring these guys. "barrow boy"? "Civil war romance"? "Inspired by the Japanese tale of the same name...". Yup, just what I thought these guys were about. Thanks Bob!
All Comments
Let's hope the blame lies with the RS editors. Yeesh.
The only things this review says about this new album:
(1) It continues to have obscure lyrics.
(2) It has two long songs.
(3) It's on a major label.
Again, that ain't criticism. And, again, I hope there's more in the print edition.
Yup, just what I thought these guys were about. Thanks Bob!