My contention is that the press is only concerned with three things:
1. the achingly new (killers, chiefs, parks et al)
2.the achingly old (bands that are never really as good as you think you remember them being, like The Clash[not that I remember them, being pre-conceived until approximately 22nd June 1980{though this doesn't impinge on my right to be cynical about them}])
3.using lots of brackets
So, i propose a revolutionary new field for review, the 'Lukewarm'. Essentially these are albums and shows that are neither all that new nor all that old, and for which no one really cared that much anyway. It's essentially a re-appraisal, a chance to show appreciation for the lesser known achievements of pop, to dig out the obscure and the obtuse and give them to the world. James, a study of the Muffins would be wonderful here. Steve, tell us about Lou Barlow and his Sentridoh and Anthony, for God's sake tell us about The Pet Shop Boys. This notion is also closely tied to the fact that I haven't bought any new Cd's for several months, or attended a gig. Here goes...
Certainly Sir, though I warn you:- something about their unexpected album released this year, does ache, though I'm not entirely sure in what way.
A small point, but I don't think you were 'pre-conceived until 1981'... 1980 surely saw the happy conjoining of Mrs and Mrs Conolly.
Posted by: JRWB | September 14, 2005 at 04:28 PM
I don't see where it says 1981, does anyone else? (he he he)
Posted by: Thomas Conolly | September 15, 2005 at 04:21 PM
Oh, I'm such a twat.
Posted by: Thomas Conolly | September 15, 2005 at 04:27 PM
Yeah, but that's what we like about you.
Posted by: JRWB | September 15, 2005 at 04:41 PM