Franz Ferdinand
You Could Have It So Much Better

Reviewed by: Josh Love
Reviewed on: 2005-10-04

Posted 10/04/2005 - 07:57:04 AM by florenz6:
 Their debut was, in my ears, absolutely overrated. Their second album is similarly boring. Great magazines make money by giving this average band big headlines. Is it rock for children? Is it a clever game? I know very well that the first cd was a massive bestseller. But this doesn´t mean anything from the point of view of originality. This reaction comes from someone who loved seeing Wilco live recently, who counts the 2005 records from The Books, Antony and the Johnsons, Brian Eno and Bettye LaVette among truly outstanding pieces of music. There are some really boring pieces of music in 2005, they all belong either to the category "clever-made" or to the category "annoying", f. e. Jamie Cullum (grrr!), FF, The Rolling Stones (please start your exile on Main St.!) , The Bravery ... It´s a long list, but these are some good starters!
Posted 10/04/2005 - 07:57:13 AM by wantondisco:
 "you got big so we can't really like you that much but in case the singles go big then we'll say that we always liked those ones on the record"
Posted 10/04/2005 - 08:09:31 AM by JimFitz:
 Alternative explanation, wantondisco: it's not a good album.
Posted 10/04/2005 - 08:14:39 AM by whiteboysushi:
 I'm gonna have to side with Pitchfork on this one, and maybe also accuse Josh Love of a massive missing of the point (I haven't decided yet).
Posted 10/04/2005 - 08:20:08 AM by JimFitz:
 Pitchfork says cheeky where Josh says smarmy, and I'm inclined to agree with Mr. Love. Read Pitchfork's review again - a great singles band? As evidenced by the singles reviews here, Rachel Stevens outscores FF, at least for the volume of high-quality singles. This isn't a review of the band - the album is merely bad.
Posted 10/04/2005 - 08:57:37 AM by Marcopolo:
 Good album,bad review.
Posted 10/04/2005 - 09:26:09 AM by wmdavidson:
 I do think that FF's debut is overrated, but I'm still really looking forward to hearing this. I find that with a lot of hyped-up new bands, I'm disappointed in their debut but blown away by the follow-up. Strokes, Shins, New Pornographers. Maybe FF too.
Posted 10/04/2005 - 09:57:09 AM by whiteboysushi:
 "This isn't a review of the band." Oh, really? "While [Interpol, The Killers, Bloc Party, and The Strokes] are frequently willing to sacrifice their stylized façades in the face of a truly unifying moment of pop excellence (of course there’s “Evil,” “Mr. Brightside,” “Banquet,” and “Last Night” but also loads more), Franz always seems to pull back before making a similar leap of faith." I think what the Pitchfork review really nails is the fact that these *aren't* very good songs, but the band's charisma makes them enjoyable anyway. In the absence of a "Mr. Brightside" or "Little Thoughts" (sorry but "Banquet" just ain't all it's cracked up to be), I'm more than willing to let them play it cool, and the album as a whole benefits from it. The difference between me and Mr. Love seems to be that I wish there were better songs on here because I love FF and I wanted to be able to enjoy this album as much as their debut, and he wishes there were better songs on here because he dislikes the band and wants to be able to ignore their personalities.
Posted 10/04/2005 - 10:22:35 AM by pabanks46:
 I saw Franz in STL a week or so back, and must say, they were horrid and grating minus 'Take Me Out' which, EVERYONE, just kept waiting for. The new material is just as faceless as the old. Franz blows. 1 good video = just that.
Posted 10/04/2005 - 10:56:19 AM by bassman08:
 I'm seriously surprised. I have seen nothing but good reviews for this album, until I read this one. This review doesn't make me any less excited for the album or anything, but I'm just surprised, that's all. And pabanks, I saw them live last year-right after the debut came out-in Detroit. It was hardly even out but yet the entire audience knew every song. Even, like, the B-sides that aren't on the album. Their reaction to take me out was, "Ummm...ok, can you play 40 Ft. instead?" (No joke.) So maybe it was just the fact that now that they have one song on the radiomore people are going to go see them judging by that, and won't have heard the rest of the album. Either way, when I saw them live they were scorchingly good, so you just must've caught them on a bad day. Either that or you're just biased against them anyway.
Posted 10/04/2005 - 10:57:39 AM by whiteboysushi:
 To be fair, 40' is a pretty fantastic song.
Posted 10/04/2005 - 11:04:48 AM by bassman08:
 I love 40 Ft. I'm just saying, it was kind of funny that most of the fans wanted 40 Ft. over Take Me Out when the album had only been out like a week.
Posted 10/04/2005 - 11:43:32 AM by jmaxwell:
 Oh well, I guess everybody can't be Kelly Osbourne.
Posted 10/04/2005 - 11:43:41 AM by Zarklephaser:
 Flat-out awful review. This album should've been assigned to another Stylus writer.
Posted 10/04/2005 - 12:03:26 PM by Zarklephaser:
 I might add that sometimes it seems Stylus writers take the road less traveled just to appear hip, and that's why it seems Pitchfork gets it right about 75 percent of the time versus Stylus' 25 percent for albums on which the reviews significantly differ. It's not hip to hate on a pretty good album in all respects.
Posted 10/04/2005 - 12:10:15 PM by hansel:
 I'll join this choir without a rehearsal: Franz Ferdinand songs are forgettable. I can put my boots on and walk away from both albums at any time; which isn’t to say I don’t enjoy their faux homo dancehall songs while they’re safely residing in the background (and don’t we have Eno for background music). Though I really think their particular brand of mate baiting club bangers are best suited to a junior high homecoming than anything more substantial: Franz Ferdinand is Fast Food. We’re living in a time when better bands are consistently putting out high quality songs, when anybody with a four track and an internet connection can throw something amazing onto the internet. I don’t understand why Franz Ferdinand has to be a part of the dialogue.
Posted 10/04/2005 - 12:12:12 PM by GavinM:
 If they're such a great singles band... where are the great singles?
Posted 10/04/2005 - 12:21:48 PM by dioxido:
 for me this is not a c-. i'd give it a b-. the first one was outstanding (you may not agree but take me out, dark of the matinée, this fire and darts of pleasure are awsome singles) and overall the first one was cohesive and it really was a every-track-can-be-a-single album. the new one isn't as good, it has ups and's hard to identify songs that can be as loved as take me out was. the first single is good but it seems a little bit forced. the best songs (walk away and eleanor put your boots on) are a different kind of franz ferdinand. oh well my biggest fear is that the third album will be really shitty. i hope not.
Posted 10/04/2005 - 12:35:33 PM by lovezero:
 good rating:) i was fearing for the high rating that stylus may give. but congratulations for not doing so Josh:) Great disappointment in their music compared to their debut. i hope their third one disappoints all of us:)
Posted 10/04/2005 - 12:51:11 PM by IanMathers:
 Zarklephaser, is it really so threatening to your worldview for Josh to just genuinely not enjoy the album, much as many of your fellow commentators don't? Or are they just disliking this album to appear hip, too?
Posted 10/04/2005 - 01:00:37 PM by mturner:
 its a fun album. since when does everything have to be so damn esoteric or fucking ground breaking considered good. i listened to this last night while biking around the city and i had a good time. i know telling pitchfork and stylus readers to get out and do something active is like trying to convince a pornstar that abstinence is good thing. i mean the strokes made the same album twice and no one seemed to care. buy the ticket, take the ride, or dont, over analyze it and never buy another album unless fennesz or autechre release it, because if you listen to white noise long enough, you might convince yourself that its fun to dance to.
Posted 10/04/2005 - 01:03:45 PM by KlausFraktal:
 That is some awful cover art. They must be taking cues from OutHud.
Posted 10/04/2005 - 01:12:05 PM by wmdavidson:
 Can I just say that the fun/challenging dichotomy is bunk? Plenty of music is both groundbreaking and good fun. You don't need to look any further than the nearest Beatles album to see that. Likewise, a lot of simplistic/immediate music is no fun at all (paging Kelly Clarkson).
Posted 10/04/2005 - 01:55:37 PM by mikepowell:
 Mturner, if you think that Stylus readers are an inert bunch, you should see the writers, we're enormous. And since when does "I like it while biking" necessarily exempt it from getting a sub-par grade? Furthermore, it seems like whenever Stylus gives a bad review to a commercial album, we get shit on for being esoteric, but when we give a good review to a commercial album, we're horrible bourgeois drones or something. Jeez guys, I thought Josh did a decent job of stating his feelings on the record (as did the Pitchfork review). Two different opinions, that's all.
Posted 10/04/2005 - 02:11:07 PM by kuttor:
 It's really strange, how many music geeks hate Franz with a passion. In my opinion, it's a really strong follow-up on an almost flawless debut album. There are one or two songs which seem rushed, but can't understand, how can anyone seriously think that the Rachel Stevens album with that neutral plastic voice could be better than this. And I like the Rachel Stevens album too, but come on...
Posted 10/04/2005 - 02:52:18 PM by boilingboy:
 These guys don't offend me; which is not bad with so much crap on the radio. They don't excite me either; nothing here that others haven't done better, 20 years before when it meant something. Could it be that the best reaction to FF is just....nothing? They'll pleasently fade back into the woodwork like the Strokes, no matter how much Pitchfork tries to avoid admitting they overdid the hype.
Posted 10/04/2005 - 02:56:24 PM by kuttor:
 boilingboy: Pitchfork?? Maybe you confuse Franz Ferdinand with Clap Your Hands Say Yeah.
Posted 10/04/2005 - 03:00:36 PM by boilingboy:
 Why do you say that? CYHSY has a beeter album anyway, though tinny sounding.
Posted 10/04/2005 - 03:08:31 PM by jcampbell:
 Can I ask a question? How's the production? The shitty production values ruined the debut for me (I'm Scottish, and happened to have seen the band a few times before the debut), so I'm curious to know before I pick this one up.
Posted 10/04/2005 - 03:12:38 PM by kuttor:
 Because the first FF album was hyped by everyone, and rightly so. I know it's uncool to like 'generic indie' among music geeks these days, but if something is good, than there is no reason for being negative.
Posted 10/04/2005 - 03:19:19 PM by mturner:
 mikepowell - you are twitching in your waterbed to fennesz's venice right now, aren't you. I am not saying it is groudbreaking, I was just saying that a guy have kelly osbourne an A- and franz ferndinand a C- and I seriously doubt either will change the way we look at music, but fun has got to count for something. I'm droppin e and takin my franz ferdinand down to a closing cbgb's and rockin it with the hobos. peace.
Posted 10/04/2005 - 03:20:11 PM by boilingboy:
 Good point. I just don't see what all the fuss is about with FF though. And I do like Interpol's first album; so I suppose that sometimes the hype is reasonable.
Posted 10/04/2005 - 03:35:49 PM by AlfredSoto:
 "I was just saying that a guy have kelly osbourne an A- and franz ferndinand a C- and I seriously doubt either will change the way we look at music, but fun has got to count for something." Exactly. The album sucked cuz it wasn't fun, whereas Kelly Osbourne's album was more fun. Easy.
Posted 10/04/2005 - 04:04:07 PM by bassman08:
 "If they're such a great singles band... where are the great singles?" Uhh...well, there's that one song called "Take Me Out". Maybe you've heard of it. "Darts Of Pleasure" and "Michael" are also damn good, even if you're not a huge fan of the band...
Posted 10/04/2005 - 04:38:29 PM by roadrunner:
 I haven't yet heard this album, but I still don't really agree with the idea that "good albums are fun albums." If this were really true, webzines wouldn't give albums like the new Eels piece or Antony & the Johnsons' delightful mope-fest such high regards. Beauty at times is easily surpassed by "fun," yes, but the same can certainly be said for the flip-side of that. Many listeners - including myself, really - liked to be challenged by music (look at Merzbow or Metal Machine Music; look at On the Corner for goodness sakes), and whether or not it's "fun" shouldn't necessarily be the big deciding factor. As for Franz Ferdinand, I thought their first album was a blast (and heck yes it was fun). Also, please notice that Mr. Love previously reviewed Kelly Clarkson's stuff; could that be a hint of his preferences and experience? I don't know.
Posted 10/04/2005 - 07:17:11 PM by 1900usa:
 Wow. Obviously dissent isn't taken to well around here. Which one of you is Chairman Mao? look, the point of a review is for the reviewer to express his opinion on a record. it's hardly to express what he thinks everybody thinks about it or will think about it. the point is not to agree with everybody else. the whole point about music is to have your own opinion. if you say "i disagree", that's fair, but it's not fair to say "the person who wrote this is an idiot". that's just stupid, really. if josh love doesn't like the record, he doesn't like the record. Zarklephaser - why should they give it to someone who they know will love it? they should give it to whoever is available to write. There is no objective view on music. if you wanted to be objective, the best you could say about a record is that some people will like it and some people won't.
Posted 10/04/2005 - 07:18:11 PM by JohnCameron:
 I like the new album, the band is best in three-to-four-minute bursts, I think that being cocky and smarmy is the band's best asset, etcetera. Josh, a lot of words and generally sound reasoning even if I disagree, but is it necessary to refer to so much that ISN'T Franz Ferdinand? I realize no album exists in a bubble but really I think you need to focus a little more on the album and the band in question instead of just referring to a) their contemporaries, b) who Franz Ferdinand sound like, and c) who Alex Kapranos is going out with. In other words, less talk more rock (criticism).
Posted 10/04/2005 - 07:24:53 PM by PaulScott:
 Preferring Ziggy Stardust to Diamond Dogs is the real problem here. 1984, Big Brother, Candidate (Sweet Thing) I would say that there is the best Bowie "acting" on that album also far better, certainly more interesting tunes than Ziggy. Franz seem quite unpretentious to me, no more arch than The Sweet really.
Posted 10/04/2005 - 09:16:00 PM by BeingaBunny:
 I haven't heard the new album yet, but Love has poor taste in music. He loves mediocre country acts like Gretchen Wilson (he gave her album a B) and that terrible Kelly Osbourne album (gave that one an A-!). I think what I'm trying to say is obvious.
Posted 10/04/2005 - 11:51:48 PM by bebopkid:
 i hate this hipster rant that the strokes/interpol/franz ferdinand are overrated bands. franz first album was great. the hype was beyond them, nonetheless, i believe them to be a good band. the stl show was good. i have only heard some of the new stuff and so far and it is okay, but i am looking forward to listening to it more closely. whether or not the new ff album is a flop or not doesnt bother me. it is the stupid hipster claims on music. like how Discovery is better than OK Computer (even though i like it better, i still disagree). i apologize for this stupid blurb, but this has been bothering me for some time now.
Posted 10/05/2005 - 12:31:55 AM by mturner:
 wow that was good e. anyways, sometimes i agree with the zen thought that the absence of thought is enlightenment and sometimes i want to listen to supersilent's 1-3 in succession. i dont think you should always require groundbreaking or or have to point out influences. if the night is right, the e good and the beats are kickin, enjoy it and take it for what it is worth and although you might hate the album in three weeks, dont think about it now, deal when it hits. i think (opinion) josh wanted to hate the album before listening and i know the feeling, i hated room on fire before i bought it and sold it back, but i didnt publish my feelings, i held them inside and sneered at others. i guess my point is that is you liked it, fine, if you didnt, fine, but everyone posting on this review should be taking more e. godspeed, i have the wed demons waiting for me.
Posted 10/05/2005 - 01:33:57 AM by TheBrad:
 If you had really taken E, you wouldn't be in the Stylus comments section. What a waste of good drugs.
Posted 10/05/2005 - 04:20:17 AM by Zarklephaser:
 1900usa - I highly doubt Mr. Love's mostly low opinion of this sophomore album represents the general consensus of well-informed Stylus writers. The same applies to his unfounded praise of Ms. Osbourne's latest aural diarrhea. The bottom line is that it's a solid album, and unless 90 percent of our Stylus friends disagree, I think it's proper for someone of the majority opinion to pen the review.
Posted 10/05/2005 - 04:25:30 AM by Zarklephaser:
 Oh, I almost forgot. Here's a site tailored just for people like you, Mr. Love, and your poor, misguided tastes.
Posted 10/05/2005 - 06:14:07 AM by JimFitz:
 Good contribution, Zarklephaser. Seriously though, does anyone actually believe that Josh Love is supressing his taste in music just to appear 'hip'?
Posted 10/05/2005 - 06:15:06 AM by boilingboy:
 Zarklephaser you are awesome. I luaghed my ass of at the bad taste in music site. Thanks for articulating what certainly feel. Bad music is bad music....ironic anti-hipster posing, or not.
Posted 10/05/2005 - 06:16:00 AM by boilingboy:
 Wow...I should spellcheck before posting.
Posted 10/05/2005 - 06:42:17 AM by whiteboysushi:
 "Seriously though, does anyone actually believe that Josh Love is supressing his taste in music just to appear 'hip'?" I wouldn't go that fair, but I definitely think that he's trying pretty hard to justify his pre-existing dislike of the band (they should be more like Interpol or Bloc Party, but also more fun? wtf, mate). There's nothing wrong with that, of course... unless you're a music critic, in which case, oh yeah, there is.
Posted 10/05/2005 - 10:35:50 AM by kuttor:
 Kill all hipsters!
Posted 10/05/2005 - 01:23:29 PM by cwperry:
 I said it when the debut came out, and I will say it again: Franz Ferdinand is fashion, and in 20 years we will make fun of them like we make fun of Duran Duran. (Unless, of course, we're in another bewildering nostalgia phase where we think we have to pretend Duran Duran was a great band.)
Posted 10/05/2005 - 01:27:58 PM by cwperry:
 Per my comment immediately above: I will say that I bought the first one, and I'll buy this one. Even though it's merely the 2005 equivalent of "The Politics of Dancing" by Re-Flex. At any rate, in 1982 everyone tried to pretend Duran Duran's Rio was an important, cutting-edge album. But if it makes you feel good, fuck it, go with it. I can enjoy it even if it's disposable.
Posted 10/05/2005 - 03:46:45 PM by roadrunner:
 Man, you guys are all so mean. Get yr own opinions, for goodness sakes, if you don't or do like something, don't just blast someone for holding their views. I think that's the cheapest shot someone can give another person, and we as viewers of these postings are just as bad as those who are addicted to reality shows on television. I feel sick.
Posted 10/05/2005 - 07:48:24 PM by edwardo:
 Duran Duran was a great band.
Posted 10/06/2005 - 11:26:57 AM by gnarles:
 Sorry, but I think Josh Love just flatly missed it here. It's a great album that has maintained my fickle interest over repeated plays. And I find it amusing that Love accusses Franz of not being genuine, while at the same time he bends over backwards to justify slamming an album for such petty reasons. Strange, considering someone who thinks Kelly Clarkson songs are "great" would excel at accomplished bullshit.
Posted 10/06/2005 - 11:34:56 AM by bassman08:
 OK, so after having listened to this two times through, my verdict: it's a good album, but not quite up to par with the first one. I'd give it a B+ maybe. I don't like the slower, balladsy songs as much-I would have preferred the dance songs like "Michael" or "Auf Achse", but they took those away for the ballad type songs. So I'd say that I like the rock (I love "This Boy" and "Evil and A Heathen"), but more dance would have been nice too.
Posted 10/06/2005 - 12:36:32 PM by dmassey:
 Right! Firstly poor review far too much emphasis on the bands image and not enough attention to the music blah blah blah…. Yeah big deal, but our intrepid Mr Love has got a point but it does not affect the album in the slightest BUT it does make the live performances a bit stiff but that’s not what’s being reviewed, it’s a studio album for the love of Mars Bars (ala Marianne Faithful). I was looking forward to this album and have had it on advance order for some time, but my heart sank when I heard Do You Want To. I nearly cancelled the order in disgust at what sounds like the theme tune to an 80’s game show but I gave them one last chance and they pulled it off. The album expands their established sound and pushes in new directions, which is precisely what I want to hear and I love this album, but I still have to skip track two which makes it the first album I have ever needed to skip a track on. C+ in my estimation, now get on and review The Dead 60s.
Posted 10/06/2005 - 08:10:21 PM by BreeVanDeKamp:
 "You Could Have It..." certainly doesn't deserve a C-, however there are some awful songs in the second half of the album that ruins it. The debut is a classic; "You Could Have It..." is forgettable.
Posted 10/07/2005 - 08:35:33 AM by Solist:
 Well, Franz Ferdinand proved they will massively sell out their name, fame and fortune once the media takes notice. They're all the public ever wanted for the new age - outrageous, hedonist, provocative (the name does own a certain provo-degree in the wake of one Joy Division). Personally I like them for what they are because they (are not afraid to) admit they're a bunch of wankers - the fact you all want them to be alternative, indie and intact from mainstream exposure, is your own problem. Since I heard butchering of 'Take Me Out' in various (and painful) remix/cover versions, I knew 'You Could Have It So Much Better' was something more like rejected works from the debut. Too fast and somewhat boring - a rush of things into the band being pressurised by the public expectations since the debut ran in and out... The irony has it, it is not Franz Ferdinand that made themselves so famous, it is you - the media and the audience. They still are the next best thing and I agree they deserve C- for all this album's worth. Because, if Franz Ferdinand are the best band in recent years, I wonder what happens then with Pulp, so much remembered Gang of Four or Josef K... These bands left an impressive body of work behind them. Franz are aware of that. And probably have a juicy laugh reading all these posts, us philosophying our guts out to make a point... To some, it is mediocre - the others should stop ignoring the music which made FF happen. Update your listening. Personally I bought this one for the cover alone - in their image, the band reveal almost menacing touches of a certain Laibach. The music is nice but not revolutionary - it only fulfills the artwork with a blast. That's all... C- indeed.
Posted 10/07/2005 - 11:46:07 AM by tomburg:
 Josh Love gives Kelly Osbourne's latest twice the score of this album. That's all you have to know about this guy's taste. In fact, because of that, I think a C- from him turns out to be a bigger endorsement of the Franz album than an A would have. Thanks, Mr. Love!
Posted 10/07/2005 - 12:06:28 PM by Zarklephaser:
 tomburg: Well stated.
Posted 10/07/2005 - 03:21:09 PM by boilingboy:
 Yes, very well said. Josh should be paid a visit by the You Have Bad Taste in Music guy, while standing in line for the Hillary Duff concert. But, I guess I'm just a "rockist" or "anti-mainstream hipster".
Posted 10/07/2005 - 04:37:54 PM by BreeVanDeKamp:
 A tad immature are we? The lamest thing to do when disagreeing with a review is to attack the taste of the reviewer. Yes, some people here ARE rockist, because they attack someone simply because he prefers Osbourne and Clarkson to FF... What kind of special status FF have, that they HAVE to be considered above some female pop singers?
Posted 10/07/2005 - 04:45:46 PM by tomburg:
 Immature is calling everything in art subjective. If you really want to discuss music, honestly comparing Kelly Osbourne to Franz Ferdinand would be like comparing Picasso to my 1st grade hamfisted attempts at water color painting.
Posted 10/07/2005 - 07:48:52 PM by BreeVanDeKamp:
 We have to take each review more independently. No one is comparing Franz to Osbourne; the reviewer simply enjoyed the latest Osbourne album, but didn't like "You Could Have It So Much Better". I don't know Josh Love, maybe he DOES have bad taste in music, but people seem to base their judgement on him with 2 reviews only, which is silly.
Posted 10/08/2005 - 02:05:32 AM by TheBrad:
 So what do you do with his B+ for Fiery Furnaces and his A for Kanye? Or his B- for (shudder) the Shins? Are those not convenient?
Posted 10/08/2005 - 08:33:38 AM by JoshLove:
 I do have terrible taste in music, I've never made a secret of that.
Posted 10/13/2005 - 12:13:09 AM by tomburg:
 then kudos to Stylus for implementing an affirmative action program. Clearly you got hired to fill a quota.
Posted 10/21/2005 - 04:44:12 AM by teenagesodomy:
 This Josh Love character is a salad tosser of the highest order. Franz Ferdinand gets a "C-" while KELLY OSBOURNE gets an "A-"?!! This shows was a complete shit-for-brains loser this guy is. What a fucking moron that has no business reviewing anything. Like they say, there's no accounting for taste, but this guy should be taken outside and shot.
Posted 10/28/2005 - 02:06:08 PM by jhitting:
 Teenage Sodomy is right...wait a I like the cover of this album. It looks nice. She is pretty. Franz Ferdinand has been dead since that sad day in 1914...or was it another year entirely?...he he...teenage sodomy...
Posted 10/28/2005 - 10:20:13 PM by RAJtafari:
 You're a jealous geezer aren't you Josh Love? Don't slag off a band just because the lead singer's shagging a bird that you can't get near, because, well that's just smarmy yourself and shows that your comments aren't really valid. And you like the Fiery Furnaces? Ha, ha, SAAAAAAAAAD! OK, this isn't a 'great' album, and does require the use of the skip/CTRL F button quite a lot, but that doesn't mean this is crap, no it's not C-. Yes, rather amateurish, very English, very NOW, it won't be around in ten years time, but these guys have got the industry by the scruff of the neck and they're making things work for them by the ethic of hard work and determination. And getting laid, whereas you're not.
Posted 11/06/2005 - 12:17:54 AM by TheChaletLines:
 While Mr. Love's apparent musical taste is a tad bit ridiculous, I detest this review because the actual album isn't even partially discussed until the sixth paragraph. I'm not reading this to hear about Kelly Clarkson or Thom Yorke or David Bowie. I'm not reading this to gain groundbreaking insight into the band's persona. I read this to find out about the music, which I guess isn't a priority to Stylus reviewers. The only reason Love seems to be on Franz's case is because they sound too similar to their contemporaries...but do you really think Alex Kapranos (or anyone) gives a crap about Kasabian? Speaking of Kapranos, I don't think anyone's heralded him as a poet (nor is Mr. Banks), so to trash a perfectly fine song over one line is a tad bit petty. Tsk,tsk.