Not in the sense of a panning, three out of five isn't that bad, but more "who is this cunt and how in god's name did he manage to get a professional writing job?"
How is this man employable as a credible music journalist? Ripped the article out the paper in the pub pre gig in disgust and screwed it up, no wonder they give the Evening Standard away free.
Yeah, when I was on the way to my departure gate at Stansted early on Thursday morning I walked past a stand of two free newspapers - The Standard and The Daily Mail. No surprise that they can barely give them away.
I was in a rush but later on the plane was annoyed I hadn't picked up the Standard as I thought they might have a review of the Wed night gig in it. Just as well I didn't bother.
I'm pretty sure that there's a John Aizlewood that writes for the music mags and I think he's written positive reviews of Pulp and Jarvis stuff before. Kinda sad that he got a free pass and paid(!) to write such uninformed gubbins when many genuine fans would have given their right arm to see the show.
I really don't care if anyone writes a negative review of a Pulp gig, or anything else for that matter, but the sheer ill-informed uselessness of the whole thing and the buttock-clenchingly embarrassing attempts to shoehorn in what he imagines to be clever references just astounds me.
^doubt if he's ever written a positive thing about Pulp. If he did, I'll be surprised. IIRC, he referred to Pulp as the "worst band ever". Damn, I hope someone would back me up on that claim but he did. He probably composed that review days before he saw the gig and finally had the chance to unleash the vitriol incl the right said fred w/ nothern accents joke he's been aching to use, but then he saw Richard hawley, so he revised his earlier draft and included positive spots, hehe. He's notorious for giving favorable ratings to awful bands on Q mag that it doesn't feel celebratory when he gives my fave bands a positive one. He may be vile and mean-spirited but I respect his reviews more than that of Pitchfork. At least that is how he genuinely feels and not a contrarian for contrarian's sake. We were discussing about that infuriating review on twitter and quite a lot of people were surprised he gave a "generous" 3.
The reviewer comes across as an attention-grabbing little shit that needs a good smack on the back of the head. Using petty snipes to cover up for his lack of knowledge and substance is pathetic and piss-poor.
Very thoughtful review of first night of Brixton by Kitty Empire in The Observer today but it doesn't seem to be online yet. I disagree with her about Wickerman though - it was one of the highlights for me.
__________________
Her house was very small with woodchip on the wall
According to Pulp's publicist: "Russell has been dealing in antique glassware, foraging for fungi, systemising his collection of herbs, writing a geologically themed novel and is currently working on a gay musical set during the miners' strike."
According to Pulp's publicist: "Russell has been dealing in antique glassware, foraging for fungi, systemising his collection of herbs, writing a geologically themed novel and is currently working on a gay musical set during the miners' strike."
!
well if that isn't better than playing in pulp I don't know what is