|
|
Post by sickmouthy on May 29, 2009 15:55:29 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by sickmouthy on May 29, 2009 16:02:26 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by jay on May 29, 2009 16:03:55 GMT
thanks for all those links, when i get a moment i'll pop them into the FAQs. the teletext one doesn't work, by the way.
ouch about gigwise, though. i had no idea they did that to you. i wrote a review for them recently, it was a stressful experience.
|
|
|
|
Post by cometojoy on May 29, 2009 16:31:36 GMT
i just read the nme review and i can agree that it was odd. although i would prefer for them to get their facts straight before ranting off about such things; patrick's label is not bandstocks.
|
|
|
|
Post by naaaat on May 29, 2009 17:17:44 GMT
I've got an NME subscription, so it came on Wednesday and I thought "Ooooh, 7 out of 10, that's not bad!"
And then I actually read the review and really didn't get it to be honest, it didn't actually seem complimentary enough to justify the 7... So yes, that was odd!
|
|
|
|
Post by verocs on May 29, 2009 18:21:15 GMT
[quote author=sickmouthy board=pw thread=3969 post=166379 3.5 from Gigwise, who are essentially the music section of a bad student union paper stuck online (I once had someone from here sacked because he plagiarised me in a 65daysofstatic review): www.gigwise.com/reviews/albums/50867/Patrick-Wolf---'The-Bachelor'-Bloody-Chamber-Released-010609 [/quote] I've posted that in FAQ already  and the photos are great on gigwise especially the ones done by me. all masterpieces!  |
|
|
|
Post by dumbnoteclectic on May 30, 2009 11:54:22 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Rhiflect on May 30, 2009 11:56:56 GMT
It's really hard for me to read these interviews and not be like 'WHAT?!?!?!' everytime something negative is stated. Like thickets said, it's a bit of a knee-jerk reaction for me.
|
|
