Killers, The - Day & Age

[Blake Solomon]

The Killers – Day & Age
Record Label: Island Records
Release Date: November 25, 2008

A few days ago I was walking home, saving emissions, and generally minding my own business. I diverted my attention from the asphalt in front of me to wave at some hotties who had recognized me as “The Blake Solomon” – this happens quite a bit, so as you can guess, I’ve become pretty good at multi-tasking. Well, for whatever reason, my gaze missed a big honking piece of gum in the path. I planted my left, neon green Dunk right on top of this abomination. Ew! Yucky! The fragment was so big that it threw my walk off, making it look like I was hiding a peg leg under my corduroys, which, admittedly, would have been awesome. But no, all I had was someone’s Juicy Fruit and no equilibrium.

Being a germaphobe (this is not a word – Ed.), I didn’t dare touch this piece of gum until returning home. I always keep spare sets of doctor’s latex gloves in my desk just for situations such as this. I highly recommend keeping a box around, especially if you have a dog or a f**king filthy roommate who somehow manages to leave his underwear in the most ridiculous of places.

By the time I arrived home a blister was forming from all the limping. For all their flashy girl appeal, Dunks do a shitty job of comforting the foot. I could barely make it up the stairs to my desk, and indeed I didn’t, because I realized the gum was stuck to the carpet. I was caught in quicksand made of saliva and whatever the hell Xantham is. Knowing that my housemates could barge in at any second and see me stuck to the stairs, I had to act quick. I removed my shoe, which I should have done ages ago, and rushed to put on my gloves. I also stopped for some Kool-Aid, but that’s just because I’m an idiot who has no time management skills.

Naturally, “Tim” arrives home to see me hunched over the 4th step, wearing doctor’s gloves and sweating buckets. He asked if there was any more Kool-Aid, I grunted yes, and he lurched away. That wasn’t so bad. I had forgotten that a few weeks ago I caught him watching Wizards of Waverly Place much too late on a weekend night. He owed, and cut, me some slack. It’s a roommate code; weird things are going to happen to all involved, so don’t dwell on them.

Back to the story: I removed the gum only after a call to my mother. There’s some sort of magic solution only moms know that removes gum from carpets. And apparently just by my voice she knew I hadn’t eaten any vegetables that day. What a saint. I was just glad the ordeal was over. And, yes, glad that I was too busy to notice Day & Age, the wretched abomination that is The Killers' new album, playing over and over and over again through my headphones. Ew! Yucky!


Recommended If You Like: Panic! at the Disco and freeze pops


www.myspace.com/thekillers (http://2bordercollies.net/dog_lick.jpg)

[AloneInTheDark]

haha, that gave me a good laugh...it's not that terrible though.
Good story.

[FUCKDIRTYWIPES]

haha nice. havnt heard this yet, but based on the single, this has to be DIRT.

[jbaseball44]

Enjoyed the read Blake.

[Anton Djamoos]

Cool album art!

[combatchuckaa]

I'd like an actual "review" of their new album. I get that you thought the album was awful, but why?

[Gregory Robson]

You can't blame this album for sucking, Brandon Flowers is still trying to grapple with the fact that Rufus Wainwright wants to jump his bones.

[djsclaus]

wtf kind of review is this blake? thanks for the three sentences on the actual album

i'd give this a 65% at least, this album isnt that bad at all. it'll grow on me..

[c_rob2700]

I lol'd, gonna get so much shit from kids who don't understand what's going on

[RetardedInLove]

Wow, I haven't heard this yet and I am still excited for it, but man that's a low score.

[jbaseball44]

here come the comments "you didn't write anything about the album". Just stay away from this album unless you enjoy awful music. Instead, enjoy reading Blakes review which is ultimately more satisfying then the album itself.

[Drew Beringer]

HAHAHAHAHA still haven't listened to this album, but great review

[jbaseball44]

HAHAHAHAHA still haven't listened to this album, but great review
Sweet avatar Drew, just bought that two days ago.

[fluke182]

Hmm. Not much of a review. Haven't heard it yet, so it may yet deserve it, but typically albums at least deserve analysis of some sort, regardless of how bad they may be.

[PlusDanny]

I think Pitchfork's review of Jet's last album had more merit and meat behind it.

[Jamos4184]

That was pretty funny. I'll still be checkin this out, though.

[Blake Solomon]

wtf kind of review is this blake? thanks for the three sentences on the actual album

i'd give this a 65% at least, this album isnt that bad at all. it'll grow on me..
I believe there was only one sentence about the album.

[Jeremy Aaron]

While I wasn't too thrilled with "Human" (which would have been much cooler had it been a cover of the Human League song), I thought it might signal a return to their neo-New Wave style of Hot Fuss. Apparently, it didn't quite work out so well. I'm still anxious to hear this.

[Hawt]

Funny, but useless as a "review".

[combatchuckaa]

While I wasn't too thrilled with "Human" (which would have been much cooler had it been a cover of the Human League song), I thought it might signal a return to their neo-New Wave style of Hot Fuss. Apparently, it didn't quite work out so well. I'm still anxious to hear this.

Am I wrong to say that it might still turn out to be a return to their older sound, considering you haven't even heard the rest of the album? ...you're basing your opinion on the one sentence this guy wrote about the new album. What if it's actually not as bad as he claims?

[awakeohsleeper]

Best review I've read for ages.

[cautionandcrime]

yeah...i thought this was a review, not some stupid blog entry on the wonders of goo gone...

[boykosaurus]

Probably the best (or entertaining) review you have written.

[FatJordan]

EDIT: Nevermind...on that first part. Whatever.

But yeah, this album is horrible. 27% seems like you're STILL getting paid off by the label to review it, a piece of my heart crumbled after hearing it.

[Özgür Kurtoglu]

Ah...I enjoy stuff like this...haha. You should really move to Sweden and come work for us, we need more reviews like this. Very Pitchfork-esque, which I always enjoy if it is done right. Nicely done, Blake.

[princesschad]

I guess I'll look elsewhere for a review that actually reviews.

[oldskool]

wow, that was so not funny.

[denissuxx]

WIerddd review haha

[Blake Solomon]

Am I wrong to say that it might still turn out to be a return to their older sound, considering you haven't even heard the rest of the album? ...you're basing your opinion on the one sentence this guy wrote about the new album. What if it's actually not as bad as he claims?
You could ask that question about any review, regardless of the person's intellectual or seriousness level. That's kind of the point of this whole thing.

Reviewing can get boring. This album is boring. Why must I mentally harm myself for something I consider a hobby? I'd rather have some fun, for me, which is all that matters because I'm self-centered.

[combatchuckaa]

You could ask that question about any review, regardless of the person's intellectual or seriousness level. That's kind of the point of this whole thing.

Reviewing can get boring. This album is boring. Why must I mentally harm myself for something I consider a hobby? I'd rather have some fun, for me, which is all that matters because I'm self-centered.

Alright, I get what you're saying and I agree. I just wanted to know what you thought of the album beyond that it was "yucky" and since you replied to my post by saying the album was boring, I now have a better idea of why you didn't like it- so thanks!

[djsclaus]

I believe there was only one sentence about the album.
i counted "ew" and "yucky" as sentences

[allhollows86]

Good review Blake, but you could have cut down the review from 3 sentences to one word "Horrible".
I got to admit that i really like their first album but it seems that their really trying to hard. To me the killers are one of those bands that you expect good catchy music like AAR. But they fail again just like sams town.

[Blake Solomon]

I'm just curious but do you happen to like Sam's Town or Hot Fuss? I might not completely agree with your review but it's still fucking hilarious.
I like Hot Fuss a great deal. I thought Sam's Town had great singles and the rest blew.

This is, I guess, closer to Hot Fuss, but if this was their debut album, they'd be on their asses already.

[rodericknj]

i must be the only person that likes this album a lot. hah.

[Blake Solomon]

When is 1200 central standard time. I want to get tickets for the Where's the Band tour
It's 11:06 AM CST right now

[elmakias]

man, i thought this album was awesome. Maybe im missin something.

[jaryd]

so blake doesn't like freeze pops?

[airik625]

Still need to listen to this. If anything this review makes me want to like it.

[djsclaus]

this album is way better than blake's review

like sam's town? it'll grow on you

[Blake Solomon]

That is 100% true. I'm giving it another listen right now and I'm still not feeling it. You reviewed Sam's Town and give it like a 50% or so, right? I love that album but to each his own
Yes, but that was written for a different site, and was one of the first reviews I had ever written. I was still getting used to the rating system, and if I were to re-do the rating, it would score right around this one.

[TKTKrob]

HAHAHAHAHA still haven't listened to this album, but great review
How is this a great review? It's really not a review at all.

[we are cured]

it's not that bad, there are a few standout moments but for the most part it doesn't live up to hot fuss or sam's town.

[radials]

I think this is a horrible review.

I have listened to Human ... that song is quite incredible. I can not give my opinion on the album as I have not heard it.

[Blake Solomon]

Oh. This is completely unrelated but it staff going to review William Control or the new Espace the Fate? They would make for some good laughs.
I don't know what William Control is, but the EtF album is muy terrible

[simpleawakening]

lmao great review

[batmannj]

Oh. This is completely unrelated but it staff going to review William Control or the new Espace the Fate? They would make for some good laughs.

I don't know what William Control is, but the EtF album is muy terrible

i agree with both of those statements. i went to go see chiodos in grand rapids last week, and etf comes out like they are God's gift to the music scene. their drummer came on stage, flipped off the 6 or 7 under 16 year old girls who were cheering for them, then he grabbed his package, not to mention that he was wearing a full-lenth leopard print coat that made him look like a douchebag. then during the show, they are acted like bad boys (i guess being from las vegas makes you hxc d00d.) and the drummer played the most simple fills i have ever heard.

basically eft blows.

[LongDistanceDrunk]

i agree with both of those statements. i went to go see chiodos in grand rapids last week, and etf comes out like they are God's gift to the music scene. their drummer came on stage, flipped off the 6 or 7 under 16 year old girls who were cheering for them, then he grabbed his package, not to mention that he was wearing a full-lenth leopard print coat that made him look like a douchebag. then during the show, they are acted like bad boys (i guess being from las vegas makes you hxc d00d.) and the drummer played the most simple fills i have ever heard.

basically eft blows.
LOL. This band is terrible and hopefully will ago away soon. The only good thing they did was make hilarious news posts on AP from that dude in jail

[ActionActionFan]

Not much of a review, but definitely a good read.

[Tony Pascarella]

Probably the best (or entertaining) review you have written.False. But that's because there's more to the one I'm thinking of than meets the eye.

I'm struggling to find good new albums lately; mostly everything I've heard has been a great big ball of weak.

[PopPunkKid]

Pretty terrible album. Even the 3 better songs- "Human", "Spaceman", and "I Cant Stay"- can't even hold a candle to The Killers' previous work.

[tragedyco]

Didnt like it ok, but did you like Sams Town?

[SteveLikesMusic]

amazing review

[Jared George]

Wow, I don't get the hate for this album, especially the 27% review. I've only heard a few songs off the CD so far, but what I have heard definitely doesn't justify a 27% or anywhere close to that (and I'm not even a huge fan of The Killers). But I guess that may be more limited to this website, because based on the many other reviews linked to on the album's Wikipedia page, it's getting a lot better reception elsewhere. Heck, Chris Martin from Coldplay even said that "Human" is 'the most perfect pop song of 2008.'

Any hey, if it's good enough for Chris Martin, it's good enough for me.

[Blake Solomon]

Didnt like it ok, but did you like Sams Town?
Nope, liked Hot Fuss.

[Blake Solomon]

Wow, I don't get the hate for this album, especially the 27% review. I've only heard a few songs off the CD so far, but what I have heard definitely doesn't justify a 27% or anywhere close to that (and I'm not even a huge fan of The Killers). But I guess that may be more limited to this website, because based on the many other reviews linked to on the album's Wikipedia page, it's getting a lot better reception elsewhere. Heck, Chris Martin from Coldplay even said that "Human" is 'the most perfect pop song of 2008.'

Any hey, if it's good enough for Chris Martin, it's good enough for me.
"Human" is a good song, and the rest is a big letdown. Maybe the 3 songs you heard are the only good ones. Maybe the rest blow, which would then make the 27% justified!

a + b = I WIN!

[Özgür Kurtoglu]

Wow, I don't get the hate for this album, especially the 27% review. I've only heard a few songs off the CD so far, but what I have heard definitely doesn't justify a 27% or anywhere close to that (and I'm not even a huge fan of The Killers). But I guess that may be more limited to this website, because based on the many other reviews linked to on the album's Wikipedia page, it's getting a lot better reception elsewhere. Heck, Chris Martin from Coldplay even said that "Human" is 'the most perfect pop song of 2008.'

Any hey, if it's good enough for Chris Martin, it's good enough for me.
Then again, Chris Martin names his kids Apple and Moses, and talks about ending Coldplay in a year because being 33 makes you "too old to perform"...

[Drew Beringer]

How is this a great review? It's really not a review at all.
whatever then, it was a great piece of writing.

[tragedyco]

Nope, liked Hot Fuss.

I see. Well I thought Sam's Town was better than Hot Fuss, but thought they both were pretty good. I like "Human," so i'm inclined to at least check this out.

[midtown4657]

i heard 30 seconds of that single and i plan on staying far away from this record. i loved sam's town. but this one just doesn't seem like its for me. the review made me laugh though.

[OCNickLTJ13]

This is pathetic. I don't know if this reviewer is trying to be funny or what. Hey, buddy, why don't you submit this as a serious piece of criticism (as it was presented) to any reputable source of music journalism and see if you get the job. This egotistical piece of drivel wasn't smart, funny or interesting, however, most importantly, it wasn't a record review either...

Perhaps you are trying to insert yourself into the piece, like Klosterman or Thompson, if that is in fact the case... EPIC FAIL

[B-Bones]

It's way better than Sam's Town. That's for sure.

[Holly HoX!]

this is dumb. i can't believe you guys let this pass off as an album review...this should be a blog post that no one reads. it's fine to do it this way, but you didn't even talk about how or why the album was bad whatsoever. i hated it and this is a sorry excuse for journalism.

[r_r_repeat]

i must be the only person that likes this album a lot. hah.
Nope! I loved it. :)

Although this "review" was funny.

[FaceLixeMurder]

While that was a very entertaining story, please explain more thoroughly why it is so horrible. Granted I have heard the single and it is disgusting to say the least, I really enjoyed Sam's Town so I thought they could pull off something better.

[ddojo]

It'd be a lot more helpful for me (and I think a lot of others) if you could actually write a real review of the album. Your review doesn't give me anything to base your thoughts on. There are the individual ratings on the side, but I don't know how you came up with them. When reading a review it helps a lot to see a score, and then actually get some reasoning for that score. I came to the review hoping to be able to decide whether or not I would buy the album, but you didn't really say anything about it - so I have no way to predict how much or little I might like it.

I don't care if you write things like what you did in this review, but why call it a review? It's not, so it doesn't really belong where it is. Maybe AP should start a humor section and this type of writing could go there? What's the point of taking the time to write this if it's not going to help anyone make their decision whether or not to buy the album? Your Anathallo review was fine, why stray from writing like that? I don't mean to be annoying or seem rude, it's just that it wasn't a review.

[saving jonathan]

Great story. I'll give you that.
Yet, I still know absolutely nothing about this record other than you pretty much hate it.

That doesn't do me a whole lot of good.

[Holly HoX!]

This is pathetic. I don't know if this reviewer is trying to be funny or what. Hey, buddy, why don't you submit this as a serious piece of criticism (as it was presented) to any reputable source of music journalism and see if you get the job. This egotistical piece of drivel wasn't smart, funny or interesting, however, most importantly, it wasn't a record review either...

Perhaps you are trying to insert yourself into the piece, like Klosterman or Thompson, if that is in fact the case... EPIC FAIL
harsh, but nice.

[Özgür Kurtoglu]

This is pathetic. I don't know if this reviewer is trying to be funny or what. Hey, buddy, why don't you submit this as a serious piece of criticism (as it was presented) to any reputable source of music journalism and see if you get the job. This egotistical piece of drivel wasn't smart, funny or interesting, however, most importantly, it wasn't a record review either...

Perhaps you are trying to insert yourself into the piece, like Klosterman or Thompson, if that is in fact the case... EPIC FAIL
Give us a couple of examples then. What are some reputable sources of music journalism?

[blinkme]

I believe there was only one sentence about the album.
what a legend! i seriously love your reviews even if they're not really reviews. the only song i have ever enjoyed by this band is mr. brightside, so i'll assume this album is as bad as you say and save myself £7.99.

[joeag1985]

Can't be that bad.

[Chuck!]

I understand this is only ap.net, and you're totally entitled to have some fun with these. From a quick sampling of the record, though, it didn't seem totally awful, so I'm just disappointed I couldn't get at least a brief explanation of your low rating....

[oldskool]

This gets a 27%, yet Aiden received a 77%.. hmmm There is no way anything Aiden does is anywhere near as good a killers record.

[Zulufu]

Quite possibly the worst garbage that I have ever read. As far as the album, we'll see. Dont stop studying buddy!!!!

[kemichels]

lol, I enjoyed this.

[popsicill]

harsh.

[Özgür Kurtoglu]

Hahaha...I suddenly understand why so many users here get so angry when someone mentions Metallica, Pitchfork and Oasis...amazing...

[Poochemist]

Very funny review, but giving the album a chance an actual listen might be a good idea.

[modlife]

I haven't heard this album yet..


But that review was a waste of time.


I know what you were trying to do, but no.. I'm assuming you didn't get paid to write that.

[crit]

lol

[Illuminate]

Great album. Ignore this review please. However, it's no Sam's Town.

[kesto4]

This is supposed to be an album review, not about how your a queer ass who worries about eating vegetables when calling his mom to get gum off shoes/carpet. You suck!

AP.net has a reputation for music and you sure are f"cking with that. Quite pathetic on your part and looks bad for the site as well. Just think, thousands of people are probably looking for reviews on this album and they discover this site, I would think they'd never come back. That's the way I would be, I'd just think this site sucks or something...

[MorningStar10]

Are you so self-indulgant and arrogant that you felt like we would care about your mishap and the fact you get recognised in the street more than one of the biggest Pop-Rock bands New Album?

Review the album properly and why its 'Ew! Yucky' or i feel these groupies who recognise you may start to resemble a lynch mob.

[modlife]

AP.net has a reputation for music and you sure are f"cking with that. Quite pathetic on your part and looks bad for the site as well. Just think, thousands of people are probably looking for reviews on this album and they discover this site, I would think they'd never come back. That's the way I would be, I'd just think this site sucks or something...



Win. I have read about 3 reviews on here, but I clicked on this today, because I'm curious about this album.

And I get something that reads like a 10 year old trying to audition for Pitchfork.

[Özgür Kurtoglu]

Win. I have read about 3 reviews on here, but I clicked on this today, because I'm curious about this album.

And I get something that reads like a 10 year old trying to audition for Pitchfork.
And AP.net being more like Pitchfork in any way would be bad because...?
You do know Pitchfork is basically the biggest musicsite around, right?

[ArTkY_]

This is one of best reviews ever, hahaha. Thank you, Blake.

[modlife]

And AP.net being more like Pitchfork in any way would be bad because...?
You do know Pitchfork is basically the biggest musicsite around, right?

I don't agrue that..

I clearly said it reads like a 10 year old auditioning for Pitchfork..

”Wit without discretion is like a sword in the hand of a fool."

[Özgür Kurtoglu]

I don't agrue that..

I clearly said it reads like a 10 year old auditioning for Pitchfork..

”Wit without discretion is like a sword in the hand of a fool."
Actually, it's something that would work very well on Pitchfork in the "ew! yucky!"-thing was taken out of it. So I disagree. I really don't see what the problem is here. It's a funny review. I bet there'll be another review of Day and Age on here by a staff member anyway, definitely so if enough people ask for it. People here act like whiny little babies too often.

[oldskool]

yeah basically this review is a sad attempt to be funny. The reviewer must think he is Gods gift to comedy. If I wanted to read funny reviews I would go to buddyhead. This should not even be considered a review. I also love how some total piece of shit bands get good scores and the killers get a 27%.

[modlife]

Actually, it's something that would work very well on Pitchfork in the "ew! yucky!"-thing was taken out of it. So I disagree. I really don't see what the problem is here. It's a funny review. I bet there'll be another review of Day and Age on here by a staff member anyway, definitely so if enough people ask for it. People here act like whiny little babies too often.


You are honestly saying this piece of trash would get on Pitchfork?

I don't even like The Killers, but come on, people actually link to this site's reviews when they are posting album reviews on sites like Wikipedia.

That's a minor point, but it looks ridiculous when other people are writing real reviews on here, and then we have stuff like this stinking the place out.

[Blake Solomon]

I would make the case that pitchfork doesn't write like this at all.

But on a happier note, someone used the word drivel, so my day is a success.

[Ryzenfall]

http://blog.ugo.com/images/uploads/BangkokDangerous-Poster-5-6-08-lrg.jpg

[Broclee]

For starters, I actually like this record, it's definitely their weakest work in my opinion, but it's not worthy of "Ew! Yucky" or a 27% rating, at least not to me.

In your review, it sounds as though you never even really listend to the album, and were more preoccupied with the things going on around you. The fact that your entire "review" is a chronicle of these events is sort of a testament to that.

Honestly, it just seems like you wanted something to shit on, and you already didn't care about this record, so you just picked it.

[Blake Solomon]

For starters, I actually like this record, it's definitely their weakest work in my opinion, but it's not worthy of "Ew! Yucky" or a 27% rating, at least not to me.

In your review, it sounds as though you never even really listend to the album, and were more preoccupied with the things going on around you. The fact that your entire "review" is a chronicle of these events is sort of a testament to that.

Honestly, it just seems like you wanted something to shit on, and you already didn't care about this record, so you just picked it.
http://blog.ugo.com/images/uploads/BangkokDangerous-Poster-5-6-08-lrg.jpg

[Blake Solomon]

This is one of best reviews ever, hahaha. Thank you, Blake.
Hmm, I'm actually not sure if this is a review now that I look at it. Maybe YOU should get your brain checked!

[patpratt]

love this review.

this album really does suck.

[Broclee]

http://blog.ugo.com/images/uploads/BangkokDangerous-Poster-5-6-08-lrg.jpg

You know, actually responding to what I was throwing out there would've been intesting. Stick up for your review. A lot of people here want to actually know what you thought made this a terrible album. You obviously did, but your review doesn't back it up at all. People just want reasons, not a humorous story that mentions the album at the very end.

[deebs823]

this album is actually good....i was really disappointed with the lack of review...ew yucky just doesnt cut it at all for me..unless you're 2nd grade and are talking about vegetables...

[YoMamasPyjamas]

I'm not sure who the bigger douchebag here is - the Reviewer for this pathetic attempt at, well...I don't even know what the hell you were aiming for to be exact (but I do know that you completely whiffed), or the Editor for allowing this to be published (really, your only issue with this review was that "germaphobe" isn't a word? How about the fact that this isn't even a "review"? - Me).

[Özgür Kurtoglu]

You are honestly saying this piece of trash would get on Pitchfork?

I don't even like The Killers, but come on, people actually link to this site's reviews when they are posting album reviews on sites like Wikipedia.

That's a minor point, but it looks ridiculous when other people are writing real reviews on here, and then we have stuff like this stinking the place out.
It's better than the Black Kids review (http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/article/record_review/51246-black-kids-partie-traumatic) and the Jet review (http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/article/record_review/38853-jet-shine-on), and the St.Anger review (http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/article/record_review/19856-metallica-st-anger) and definitely better than the reviews of Lateralus (http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/article/record_review/22622-tool-lateralus) and Deftones (http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/article/record_review/16955-deftones-deftones). So yes, that's what I'm saying. I could give you more examples if you need 'em.

So what if people link to this site reviews? If the founder of the site doesn't have a problem with this giving AP a bad name (which is just absurd thinking), why would you?

I like stuff like this when it is done right. Except for the "Ew! Yucky!"-thing, this was to me a great read, and I wish I has people who would do this more often working with me.

[OnaedInSpace]

lmao, great review. I hated the single Human and im sure when i do eventually download this ILLEGALLY i will hate the album just as much. Thanks for the heads up reviewer of the month

[zubinmoosa]

This is a sad excuse for a review.

[modlife]

I hated the single Human. Im sure when i do eventually download this ILLEGALLY i will hate the album just as much.

Those two sentences amounted to a better review than the one we're discussing.

[MusicTalks]

Absolutely fantastic review. I don't give a shit about The Killers, really, but I did laugh at the review for all it's non-The Killers material. Thank you for that.

[MusicTalks]

This is a sad excuse for a review.
I'm sure there will be a user review for it that addresses his lack of review. Just wait for it.

[meghanlail]

Hahahahaha...BEST REVIEW EVER.

You guys are all taking this way to seriously.

[Timetoroll]

HAHAHAHAHA still haven't listened to this album, but great review
I know.

[Blake Solomon]

You know, actually responding to what I was throwing out there would've been intesting. Stick up for your review. A lot of people here want to actually know what you thought made this a terrible album. You obviously did, but your review doesn't back it up at all. People just want reasons, not a humorous story that mentions the album at the very end.
Hey my man, here's your response,

I'd go as far as saying what you described is not what people want in a review. Here's where I describe what I was doing (and then, chances are, you call me an idiot again):

When writing reviews on this site, there are typically two responses: "Great review" (i.e. the commenter agreed with the reviewers opinion) or "Terrible review" (i.e. the commenter disagreed with the reviewer's opinion). In this case, we'll focus on the latter response.

If I were to have pooped all over this album in a "normal" way, all the dissenting comments would have told those to "listen for yourself" because I "don't know what I'm talking about." Over and over again, it would have been said that you shouldn't take my word for it because it's an opinion and you should just go out and sit through the, to steal a term, drivel that is this album.

So that's always bothered me. I'd rather know if you like my grammar or syntax, since you're probably not going to change my mind on the album's merits. After all, I did spend a few days preparing for said reviews by listening to the album's religiously.

Thus, I wanted to see if I could get everyone mad and try and lead to people saying that this was some sort of scientific piece or process. And indeed, people did. They want reasons, points of contention, blah blah. Even those who hate the album want to see if we hated the same things. Did I shoot myself in the foot on purpose? Sure. Why? Because reviews are ridiculous. Don't get me wrong, I love writing them, but when you take a step back, especially on this site, they are ridiculous.

And if I can't be allowed to muse for a second about an album that's going to sell x amount of copies no matter what I say, then why can't I? I'm writing this in America, and I'm allowed. Old dudes in wigs thew a bunch of tea into a river or something so I can do this.

Even if I had said, "Brandon Flowers sounds bad and the guitars sound bad," the score would have been the same and people would have disagreed still. The idea that a review can't be a bit out of the norm, sometimes like the music it seeks to describe, is a restricting force I don't believe in. I'm not trying to land some big job at Rolling Stone. I'm just trying to be me. And in that sense, I succeeded.

And just so we're all on the page, and I didn't mention this earlier because I thought it would be pretty clear, everything in this review (except for the last line and score) is fiction. Sadly, no person, male or female, has every "holla'd" at me from afar.

-BLAKE

p.s. That was fun. Let's do this again. I love this website.

p.p.s To the guy who addressed the "Editor," that is also me. There is no editor on this site! Tricked ya!

[Özgür Kurtoglu]

Old dudes in wigs thew a bunch of tea into a river or something so I can do this.

Haha...

[Nathan Lint]

Hey my man, here's your response,

I'd go as far as saying what you described is not what people want in a review. Here's where I describe what I was doing (and then, chances are, you call me an idiot again):

When writing reviews on this site, there are typically two responses: "Great review" (i.e. the commenter agreed with the reviewers opinion) or "Terrible review" (i.e. the commenter disagreed with the reviewer's opinion). In this case, we'll focus on the latter response.

If I were to have pooped all over this album in a "normal" way, all the dissenting comments would have told those to "listen for yourself" because I "don't know what I'm talking about." Over and over again, it would have been said that you shouldn't take my word for it because it's an opinion and you should just go out and sit through the, to steal a term, drivel that is this album.

So that's always bothered me. I'd rather know if you like my grammar or syntax, since you're probably not going to change my mind on the album's merits. After all, I did spend a few days preparing for said reviews by listening to the album's religiously.

Thus, I wanted to see if I could get everyone mad and try and lead to people saying that this was some sort of scientific piece or process. And indeed, people did. They want reasons, points of contention, blah blah. Even those who hate the album want to see if we hated the same things. Did I shoot myself in the foot on purpose? Sure. Why? Because reviews are ridiculous. Don't get me wrong, I love writing them, but when you take a step back, especially on this site, they are ridiculous.

And if I can't be allowed to muse for a second about an album that's going to sell x amount of copies no matter what I say, then why can't I? I'm writing this in America, and I'm allowed. Old dudes in wigs thew a bunch of tea into a river or something so I can do this.

Even if I had said, "Brandon Flowers sounds bad and the guitars sound bad," the score would have been the same and people would have disagreed still. The idea that a review can't be a bit out of the norm, sometimes like the music it seeks to describe, is a restricting force I don't believe in. I'm not trying to land some big job at Rolling Stone. I'm just trying to be me. And in that sense, I succeeded.

And just so we're all on the page, and I didn't mention this earlier because I thought it would be pretty clear, everything in this review (except for the last line and score) is fiction. Sadly, no person, male or female, has every "holla'd" at me from afar.

-BLAKE

p.s. That was fun. Let's do this again. I love this website.

p.p.s To the guy who addressed the "Editor," that is also me. There is no editor on this site! Tricked ya!

Blake i love you hahah

[glowah]

I guess next time Brandon Flowers should forget trying to write intellectual lyrics based on faith and literature and write about trying to get on some girl like every other well-liked band on this site if he wants his band to get a "good review."

I loved what they did on songs like "Dustland Fairytale," but then again, I don't have the emotional range of a thimble.

[Blake Solomon]

I guess next time Brandon Flowers should forget trying to write intellectual lyrics based on faith and literature and write about trying to get on some girl like every other well-liked band on this site if he wants his band to get a "good review."

I loved what they did on songs like "Dustland Fairytale," but then again, I don't have the emotional range of a thimble.
haha, yeah, the lyrics blow


Alright, off to class, love you guygs!

[Broclee]

Hey my man, here's your response,

I'd go as far as saying what you described is not what people want in a review. Here's where I describe what I was doing (and then, chances are, you call me an idiot again):

When writing reviews on this site, there are typically two responses: "Great review" (i.e. the commenter agreed with the reviewers opinion) or "Terrible review" (i.e. the commenter disagreed with the reviewer's opinion). In this case, we'll focus on the latter response.

If I were to have pooped all over this album in a "normal" way, all the dissenting comments would have told those to "listen for yourself" because I "don't know what I'm talking about." Over and over again, it would have been said that you shouldn't take my word for it because it's an opinion and you should just go out and sit through the, to steal a term, drivel that is this album.

So that's always bothered me. I'd rather know if you like my grammar or syntax, since you're probably not going to change my mind on the album's merits. After all, I did spend a few days preparing for said reviews by listening to the album's religiously.

Thus, I wanted to see if I could get everyone mad and try and lead to people saying that this was some sort of scientific piece or process. And indeed, people did. They want reasons, points of contention, blah blah. Even those who hate the album want to see if we hated the same things. Did I shoot myself in the foot on purpose? Sure. Why? Because reviews are ridiculous. Don't get me wrong, I love writing them, but when you take a step back, especially on this site, they are ridiculous.

And if I can't be allowed to muse for a second about an album that's going to sell x amount of copies no matter what I say, then why can't I? I'm writing this in America, and I'm allowed. Old dudes in wigs thew a bunch of tea into a river or something so I can do this.

Even if I had said, "Brandon Flowers sounds bad and the guitars sound bad," the score would have been the same and people would have disagreed still. The idea that a review can't be a bit out of the norm, sometimes like the music it seeks to describe, is a restricting force I don't believe in. I'm not trying to land some big job at Rolling Stone. I'm just trying to be me. And in that sense, I succeeded.

And just so we're all on the page, and I didn't mention this earlier because I thought it would be pretty clear, everything in this review (except for the last line and score) is fiction. Sadly, no person, male or female, has every "holla'd" at me from afar.

-BLAKE

p.s. That was fun. Let's do this again. I love this website.

p.p.s To the guy who addressed the "Editor," that is also me. There is no editor on this site! Tricked ya!


Haha, I understand what you're saying.

And to make a point, I did enjoy the story. But I would've liked reasons.

If you had the story, then said, "Oh, and Brandon sounded awful and the guitars soudned bad," then there you go.

I guess what I'm saying, and from what it seems a lot nicer than a lot of others are, is that we just wanted to know what you thought was so bad about it. But I think anyone with a sense of humor enjoyed the story.

I guess when people, and I'll admit to this too, came to this, they expected why you thought it was bad, humor or no, and when that wasn't present, it was frustrating.

But I'm you're fully aware of that, so in that case, what do we really have?

The same ole ap.net stuff over and over again.

God bless Ap.net.

P.s. this was fun, I should reply to your reviews more often.

[IamTheINDUSTRY]

wait, what is this? this isn't a review, but a story about you not paying attention to the album the first time you heard it....then you gave it a score.

i'm sure this story is fake, but either way, you have not had enough time with this to review it that terribly. your review of this is what is "ew! yucky!" i am usually a fan, blake. if you didn't like it, a post script is needed to this review.

[xName Takenx]

I'd like an actual "review" of their new album. I get that you thought the album was awful, but why?


I was reading absolutepunk.net, and my ears shrilled with the deafening whistle of the telephone. This threw off my equilibrium and forced me to type this retarded post.

oh yea, I WAS READING THE BIGGEST PIECE OF SHIT REVIEW THE WHOLE TIME THIS WAS HAPPENING......

I think personal posts are for other forums? album reviews usually involve a review of the album....so can we actually get this please?

[Broclee]

wait, what is this? this isn't a review, but a story about you not paying attention to the album the first time you heard it....then you gave it a score.

i'm sure this story is fake, but either way, you have not had enough time with this to review it that terribly. your review of this is what is "ew! yucky!" i am usually a fan, blake. if you didn't like it, a post script is needed to this review.

I was reading absolutepunk.net, and my ears shrilled with the deafening whistle of the telephone. This threw off my equilibrium and forced me to type this retarded post.

oh yea, I WAS READING THE BIGGEST PIECE OF SHIT REVIEW THE WHOLE TIME THIS WAS HAPPENING......

I think personal posts are for other forums? album reviews usually involve a review of the album....so can we actually get this please?


Blake somewhat adressed this in his respose to my post above us. Read that, and if you're still dissatisfied, feel free to raise hell.

[heyozzie]

i understand where you're coming from blake and i did chuckle at the review, but i come to this site because i trust it, and i trust the people who write for it. but this is not a review. i know here i'm going to get honestly when it comes to reviews because the people reviewing albums DON'T do it for a living and they're not stuck up douchebags. the people who do work work for this site are in my age bracket and i would generally trust someone around my age who understands music and understand what this site stands for. have i heard the album? yes. did i like the album? not really no. but i think reviews are supposed to be informative, presenting reasons why the reviewer did or didn't like it, your review did none of that. it was more of a blog than a review. did you defy the norm of reviewing? yea, i guess, but you also defied the norm of balloon making, nietzchian philosophy, parasailing, because it wasn't close to any of those things. i'm gonna quote tommy boy (not the actual quote) i can shit in a box and mark it guaranteed, but its just a guaranteed piece of shit. you just threw some words on a page and called called it a review, but a bunch of words does not a review make. and again, blake this isn't an attack at your personally, but just my opinion. i've trusted your reviews in the past and i will continue to in the future.

and fine, reem me if you will other members, but i want an actual review of this album. i want to hear what people honestly think about it. i got more out of the responses in this thread than i did the actual review. if you could call it that.

[J.M Danis]

So unprofessional

[combatchuckaa]

And AP.net being more like Pitchfork in any way would be bad because...?
You do know Pitchfork is basically the biggest musicsite around, right?

Haha owned. And this guy^ has "Journalist" with his name. That tells me he's totally legit.

[Blakebear]

Congrats on not actually reviewing the album.

I guess I'll start looking at pitchfork again. Even they write better reviews than this.

[Steve Henderson]

This was a pretty pointless exercise and a general waste of space in the review archive, IMO. Sorry.

[Özgür Kurtoglu]

Haha owned. And this guy^ has "Journalist" with his name. That tells me he's totally legit.
Course I am. I'm awesome.

Seriously though, it's general knowledge that Pitchfork is the biggest musicsite around, my occupation really has nothing to do with it. I am not allowed to talk about my job on here, I'll get banned if I do.

[combatchuckaa]

Course I am. I'm awesome.

Seriously though, it's general knowledge that Pitchfork is the biggest musicsite around, my occupation really has nothing to do with it. I am not allowed to talk about my job on here, I'll get banned if I do.

Well, at least you're humble.

Why will you get banned if you talk about it? Is it top secret?

[tommy's ghost]

i actually like this album, and this seems to be one of the few negative "reviews" (can't really call this one lol) it's gotten. shame you didn't like it. perhaps next time they can get someone who isn't too bored to do their job? zing! :P

[Özgür Kurtoglu]

Well, at least you're humble.
Haha...that statement was drenched in irony, but I'm sure you got that and decided to poke fun a bit anyway, which I'm cool with. I guess that makes me pretty normal too together with humble, given that I don't want to kill Blake like many others seem to want because of this review.

[John JD Dorian]

greatest. review. ever.

[rodericknj]

Nope! I loved it. :)

Although this "review" was funny.

good to know i'm not alone :) i've raved about it to a few friends who just hate it. kind of confusing. i guess i dig the 80's pop rock sound a bit more than most.

[kesto4]

Hey my man, here's your response,

I'd go as far as saying what you described is not what people want in a review. Here's where I describe what I was doing (and then, chances are, you call me an idiot again):

When writing reviews on this site, there are typically two responses: "Great review" (i.e. the commenter agreed with the reviewers opinion) or "Terrible review" (i.e. the commenter disagreed with the reviewer's opinion). In this case, we'll focus on the latter response.

If I were to have pooped all over this album in a "normal" way, all the dissenting comments would have told those to "listen for yourself" because I "don't know what I'm talking about." Over and over again, it would have been said that you shouldn't take my word for it because it's an opinion and you should just go out and sit through the, to steal a term, drivel that is this album.

So that's always bothered me. I'd rather know if you like my grammar or syntax, since you're probably not going to change my mind on the album's merits. After all, I did spend a few days preparing for said reviews by listening to the album's religiously.

Thus, I wanted to see if I could get everyone mad and try and lead to people saying that this was some sort of scientific piece or process. And indeed, people did. They want reasons, points of contention, blah blah. Even those who hate the album want to see if we hated the same things. Did I shoot myself in the foot on purpose? Sure. Why? Because reviews are ridiculous. Don't get me wrong, I love writing them, but when you take a step back, especially on this site, they are ridiculous.

And if I can't be allowed to muse for a second about an album that's going to sell x amount of copies no matter what I say, then why can't I? I'm writing this in America, and I'm allowed. Old dudes in wigs thew a bunch of tea into a river or something so I can do this.

Even if I had said, "Brandon Flowers sounds bad and the guitars sound bad," the score would have been the same and people would have disagreed still. The idea that a review can't be a bit out of the norm, sometimes like the music it seeks to describe, is a restricting force I don't believe in. I'm not trying to land some big job at Rolling Stone. I'm just trying to be me. And in that sense, I succeeded.

And just so we're all on the page, and I didn't mention this earlier because I thought it would be pretty clear, everything in this review (except for the last line and score) is fiction. Sadly, no person, male or female, has every "holla'd" at me from afar.

-BLAKE

p.s. That was fun. Let's do this again. I love this website.

p.p.s To the guy who addressed the "Editor," that is also me. There is no editor on this site! Tricked ya!
Regardless, this is an ALBUM REVIEW on a TRUSTED site. It would've been perfectly fine if you put this in the forums somewhere, but this is a REVIEW, not creative writing.

[Özgür Kurtoglu]

Regardless, this is an ALBUM REVIEW on a TRUSTED site. It would've been perfectly fine if you put this in the forums somewhere, but this is a REVIEW, not creative writing.
That's a pretty daft argument, considering (again, for the 10th time it seems) what site is the biggest these days.

[Steve Henderson]

Regardless, this is an ALBUM REVIEW on a TRUSTED site. It would've been perfectly fine if you put this in the forums somewhere, but this is a REVIEW, not creative writing.
Seconded.

[combatchuckaa]

Haha...that statement was drenched in irony, but I'm sure you got that and decided to poke fun a bit anyway, which I'm cool with. I guess that makes me pretty normal too together with humble, given that I don't want to kill Blake like many others seem to want because of this review.

Of course it was :)

[nesjon]

wtf kind of review is this blake? thanks for the three sentences on the actual album

i'd give this a 65% at least, this album isnt that bad at all. it'll grow on me..

I gave it a 6/10 my first time through.. but now that i've listened to it plenty its at an 8/10. Good album.

[Mens]

dude, this is not a review

[hockeyguitar99]

Great review Blake, I'll probably still check this out because I love The Killers, but you have lowered my expectations a great deal.

[PigDestroyer]

probably the dumbest thing i've ever read. not even an album review. there are plenty of legitimate reasons to like/not like the killers, but you wouldn't know it from reading this. in fact, you wouldn't know anything.

and if you can't be objective because of your blinding hatred of a band, or if you can't even at least back up your ratings with legitimate reasons you should let someone else write the review.

[Mochem]

Wow I was definitely expecting this to get some sort of 80. I love it, and plenty of the other reviews I've read have said it was amazing.

But whatever, it's just a review. Well, sort of a review...

[emkvetwin]

this is hilarious. i'll listen to the album myself though...

[glowah]

If people are actually curious about this album, click here (http://popwreckoning.com/2008/11/19/the-killers-day-and-age/) for a rather in-depth/track-by-track review of the Killers' new album.

[modlife]

If people are actually curious about this album, click here (http://popwreckoning.com/2008/11/19/the-killers-day-and-age/) for a rather in-depth/track-by-track review of the Killers' new album.




Thank you! Now that is a review.

[BinacaFreak]

why don't you actually critique the album instead of just saying it's bad?
most worthless review i've ever read.

[Chris Fallon]

It was a good laugh. People takes us too seriously sometimes, then say we need to lighten up other times.

Make up your minds, people!

[Theow593]

is this review a joke?

[ReturningSunday]

What an awful "review". I expected more from AP.net :(

[StriketheMartyr]

is the album really THAT bad?

[PunkDrums182]

Well now I know what about the album really brought it down..

[Steve Henderson]

It was a good laugh. People takes us too seriously sometimes, then say we need to lighten up other times.

Make up your minds, people!
No one is faulting the use of humor. People are faulting the fact that this has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with music, and is instead a self-indulgent (drug fueled?) essay.

[ExplodingStereo]

The story is...well...nice, it really shouldn't be called a review because it didn't really explain anything about the album, but I have avoided all Killers material since Hot Fuss, so even a review proclaiming it to be the Second Coming wouldn't have gotten me to go to the store.

[combatchuckaa]

No one is faulting the use of humor. People are faulting the fact that this has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with music, and is instead a self-indulgent (drug fueled?) essay.

Hahah

[Blake Solomon]

No one is faulting the use of humor. People are faulting the fact that this has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with music, and is instead a self-indulgent (drug fueled?) essay.
I love you and all, but I must say I'm a little let-down that you would think (and post in a public forum) that you think this is drug-fueled writing. I understand you hate the thing, but a shot at my character, coming from you especially, hurts.

[sargentlgfuad]

?
i loved sam's town and hot fuss.
and i liked the single.
and the live song they played i thought was awesome.
o, well, opinions are opinions.

[ExplodingStereo]

It was a good laugh. People takes us too seriously sometimes, then say we need to lighten up other times.

Make up your minds, people!

Sure, it's tough to gauge how serious or how light you should be in your writing, but there are definite limits. If you act like a total music snob and write one massive scoff at an artist for being too mainstream or whatever, it's too harsh. I think what Blake wrote would, as some have mentioned, be worthy of posting in forums, but definitely not as a legitimate review. The story was weird, I thought it would connect with your thoughts on the album, but I guess the whole joke is the album's so bad, it's impossible to be serious when reviewing it. Regardless, I'd consider actually saying at least ONE thing, anything, about the album other than "Yuck!".

[Özgür Kurtoglu]

I love you and all, but I must say I'm a little let-down that you would think (and post in a public forum) that you think this is drug-fueled writing. I understand you hate the thing, but a shot at my character, coming from you especially, hurts.
I'm with Blake on this one. You know I really like discussing stuff with you and like you all in all Steve, but saying something like that just doesn't float, man...

[con40dmitri]

thats pretty punk-rock of a review

[Steve Henderson]

I love you and all, but I must say I'm a little let-down that you would think (and post in a public forum) that you think this is drug-fueled writing. I understand you hate the thing, but a shot at my character, coming from you especially, hurts.
Ironic that you complain people are taking this review too seriously....right before taking my joke comment too seriously.

[Özgür Kurtoglu]

thats pretty punk-rock of a review
Haha...me and a friend of mine always discuss crap with punkrock as the parameter, always a blast!

[Blake Solomon]

Ironic that you complain people are taking this review too seriously....right before taking my joke comment too seriously.
I don't joke around with something like that. Especially when it says my real name each time I post or am quoted. I don't mean to appear hypocritical, and it's true that very few things get to me, but that is one thing I'd prefer not to have connected to my name.

[con40dmitri]

thats pretty punk-rock of a review

[ExplodingStereo]

I don't joke around with something like that. Especially when it says my real each time I post or am quoted. I don't mean to appear hypocritical, and it's true that very few things get to me, but that is one thing I'd prefer not to have connected to my name.

Not to sound parental or anything, but the point is to discuss music, not pick apart lives. Maybe I speak for myself, but I doubt anyone on here would judge and question a person's character or beliefs to ruin someone they hardly know's name. I think this site is good in that it respects people a little more than most sites. The point is, I think the comments I've seen have been taken far out of hand, and I don't think anyone is trying to peg Blake as being high while writing this.

[Sic Transit Zeb]

Ah...I enjoy stuff like this...haha. You should really move to Sweden and come work for us, we need more reviews like this. Very Pitchfork-esque, which I always enjoy if it is done right. Nicely done, Blake.

why ya gotta throw around your profession like that, ozgur?

:)

[Özgür Kurtoglu]

why ya gotta throw around your profession like that, ozgur?

:)
Sssshh...I might get banned!

[Chris Fallon]

I just think this has all gotten a little too out of hand.

[Sic Transit Zeb]

bunch of angry people about this review

people are taking things way too seriously.

[con40dmitri]

thats pretty punk-rock of a review

[Sic Transit Zeb]

Sssshh...I might get banned!

Just don't disagree with Jason Tate.

[Sic Transit Zeb]

I just think this has all gotten a little too out of hand.


I agree

[Özgür Kurtoglu]

I just think this has all gotten a little too out of hand.
So do the rest of us.

I'm just waiting for Blake to post the hate mail Brandon has sent him...

[radials]

Regardless, this is an ALBUM REVIEW on a TRUSTED site. It would've been perfectly fine if you put this in the forums somewhere, but this is a REVIEW, not creative writing.

Seconded.

... and the only name I trust on this site is Steve Henderson! :wave: And no, that is not sarcasm.

[Blake Solomon]

I just think this has all gotten a little too out of hand.
just a smidge, haha

[Specs]

People need to lighten up. I thought the review was a clever way of saying that the CD isn't worth talking about.

[c_rob2700]

I knew kids were going to have a shitstorm about this

[shaysexpanther]

bad review

[OCNickLTJ13]

Hey my man, here's your response,

I'd go as far as saying what you described is not what people want in a review. Here's where I describe what I was doing (and then, chances are, you call me an idiot again):

When writing reviews on this site, there are typically two responses: "Great review" (i.e. the commenter agreed with the reviewers opinion) or "Terrible review" (i.e. the commenter disagreed with the reviewer's opinion). In this case, we'll focus on the latter response.

If I were to have pooped all over this album in a "normal" way, all the dissenting comments would have told those to "listen for yourself" because I "don't know what I'm talking about." Over and over again, it would have been said that you shouldn't take my word for it because it's an opinion and you should just go out and sit through the, to steal a term, drivel that is this album.

So that's always bothered me. I'd rather know if you like my grammar or syntax, since you're probably not going to change my mind on the album's merits. After all, I did spend a few days preparing for said reviews by listening to the album's religiously.

Thus, I wanted to see if I could get everyone mad and try and lead to people saying that this was some sort of scientific piece or process. And indeed, people did. They want reasons, points of contention, blah blah. Even those who hate the album want to see if we hated the same things. Did I shoot myself in the foot on purpose? Sure. Why? Because reviews are ridiculous. Don't get me wrong, I love writing them, but when you take a step back, especially on this site, they are ridiculous.

And if I can't be allowed to muse for a second about an album that's going to sell x amount of copies no matter what I say, then why can't I? I'm writing this in America, and I'm allowed. Old dudes in wigs thew a bunch of tea into a river or something so I can do this.

Even if I had said, "Brandon Flowers sounds bad and the guitars sound bad," the score would have been the same and people would have disagreed still. The idea that a review can't be a bit out of the norm, sometimes like the music it seeks to describe, is a restricting force I don't believe in. I'm not trying to land some big job at Rolling Stone. I'm just trying to be me. And in that sense, I succeeded.

And just so we're all on the page, and I didn't mention this earlier because I thought it would be pretty clear, everything in this review (except for the last line and score) is fiction. Sadly, no person, male or female, has every "holla'd" at me from afar.

-BLAKE

p.s. That was fun. Let's do this again. I love this website.

p.p.s To the guy who addressed the "Editor," that is also me. There is no editor on this site! Tricked ya!

So, let me get this straight, your "review" of The Killers' new album was an exercise in mocking responses that reviews, in your opinion, normally elicit. You chose to write an uninteresting story in order to mock the idea of reviewing, somehow. You knew full well that you were going to get these kinds of responses, and apparently, you desired to have a number of people call you stupid in effort to somehow try to prove that they are actually the stupid ones? And, this is also, somehow, supposed to be passable music journalism. Wow, either you are the smartest man I've ever encountered online or the dumbest... The smart money is on the latter...

Do your metaphysical exercises elsewhere, buddy... If you are going to "review" a record, do it.

[Shrillex]

is their new album really that bad? whats different from the others?

[zubinmoosa]

This is turning into something epic.

[ArTkY_]

Hmm, I'm actually not sure if this is a review now that I look at it. Maybe YOU should get your brain checked!
While that may be so, it doesn't change the hilarity.

[Poochemist]

Wow Blake, you're really getting a lot of love from this review.

[Poochemist]

This was a pretty pointless exercise and a general waste of space in the review archive, IMO. Sorry.

Frankly I'm surprised it got approved. But maybe staff don't have to go through that process. Again, it was a funny read, but inappropriate for the review section.

[frisk]

thats pretty punk-rock of a review


If you're making some kind of comparison between this review and Sid Vicious' bass playing, yes.


The Pitchfork Jet review was funny. Nothing really needed to be said about Jet, as they're a glorified cover band. The video of the monkey pissing in its own mouth is funny on its own. It's also funny in that listening to a Jet record is like watching a monkey piss in its mouth. Its retarded. The monkey isn't really thinking about what its doing, its just pissing in its mouth. Jet isn't really thinking about what they're doing, they're just playing Iggy Pop and AC/DC songs.

So it worked. The review was funny, and also served as a kind of review. Words weren't even necessary.

This? It doesn't work. It's not a review of the album, it's not about the album in any way, and it's not funny on its own. This is a piece about how you enjoy a supposed level of notoriety, how you secretly revel in living away from home, and how your anxieties would have you form a blister instead of find a stick. None of it is about the Killers, and unless you find employing an unnecessarily eclectic lexicon as a means of extrapolating humor out of a totally absurd situation effective, it's not funny.

So what is it worth?

[Özgür Kurtoglu]

If you're making some kind of comparison between this review and Sid Vicious' bass playing, yes.


The Pitchfork Jet review was funny. Nothing really needed to be said about Jet, as they're a glorified cover band. The video of the monkey pissing in its own mouth is funny on its own. It's also funny in that listening to a Jet record is like watching a monkey piss in its mouth. Its retarded. The monkey isn't really thinking about what its doing, its just pissing in its mouth. Jet isn't really thinking about what they're doing, they're just playing Iggy Pop and AC/DC songs.

So it worked. The review was funny, and also served as a kind of review. Words weren't even necessary.

This? It doesn't work. It's not a review of the album, it's not about the album in any way, and it's not funny on its own. This is a piece about how you enjoy a supposed level of notoriety, how you secretly revel in living away from home, and how your anxieties would have you form a blister instead of find a stick. None of it is about the Killers, and unless you find employing an unnecessarily eclectic lexicon as a means of extrapolating humor out of a totally absurd situation effective, it's not funny.

So what is it worth?
No. Just...no. I could make something up to justify this review just like you justified the Jet review, so talking about the Jet review being perfectly fine while this review isn't is in my opinion utter bullshit. At the very least a review should contain words unless it is supposed to be completely done on video. This review is in writing, the Jet review is not. Thus making this more of a review than the aforementioned Jet review.

[automatic-stop]

Ouch. Ouch.

[frisk]

Then do it.

No one who regularly reads Pitchfork gives a shit about Jet. Obviously, any review for Jet coming from Pitchfork is going to be negative. And obviously, no one who reads Pitchfork really wants or needs to read a review of a Jet album. And so the review for Jet from Pitchfork is just a big joke. You want a review for Jet? Here's a monkey pissing in its mouth. No words necessary. This Jet album is like a monkey pissing in its mouth.

There are (many) people who frequent this site who like the Killers (or at least don't despise them) and are interested in reading an actual review of the album. What we get is a self-involved story about stepping in gum that has nothing to do with the album at all. It says less about the Killers album than a video of a monkey pissing in its mouth (within the context of Pitchfork's website) says about Jet. Thus making this less of a review than the aforementioned Jet review.

[heyzombiehitler]

That was better than the 3oh!3 review.

[liar23]

what a horrible review

[modlife]

Ironic that you complain people are taking this review too seriously....right before taking my joke comment too seriously.

Win.

[fatabbot1]

Rubbish Review

[chillinlikebob]

Thanks for another crappy review. You could have saved us the trouble and just said the words "Blake doesn't dig."

[blindrider529]

Am I the only one who has noticed that there hasn't been much hype for this album at all?

Maybe I just haven't been watching TV or reading music magazines or something.


PS LOL at the "review"

PSS I do agree with Steve and others, though. This might've been better in a blog or something.

[Say Ocean.]

Great album, review is funny but makes the reviewer come off as a complete dumbass that doesn't know jack shit about music. And the ratings... 2.75 for vocals? Hahahahahaha.

[rckstr29]

Blake, do your dunks glow in the dark? Because if so, I've been looking on ebay for those exact ones for quite some time. They have them, I just don't wanna shell out $140.

[Blake Solomon]

Blake, do your dunks glow in the dark? Because if so, I've been looking on ebay for those exact ones for quite some time. They have them, I just don't wanna shell out $140.
My dunks only predict the future.

[patriots_fan71]

Gee, thanks for all of the insight into this album.

If you're gonna write a review, then write one.

[Özgür Kurtoglu]

Then do it.

No one who regularly reads Pitchfork gives a shit about Jet. Obviously, any review for Jet coming from Pitchfork is going to be negative. And obviously, no one who reads Pitchfork really wants or needs to read a review of a Jet album. And so the review for Jet from Pitchfork is just a big joke. You want a review for Jet? Here's a monkey pissing in its mouth. No words necessary. This Jet album is like a monkey pissing in its mouth.

There are (many) people who frequent this site who like the Killers (or at least don't despise them) and are interested in reading an actual review of the album. What we get is a self-involved story about stepping in gum that has nothing to do with the album at all. It says less about the Killers album than a video of a monkey pissing in its mouth (within the context of Pitchfork's website) says about Jet. Thus making this less of a review than the aforementioned Jet review.
Apparently you got the PM containing the list of bands Pitchfork doesn't like while I didn't. You should really forward that to me.

Such stupid reasoning...
Pitchfork "shouldn't like" Thrice or Thursday either, but both bands have received a decent score on there, which is just above 5.0. The Illusion of Safety got semi-ridiculed but got the same score as Narrow Stairs. And this is acceptable because everyone knows Pitchfork are elitists and are really fucking good at what they do. I laughed at the Jet review, I laughed at this review. But the difference is that I've seen similar reviews in newspapers and other websites, while no-one else does the "Pitchfork thing".

[fadedmemories]

Great album art and awesome review

[RelientMayday]

Hahaha. Wow. Hilarious review, though I would've liked to know a little more about it than the fact that its a "wretched abomination".

I enjoyed it as a fun story, not as a review for music.

[Andrew Love]

album is getting progressively worse with each listen
hope the dunks were ok

[unnameworthy]

Say what you will, people. This review was brilliant.

[frisk]

Notice how you still were unable to justify how this was in any way a review of the Killers album.

I didn't get a private message detailing what bands Pitchfork loves, but I am aware of the site, and have heard Jet's stale classic rock rehash music. That's enough for me to know that Pitchfork dislikes the band. I take it you don't do much investigative journalism, or listen to much music? Thrice and Thursday don't compare. They may not be "Fleet Foxes", but while they don't play music that goes right up Pitchfork's alley, they also don't play covers of songs that came out in the sixties.


I laughed at this review.


Why? What was funny about this review? Which specific part made you laugh?

This is what I don't get, and why I find the whole thing to be worthless. Remove the last sentence (or three sentences), and most people who clicked on a link expecting to see a album review will think they've been misdirected to someone's livejournal. And it's not funny. It's actually relatively painful, what with how hard the author is trying to make his word choice and phrasing create something funny out of an anecdote that shouldn't really be an anecdote, and how the author is really just writing commentary about how novel he finds living away from home to be.

Bringing me back to my original point, and original criticism. This is not a review, and is not funny or interesting on its own. AP, you really should give us a proper review, or if not that, at least an article that is actually funny, and not just "lol xantham" funny.

[Özgür Kurtoglu]

Notice how you still were unable to justify how this was in any way a review of the Killers album.

I didn't get a private message detailing what bands Pitchfork loves, but I am aware of the site, and have heard Jet's stale classic rock rehash music. That's enough for me to know that Pitchfork dislikes the band. I take it you don't do much investigative journalism, or listen to much music? Thrice and Thursday don't compare. They may not be "Fleet Foxes", but while they don't play music that goes right up Pitchfork's alley, they also don't play covers of songs that came out in the sixties.




Why? What was funny about this review? Which specific part made you laugh?

This is what I don't get, and why I find the whole thing to be worthless. Remove the last sentence (or three sentences), and most people who clicked on a link expecting to see a album review will think they've been misdirected to someone's livejournal. And it's not funny. It's actually relatively painful, what with how hard the author is trying to make his word choice and phrasing create something funny out of an anecdote that shouldn't really be an anecdote, and how the author is really just writing commentary about how novel he finds living away from home to be.

Bringing me back to my original point, and original criticism. This is not a review, and is not funny or interesting on its own. AP, you really should give us a proper review, or if not that, at least an article that is actually funny, and not just "lol xantham" funny.
I did justify it if you actually read through my post. I do alot of investigative journalistm and listen to alot of music, but bringing that up is obviously irrelevant and just another way for you to prove some odd point to yourself. (Also, funny that you mention "covers of songs that came out in the sixties"...Thrice have covered both Eleanor Rigby and Helter Skelter...but yeah, we'll go with what you said).

Pitchfork covers very, very diverse branches of music. Talking about knowing what they like and dislike is stupid as all you could really do is expect some music to be liked by their staff, nothing more.

I thought the overall tone of the review was funny, that the album in question was so stale and boring that the author decided to tell a completely unrelated story, only to finish by mentioning that the album has been playing in the background all along. I like it, you don't. Big woop. All you are arguing about is opinion and decided to spice up your retorts with quasi-intellectual jabber about my supposed lack of musical knowledge. Opinions are like assholes; everybody has one. Broaden your view, believing that Pitchfork trashes all music based on prejudice (which is exactly what you are doing by assuming the things you are) is comically tragic and flat out incorrect. They've given alot of bland crap that isn't their usual demographic, as you should've called it if any of your claims were in fact true, good scores too. Which in turn makes your argument fail.

[frisk]

I did justify it if you actually read through my post. I do alot of investigative journalistm and listen to alot of music, but bringing that up is obviously irrelevant and just another way for you to prove some odd point to yourself. (Also, funny that you mention "covers of songs that came out in the sixties"...Thrice have covered both Eleanor Rigby and Helter Skelter...but yeah, we'll go with what you said).

Pitchfork covers very, very diverse branches of music. Talking about knowing what they like and dislike is stupid as all you could really do is expect some music to be liked by their staff, nothing more.

I thought the overall tone of the review was funny, that the album in question was so stale and boring that the author decided to tell a completely unrelated story, only to finish by mentioning that the album has been playing in the background all along. I like it, you don't. Big woop. All you are arguing about is opinion and decided to spice up your retorts with quasi-intellectual jabber about my supposed lack of musical knowledge. Opinions are like assholes; everybody has one. Broaden your view, believing that Pitchfork trashes all music based on prejudice (which is exactly what you are doing by assuming the things you are) is comically tragic and flat out incorrect. They've given alot of bland crap that isn't their usual demographic, as you should've called it if any of your claims were in fact true, good scores too. Which in turn makes your argument fail.


The difference between Thrice covering something and Jet covering something is that when Thrice covers "Eleanor Rigby", they call it "Eleanor Rigby". When Jet covers "Lust for Life", they call it "Are You Gonna Be My Girl", and collect the performance royalties.

I think we're sidetracking a bit. I don't claim to know any broad and encompassing thing about Pitchfork's staff. I wouldn't claim that there's a specific genre they hate, or that I know all of the general likes and dislikes of the website. I'm making an argument that is *specific to Jet*. Not even just garage-rock, but Jet. The band Jet. That is all. Not "all music based on prejudice", just the band Jet. Any reasonable person who is aware of both music and Pitchfork should be able to deduce (even before the monkey review was posted) that there is not a person on the Pitchfork staff who would admit to liking Jet without qualifying that with something like "Well, I know they're just a glorified cover band, but still....". On that point, I feel confident. Even if a writer from Pitchfork came on here and wrote "I like Jet", I'd call bullshit and argue that he/she only likes Jet ironically.

I know nothing about you or your music listening habits, but (even without the Jet review) if it's all a mystery to you whether the general sentiment at Pitchfork is pro or anti-jet, your powers of deduction can't be very strong. I'm not saying that this is true about you. You might be really insightful, and are simply choosing to ignore what you know to be true in order to defend this review.


Which is all besides the point. I never meant to make a big argument about Pitchfork, but that's what this has devolved into.

"I thought the overall tone of the review was funny, that the album in question was so stale and boring that the author decided to tell a completely unrelated story, only to finish by mentioning that the album has been playing in the background all along."

Well I guess this is just where we disagree. I didn't find it to be funny at all, although I guess I could see where if you were to find it funny, it would be by virtue of the "tone" of the article. But the only person I've read who really does a great job of executing this kind of tone is Klosterman, and that's because he's actually funny, and writes about funny things.

I will go ahead and point out that "stale" and "boring" are two adjectives that never actually show up in the review. In fact, you're more descriptive of the album in your description of the review than the review is descriptive of the album itself.

[snakeinmyboots]

This is considered a great review? He made up a shitty story of him scraping gum off his shoe? What a metaphor. Glad to see so much time and effort put into a review. I bet of all the bands of our generation, The Killers will be the only band that survives with any sort of legacy.

[Özgür Kurtoglu]

The difference between Thrice covering something and Jet covering something is that when Thrice covers "Eleanor Rigby", they call it "Eleanor Rigby". When Jet covers "Lust for Life", they call it "Are You Gonna Be My Girl", and collect the performance royalties.

I think we're sidetracking a bit. I don't claim to know any broad and encompassing thing about Pitchfork's staff. I wouldn't claim that there's a specific genre they hate, or that I know all of the general likes and dislikes of the website. I'm making an argument that is *specific to Jet*. Not even just garage-rock, but Jet. The band Jet. That is all. Not "all music based on prejudice", just the band Jet. Any reasonable person who is aware of both music and Pitchfork should be able to deduce (even before the monkey review was posted) that there is not a person on the Pitchfork staff who would admit to liking Jet without qualifying that with something like "Well, I know they're just a glorified cover band, but still....". On that point, I feel confident. Even if a writer from Pitchfork came on here and wrote "I like Jet", I'd call bullshit and argue that he/she only likes Jet ironically.

I know nothing about you or your music listening habits, but (even without the Jet review) if it's all a mystery to you whether the general sentiment at Pitchfork is pro or anti-jet, your powers of deduction can't be very strong. I'm not saying that this is true about you. You might be really insightful, and are simply choosing to ignore what you know to be true in order to defend this review.


Which is all besides the point. I never meant to make a big argument about Pitchfork, but that's what this has devolved into.

"I thought the overall tone of the review was funny, that the album in question was so stale and boring that the author decided to tell a completely unrelated story, only to finish by mentioning that the album has been playing in the background all along."

Well I guess this is just where we disagree. I didn't find it to be funny at all, although I guess I could see where if you were to find it funny, it would be by virtue of the "tone" of the article. But the only person I've read who really does a great job of executing this kind of tone is Klosterman, and that's because he's actually funny, and writes about funny things.

I will go ahead and point out that "stale" and "boring" are two adjectives that never actually show up in the review. In fact, you're more descriptive of the album in your description of the review than the review is descriptive of the album itself.
All of this jabber is still pointless though based solely on the fact that I laugh at this and don't think much more of it while you do the opposite. If you want a new review of this there are two ways to go: you either write it yourself or request a new review. It's that simple. To me, what is written here still qualifies as a journalistic piece while the monkey video doesn't. Albeit funny, that is not a review at all; it does not even contain a score, so how that is more a review than this I fail to grasp. While I know that most people at Pitchfork probably don't like Jet my only argument against this whole thing is, without bringing my "powers of deduction" into it at all, that the Pitchfork folks adore stuff I think are more shit than the garbage that is Jet. I choose not to take it too seriously, as I take Pitchfork, Jet and very much so even The Killers with a grain of salt. We'll end up agreeing to disagree, be done with it and while I will be wondering what the hell happened to The Killers, you will be waiting for another review. I'm fine with that, and I hope you are too.

[handlikesecret]

amazing.

[weworemasks]

this is the best and worst review i've ever read on this site. ilu, blake.

[*crying stars*]

Oh, Blake. You sure know how to get people talking.

I dislike the album so far.

[The Personist]

This is considered a great review? He made up a shitty story of him scraping gum off his shoe? What a metaphor. Glad to see so much time and effort put into a review. I bet of all the bands of our generation, The Killers will be the only band that survives with any sort of legacy.
Now THAT'S a dumb sentiment. Fall Out Boy and Coldplay prove you wrong.

As for the review, I lol'ed.

[blindrider529]

Now THAT'S a dumb sentiment. Fall Out Boy and Coldplay prove you wrong.

As for the review, I lol'ed.
Well...neither of them quite have a legacy yet. Their legacy won't have a chance at being determined for at least a decade or more.

[Özgür Kurtoglu]

Well...neither of them quite have a legacy yet. Their legacy won't have a chance at being determined for at least a decade or more.
Maybe Coldplay, unless they actually call it quits within a year. But not Fall Out Boy. Albums are too weak considering those released by the "legends" of the genre.

[blindrider529]

Maybe Coldplay, unless they actually call it quits within a year. But not Fall Out Boy. Albums are too weak considering those released by the "legends" of the genre.
I don't mean they don't really have a legacy in terms of how good their work is or even how much music they put out. I mean that it usually takes a longer amount of time to really figure how a band impacted music and how long their music does impact other musicians.

I don't think there has been enough time to see what the impact of either of those bands is yet. At this point it's pretty obvious that both bands have had very large impacts on other up & coming bands. We'll see how long they are relevant in that sense though.

[Özgür Kurtoglu]

I don't mean they don't really have a legacy in terms of how good their work is or even how much music they put out. I mean that it usually takes a longer amount of time to really figure how a band impacted music and how long their music does impact other musicians.

I don't think there has been enough time to see what the impact of either of those bands is yet. At this point it's pretty obvious that both bands have had very large impacts on other up & coming bands. We'll see how long they are relevant in that sense though.
I wouldn't really even want to say any of 'em will gain that legacy we're talking about. While both bands have their moments, I really don't see how they are as big as they are. But sure, they've influenced a bunch of bands that have come out in the last couple of years, and that must count as something. But...to have that legacy that bands like Radiohead and Metallica have, that Green Day and Refused (oddly enough) have...I dunno.

[blindrider529]

I wouldn't really even want to say any of 'em will gain that legacy we're talking about. While both bands have their moments, I really don't see how they are as big as they are. But sure, they've influenced a bunch of bands that have come out in the last couple of years, and that must count as something. But...to have that legacy that bands like Radiohead and Metallica have, that Green Day and Refused (oddly enough) have...I dunno.
Time will tell! It's hard to say. It's really hard to think about in the moment. Bands that have already had their "time" and created a legacy are kind of held on a pedestal, and have a special kind of appreciation that current bands aren't really allowed to have. It's the nature of having a legacy I suppose. Current bands just aren't allowed to have that majestic feel about them, and we don't know if they'll ever have it until they do!

[Sirromnad]

I think 'The Blake Solomon' needs to get over himself.

I don't care that he doesn't like the cd, everyone has different tastes in music. Next time he should approach the review with a little intelligence though.

[thursday8605]

not a fan of chewed gum stories

[Uwe Blab]

Just sorta skimmed over the album a little while ago....not bad in my opinion.

I found the review to be pretty funny.

[slimfenix182]

"Human" is a good song, and the rest is a big letdown. Maybe the 3 songs you heard are the only good ones. Maybe the rest blow, which would then make the 27% justified!

a + b = I WIN!

haha not much of a review, but I'll let it slide. and I know what you mean about the rating. I've loved all their singles (except Bones, god that sucked) and the rest of their songs are pretty much the definition of filler.

[c_rob2700]

I just sat down and really listened to this album.

My advice: Download "Human" & "Spaceman", avoid the rest

[sean4123]

This website loses credibility with crap like this being posted by so called professionals. All this crap does is make people not want to visit this site anymore.

A lot of people on this site are fans of this band and would like a real review of the album. NO you are not being funny or cool by going this route. You are just being RETARDED.

[Blake Solomon]

This website loses credibility with crap like this being posted by so called professionals. All this crap does is make people not want to visit this site anymore.

A lot of people on this site are fans of this band and would like a real review of the album. NO you are not being funny or cool by going this route. You are just being RETARDED.
I don't think you should use the term retarded in such a way. It's disrespectful and ignorant.

[Blake Solomon]

I did justify it if you actually read through my post. I do alot of investigative journalistm and listen to alot of music, but bringing that up is obviously irrelevant and just another way for you to prove some odd point to yourself. (Also, funny that you mention "covers of songs that came out in the sixties"...Thrice have covered both Eleanor Rigby and Helter Skelter...but yeah, we'll go with what you said).

Pitchfork covers very, very diverse branches of music. Talking about knowing what they like and dislike is stupid as all you could really do is expect some music to be liked by their staff, nothing more.

I thought the overall tone of the review was funny, that the album in question was so stale and boring that the author decided to tell a completely unrelated story, only to finish by mentioning that the album has been playing in the background all along. I like it, you don't. Big woop. All you are arguing about is opinion and decided to spice up your retorts with quasi-intellectual jabber about my supposed lack of musical knowledge. Opinions are like assholes; everybody has one. Broaden your view, believing that Pitchfork trashes all music based on prejudice (which is exactly what you are doing by assuming the things you are) is comically tragic and flat out incorrect. They've given alot of bland crap that isn't their usual demographic, as you should've called it if any of your claims were in fact true, good scores too. Which in turn makes your argument fail.
You guys should watch this and just chillax.

KMCbDEkLJZI

It ain't no thang, stuff like this divides, that's fine. I'm just thrilled you both took the time to read the review and felt compelled to comment, whether negative or positive. A lot of discussion of this album took place in this thread, which is a good thing, with or without the loss of 3 minutes or however long it took you to read the darn thing. Hmm, interesting.

xoxo,

BLAKE

[Blake Solomon]

The difference between Thrice covering something and Jet covering something is that when Thrice covers "Eleanor Rigby", they call it "Eleanor Rigby". When Jet covers "Lust for Life", they call it "Are You Gonna Be My Girl", and collect the performance royalties.

I think we're sidetracking a bit. I don't claim to know any broad and encompassing thing about Pitchfork's staff. I wouldn't claim that there's a specific genre they hate, or that I know all of the general likes and dislikes of the website. I'm making an argument that is *specific to Jet*. Not even just garage-rock, but Jet. The band Jet. That is all. Not "all music based on prejudice", just the band Jet. Any reasonable person who is aware of both music and Pitchfork should be able to deduce (even before the monkey review was posted) that there is not a person on the Pitchfork staff who would admit to liking Jet without qualifying that with something like "Well, I know they're just a glorified cover band, but still....". On that point, I feel confident. Even if a writer from Pitchfork came on here and wrote "I like Jet", I'd call bullshit and argue that he/she only likes Jet ironically.

I know nothing about you or your music listening habits, but (even without the Jet review) if it's all a mystery to you whether the general sentiment at Pitchfork is pro or anti-jet, your powers of deduction can't be very strong. I'm not saying that this is true about you. You might be really insightful, and are simply choosing to ignore what you know to be true in order to defend this review.


Which is all besides the point. I never meant to make a big argument about Pitchfork, but that's what this has devolved into.

"I thought the overall tone of the review was funny, that the album in question was so stale and boring that the author decided to tell a completely unrelated story, only to finish by mentioning that the album has been playing in the background all along."

Well I guess this is just where we disagree. I didn't find it to be funny at all, although I guess I could see where if you were to find it funny, it would be by virtue of the "tone" of the article. But the only person I've read who really does a great job of executing this kind of tone is Klosterman, and that's because he's actually funny, and writes about funny things.

I will go ahead and point out that "stale" and "boring" are two adjectives that never actually show up in the review. In fact, you're more descriptive of the album in your description of the review than the review is descriptive of the album itself.
meant to quote you, too, but i don't know how to multi quote, look at the above response/vid

[Sirromnad]

It would be a lot better if it didn't sound like you were insulting people who did like the killers.

[birtcho]

haha interesting

[Özgür Kurtoglu]

You guys should watch this and just chillax.

KMCbDEkLJZI

It ain't no thang, stuff like this divides, that's fine. I'm just thrilled you both took the time to read the review and felt compelled to comment, whether negative or positive. A lot of discussion of this album took place in this thread, which is a good thing, with or without the loss of 3 minutes or however long it took you to read the darn thing. Hmm, interesting.

xoxo,

BLAKE
I didn't even want to discuss it for that long, I don't see what the big deal is since I condone texts like this myself. But hey...it's AP.net; this shit happens no matter what you say.

[Undue Noise]

I agree with this review. Instantly forgettable and not worth discussing. Very bland; Human is probably one of the best songs on the album and it isn't even that good.

[cereal4life]

Haha funny, but Blake, I seriously don't think any album deserves a review like this. While I understand it's probably a crud album, you really should do a proper review of it and justify why you think it's good or bad. Especially when you give an album a score this bad! It's like the staff on AP are out to see how low a score they can give a crud album.

Whatevs! Enjoyable, but not fair.

[benn10]

Wow, this is retarded. Way to actually review the album, buddy.

[yellowhouse]

this is a hilarious review. havent heard the album but this still made me laugh.

[yellowhouse]

im sorry, "review." either way it made me laugh real hard.

[Jumpoff]

Bahahahaha. This is why I'm subscribed to you Blake. :-d

[jbaseball44]

This website loses credibility with crap like this being posted by so called professionals. All this crap does is make people not want to visit this site anymore.

A lot of people on this site are fans of this band and would like a real review of the album. NO you are not being funny or cool by going this route. You are just being RETARDED.
I don't know if i want people who genuinely enjoy this album deciding what is and is not credible about this site.

[benn10]

I don't know if i want people who genuinely enjoy this album deciding what is and is not credible about this site.

http://content.ytmnd.com/content/d/d/5/dd56f66858fe0a1d32da71673edddad0.jp g

[Jumpoff]

http://content.ytmnd.com/content/d/d/5/dd56f66858fe0a1d32da71673edddad0.jp g

Especially not people who post South Park pictures in an attempt to insult others.

[jbaseball44]

http://content.ytmnd.com/content/d/d/5/dd56f66858fe0a1d32da71673edddad0.jp g
That means a lot coming from you.

[The Personist]

Well...neither of them quite have a legacy yet. Their legacy won't have a chance at being determined for at least a decade or more.
The Killers haven't been around long enough to determine a legacy either.

Fall Out Boy has changed the industry, and Pete Wentz has revolutionized the marketing aspect of music. The Killers have played 80's throwback synth pop and ripped off Springsteen.

[The Personist]

I don't know if i want people who genuinely enjoy this album deciding what is and is not credible about this site.
This.

[vakuola]

Hilarious review, but the album isn't that bad, it's got some strong tracks (while the rest of the album is bland and boring actually) but I think it deserves atleast a 60%

[The Marc]

So, let me get this straight, your "review" of The Killers' new album was an exercise in mocking responses that reviews, in your opinion, normally elicit. You chose to write an uninteresting story in order to mock the idea of reviewing, somehow. You knew full well that you were going to get these kinds of responses, and apparently, you desired to have a number of people call you stupid in effort to somehow try to prove that they are actually the stupid ones? And, this is also, somehow, supposed to be passable music journalism. Wow, either you are the smartest man I've ever encountered online or the dumbest... The smart money is on the latter...

Do your metaphysical exercises elsewhere, buddy... If you are going to "review" a record, do it.
This needs to be said again.

[blindrider529]

The Killers haven't been around long enough to determine a legacy either.

Fall Out Boy has changed the industry, and Pete Wentz has revolutionized the marketing aspect of music. The Killers have played 80's throwback synth pop and ripped off Springsteen.

Yes...just like Fall Out Boy and Coldplay. I was just pointing out that none of these bands are at a point at which to determine their legacy. to say they are goes against the entire idea of what a legacy is. By definition it can't be determined in any way, shape, or form...only speculated.

and no offense...but Fall Out Boy changed the industry? They aren't even the best selling act in their own genre (whether it be rock, alternative rock, pop, pop-rock, etc).

[TakingBackNolan]

I just think it's funny that if someone posted a review like this for the new Fall Out Boy album, they would not only get the review taken down, but probably also be banned.

[blindrider529]

I just think it's funny that if someone posted a review like this for the new Fall Out Boy album, they would not only get the review taken down, but probably also be banned.
Well, Fall Out Boy is a lot more relevant to this "scene" and has been an important part of this website in particular. There are certain bands like that, that are just more important than this kind of review.

[The Personist]

Yes...just like Fall Out Boy and Coldplay. I was just pointing out that none of these bands are at a point at which to determine their legacy. to say they are goes against the entire idea of what a legacy is. By definition it can't be determined in any way, shape, or form...only speculated.

and no offense...but Fall Out Boy changed the industry? They aren't even the best selling act in their own genre (whether it be rock, alternative rock, pop, pop-rock, etc).
In terms of the marketing, exposure, and image. Fall Out Boy helped bring the genre to the fore again--that's undeniable. In fact, the myriad pop punk acts out there owe their success not to the genre's forebears, like NFG or Blink, but more so to the band that made that sound prominent again: Fall Out Boy. NFG and Blink have their legacies established, to be sure, but I would say Fall out Boy is well on their way.

[TakingBackNolan]

Well, Fall Out Boy is a lot more relevant to this "scene" and has been an important part of this website in particular. There are certain bands like that, that are just more important than this kind of review.
I agree that Fall Out Boy is more relevant to this website than The Killers, but if a "review" is posted on this site of a band, they must have SOME relevance. I've heard the new Killers album and I do enjoy it. I just feel like since Brandon does not visit this web site, it's alright to pull something like this. I just find it absolutely disrespectful and somewhat immature to do this. Aren't blogs for writings like these? So you hate the album? That's fine. I hate albums too. But when my friends ask me why I hate it, I don't tell them stories about gum on my shoes.

[blindrider529]

In terms of the marketing, exposure, and image. Fall Out Boy helped bring the genre to the fore again--that's undeniable. In fact, the myriad pop punk acts out there owe their success not to the genre's forebears, like NFG or Blink, but more so to the band that made that sound prominent again: Fall Out Boy. NFG and Blink have their legacies established, to be sure, but I would say Fall out Boy is well on their way.
Fall Out Boy has definately been that band in their sub-genre right now, but until they really sell albums like Daughtry & Nickelback they aren't even the biggest bands in rock music, and therefore obviously haven't been a revolution in marketing in the mainstream yet. The success of marketing is obviously determined by sales, so maybe they're in the process of getting there, but not yet.

I have to point out that I don't really think that the genre was completely dead or anything when Fall Out Boy showed up on the mainstream scene. Before them Good Charlotte had been done incredible with their second album, Green Day dominated with American Idiot, Yellowcard actually had fans, etc. They are certainly that band that is keeping it going, though, and I couldn't be happier. They are definately influencing a generation of new bands, just like the genres bands before them.

I love them and have been telling friends for as long as I can remember that they are going to have a Blink 182-esque impact. So, basically...I agree with you in certain aspects, and am optimistic!

[blindrider529]

I agree that Fall Out Boy is more relevant to this website than The Killers, but if a "review" is posted on this site of a band, they must have SOME relevance. I've heard the new Killers album and I do enjoy it. I just feel like since Brandon does not visit this web site, it's alright to pull something like this. I just find it absolutely disrespectful and somewhat immature to do this. Aren't blogs for writings like these? So you hate the album? That's fine. I hate albums too. But when my friends ask me why I hate it, I don't tell them stories about gum on my shoes.
:-) If you look back at my first post in the thread, that was my suggestion. I'm just saying that the difference between this kind of review for The Killers and one for Fall Out Boy is that a LOT more people would freak out and be upset about it if this was a Fall Out Boy review. Apparently they don't care a whole lot how many people are pissed off about this, but the number of people upset about this is massively smaller than it would be if it was Fall Out Boy. Fans would start and internet riot!

[delvec19]

what a piece of shit review....you fail sir.

[rckstr29]

My dunks only predict the future.

damn! how much did u have to pay for that? Thems some custom'd out sneaks, bro!

[SandManTEND13]

hahaha yeah not much of a reivew but it was funny! Good story

anyway I really want to hear this album, its sounds different I think. The single has to grow on me and I think this album will to. Oh well

[reissgoespunk]

Hahahahahaha!

[daygreen89]

lame review.

[donns2816]

retard.

[Praetor]

Blake Solomon is a god.

[bung]

Oh wow, what a waste of a review. It could have at least been funny.