Reviewed by: Andrew Unterberger
Reviewed on: 2003-09-01

Posted 04/22/2004 - 01:29:29 PM by TysonT:
	You're a boner.
Posted 12/05/2004 - 01:29:34 AM by peckdude:
	A tad late, but... Are you deaf? This was the best album of 2003 by far. You said it yourself, these songs are great. What's wrong with that? So the songs are great, but you don't like their image. Whoa, that's reason enough to dock them a couple points! Stylus and Pitchfork are about equal, but (Though I Love The 90's holds a special place in my heart) that doesn't mean that your reviews have to differ completely from each other. They couldn't have put enough praise on this album. And even though you both agreed that the album has great songs, you invent a half-arsed reason to dock points. Apparently the world doesn't need great, heartfelt songs that are better than everything else on the radio, hell, anything out there. You are boner-iffic.
Posted 12/29/2004 - 06:23:36 AM by tadetlugnt:
	what's wrong with GOOD SONGS?? why should it matter if it isn't spaced out and futuristic? cos yeah, neither franz ferdinand nor the futureheads are making music that sounds like it's 1980. Dude, you had written the whole review when you got to this line:Even more predictable, however, is how great the songs on this album are. that's it, the end- Music lovers love music, not image.
Posted 10/02/2005 - 11:19:08 AM by BeingaBunny:
	I agree. This review is bull shit. I'm not a big Exploding Hearts fan, but this review is terrible. "This isn’t what the world needs now." What a pretentious statement - and who really cares anyways? I know what the world needs right now - the world needs a new U2 album. Big deal. Sadly, I believe The Exploding Hearts died in a carwreck.
Posted 12/01/2005 - 11:13:32 AM by wmdavidson:
	This album is fantastic.
Posted 03/03/2007 - 04:32:10 PM by Garret:
	Ha, "Andrew Unterberger." So you're the guy who wrote that "Top Ten Hits That Prove That Originality Is Overrated" article... suck it, Doc.