Our Love to Admire

Reviewed by: Alfred Soto
Reviewed on: 2007-07-10

Posted 07/10/2007 - 07:01:16 AM by KlausFraktal:
 What a petty, hateful review. And it's "No I in Threesome", not "No. 1 in Threesome." Hey Alfred, next time you're asked to write a review, maybe you should actually listen to the album, and you know, maybe you should put aside your laughably juvenile misanthropy. That might actually give you something more to write than petty insults. "Rumbling, minor chord meaninglessness," indeed.
Posted 07/10/2007 - 07:20:50 AM by KlausFraktal:
 Oh, and I'm sorry that your girlfriend wants to fuck Paul Banks.
Posted 07/10/2007 - 07:43:18 AM by smezzer:
 i enjoyed this review muchly, although thats from an ambivalent view of Interpol. I think i listened to Antics once and it didn't exactly leave a mark (though with my very limited knowledge of them i might be inclined to draw similiar conclusions). OK, the content of the review could be completely erroneous, but it was amusingly done at least
Posted 07/10/2007 - 08:01:16 AM by brian586:
 The reviews where the writer spends 2/3's of the time making fun of the band (me thinks your obsession with carlos's mustache is a little disturbing) sorta reveals an agenda, as though the reviewer wanted to dislike the album before he even heard it. This review reminds me of the lily allen review, though about half as nasty as that one. I started to visit stylus because i thought the site was refreshing after the snarky elitist reviews over at pitchfork. Alfred would fit right in over there.
Posted 07/10/2007 - 08:18:12 AM by smwynne:
 Where's the album review? Is that going to be published tomorrow? All I read was 3rd tier masturbatory freshman year bullshit. This kid is an idiot, that's for sure. Don't quit your day job. Stay sweet, bro.
Posted 07/10/2007 - 08:26:11 AM by AlecIsAlec:
 I'm going on a moustache ride with paul banks and Alfred.
Posted 07/10/2007 - 08:26:28 AM by Seth2006:
 Ad hominem a little much? Don't bag on Alfred -- he's just hitting his marks. Everybody disliked Antics, so he knows he needs to really HATE this one if the critical trajectory is to be maintained. This way, the next record will be an underdog, and maybe the singer will have lost enough weight for Alfred's nose to unwrinkle.
Posted 07/10/2007 - 08:27:12 AM by Richie_A:
 I agree with you that this is a shockingly mediocre let-down of an album but the review sounds like you hated the band in the first place and wanted to let off some pent-up steam about them - so much for an objective standpoint, eh?
Posted 07/10/2007 - 08:55:01 AM by KlausFraktal:
 Wait? So is 'Turn on the Bright Lights' retroactively not Stylus' 6th best album of 2000-2005? Because there's nothing in this review that couldn't be said of that album as well.
Posted 07/10/2007 - 09:03:13 AM by blackrooster:
 I really liked Antics. Everyone seems to be giving this album a real kicking, but from what I've heard it sounds pretty good. Is this a case of band you used to love becoming big and on a major label so you have to hate them?
Posted 07/10/2007 - 09:48:05 AM by keag76:
 Would it not be wonderful if you could place a wager in Vegas on ezine record reviews? I knew this album would receive a c- or lower from stylus. I would be fucking millionaire right now!
Posted 07/10/2007 - 10:03:27 AM by terrorist:
 anyone who's been on the subway knows why it's a porno. ever seen ads? you know how most of them have half-naked women in them? do you know how many ads are plastered in the subway? not just the walls, but the walls of the train itself? every square inch of the subway is covered in skantily clad girls. might have been better to say "subway she is a soft-porno", though.
Posted 07/10/2007 - 10:06:40 AM by raskolnikov:
 Interpol is a ridiculous band. Trembly and atmospheric without any vulnerability, doddering and tired in their songwriting, foppish and cliched in their attire. Anyone who liked their first record should save their appreciation for their recording engineer Peter Katis, because the band itself puts the suck in success.
Posted 07/10/2007 - 10:08:39 AM by Hubajube:
 Which is scarier: These posters are all members jumping over from a post on the Interpol board? OR These posters are all ending up here independantly?
Posted 07/10/2007 - 10:18:45 AM by mvdu76:
 It's just another silly Stylus review, and as you know, all reviews are only opinions. I have to agree about the quality of the CD. Antics is much better. But this reviewer only reviewed the CD to laugh, it seems.
Posted 07/10/2007 - 11:10:23 AM by GavinM:
 "Our Love promises as much decadence as its Econoline van spare tire cover art." Awesome! Fuck "objectivity" (like any music act deserves it -- this isn't the Gaza Strip, people) if it gets more lines like that.
Posted 07/10/2007 - 11:21:44 AM by toddburns:
 The incorrect song title has been fixed. We regret the error.
Posted 07/10/2007 - 11:27:53 AM by filmninja:
 This review was a shamefully partisan attack against an album you clearly saw fit to judge before hearing a single note. Clearly a bunch of empty posturing with nothing approaching relevant content, your piece was ironically every bit as guilty of shallowness as the music you decried. Pull your head out of your ass, you little unwashed fuck.
Posted 07/10/2007 - 11:33:11 AM by FinFangFoom:
 Objectivity is obviously impossible when it comes to music, but I think most readers of a semi-professional 'zine expect writers to actually make a mature attempt to engage and analyze the music. The only thing I'm able to derive from Soto's subjective experience with this album is that he apparently doesn't like other human beings and engages in speculative fantasies about their emotional lives so he can wag his finger at them like some hipster nun. On that note, can we please stop pretending that notions such as 'authenticity' and 'depth' actually mean anything, particularly in relation to pop music. Seriously, Pitchfork mostly dropped that act when their regular writers graduated from college and realized that teenagers with fuzz pedals, an issue of AdBusters, and a Boyd Rice record aren't any closer to the 'truth' than any of the uneducated, puritanical potheads that preceded them. Only solipsistic bottom-feeders like the ironically named raskolnikov here actually hold those ideals, and it's kind of disappointing to see Stylus make that devolution by publishing fluff like this.
Posted 07/10/2007 - 11:53:54 AM by cwperry:
 Interpol, like Franz Ferdinand, is fashion. In 20 years we will laugh, laugh, laugh at those albums and ourselves for liking them.
Posted 07/10/2007 - 12:35:01 PM by mikepowell:
 i find it deeply disturbing that anyone would call any record review 'partisan,' regardless of the band. and klaus, i think 'bright lights' is still pretty well-loved by the folks here; bands don't always make good albums, do they? i thought this review was good--funny, personal, and a real discussion of what this band has become (i.e. shitty, generally speaking).
Posted 07/10/2007 - 12:39:34 PM by pindar:
 Interpol, like Franz Ferdinand, is fashion. In 20 years we will laugh, laugh, laugh at those albums and ourselves for liking them. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ And in 25 years, our kids will rediscover them and start a band "inspired" by them.
Posted 07/10/2007 - 12:42:12 PM by prohibitedart:
 Yet another album to add to the "disappointing year of indie rock." I was waiting for every online/print mag. critic to destroy this album, and sure enough, most of them did. Paul Bank is a terrible lyricist, and if the band can't outshine his voice, then there are going to be problems. The latter half of this album could simply be removed. And yet this is still better than the new Modest Mouse record. To give that a 'C' and this a 'D' seems a little off.
Posted 07/10/2007 - 01:02:16 PM by florenz6:
 For me, it was big fun to read this review. I agree with Mr. Soto. The first Interpol album was a fucking bore from start to end, a big hype - and this one shows they have learned nothing. Repeating old formulas, working on a "wild" , "sharp-edged" image. Isn't this all a bit poor, the teenage department of fashion and recycling?! God, I am too old for this shit. It is definitely not of the hot kind.
Posted 07/10/2007 - 01:07:29 PM by florenz6:
 Re: Klaus Fraktal. I am very sure Alfred didn`t write his review out of "juvenile misantropy". You are a bit quick with your mumblings. Remembering mz tastes at the age of 17, I would have thrown this record into the garbage can after aboot twenty minutes maximum...
Posted 07/10/2007 - 01:22:53 PM by KlausFraktal:
 florenz, he doesn't write about the album, he speculates about what the people in the band are like as well as their fans. He takes up a bullshit moral position and uses it to make a bunch of weak, self-glorifying generalizations that has nothing to do with the actual music on this record. Despite making sure to inform us that he doesn't keep a 'LiveJournal', his skewed perceptions and judgments regarding other people could easily be mistaken for the misanthropic grunting of the very teenagers he uses this piece to distance himself from. Whether or not you like Interpol, if you can't recognize just how childish and intellectually dishonest such an exercise is, you should, perhaps, refrain from indulging your own condescending posture. "God, I'm too old for this shit," then act like it. The only people I ever see complaining about image-consciousness and teenagers are... image-conscious teenagers.
Posted 07/10/2007 - 01:42:11 PM by karlkafka:
 indie is teh suk now so techno can take ova
Posted 07/10/2007 - 01:56:30 PM by florenz6:
 Keep cool, Klaus!
Posted 07/10/2007 - 02:03:33 PM by florenz6:
 ... and besides being cool, Klaus, you should realize (with a small courageous act of empathy) that Alfred Soto is in fact writing a lot about the music. I think, "rumbling minor chord menaingless" is a great description of Interpol's music, though, okay, there might be some "rumbling major chord meaningless" as well. The "moral bullshit" thing is more on your side, with your all-to-quick judgements on other people's motives.
Posted 07/10/2007 - 02:12:21 PM by draglikepull:
 I don't get the whole teenager thing. Are there really a lot of teenagers listening to Interpol? I saw them in concert recently, and while teenagers couldn't get in because it was a 19+ show, the club was completely packed. I don't see, at any rate, what the typical age of a band's fans has to do with its music. As for the record, it's far better than Antics, and one of the best I've heard this year. "Pioneer to the Falls", "Pace Is The Trick", and "Wrecking Ball" are all fantastic tracks, and even though "Rest My Chemistry" has dumb lyrics, the music is good enough to make up for it. I don't really see what the big deal about sounding similar is anyway, as long as the songs are good. 99.5% of all music released sounds pretty similar to other music already released. If you really care so much about originality that's all well and good, but I don't see how it could be much fun listening to 3 new records every year.
Posted 07/10/2007 - 02:16:16 PM by florenz6:
 Writing these lines, is my little relax exercise after a long day of surfing at the north coast of Lanzarote. Among the records I'm listening to intensely on long evenings, is the new one from Josh Rouse. Heartfelt, deep, profound, and floating. Good luck, and good night!
Posted 07/10/2007 - 03:09:40 PM by cwperry:
 pindar: Hilarious! That's pretty funny. Although at the end of the day, I doubt they will, as no one my age started a band inspired by The Re-Flex ("The Politics of Dancing") or other shitty fashion bands of that caliber from those days. When I think of Franz Ferdinand and Interpol, I immediately thik of The Re-Flex. Yeah, I thought the first Interpol album was a colossal dud. I liked Antics, despite cringing at several lyrics. I had a hunch that this new album would be another dud; Soto's line about it providing us with lotsa belly laffs confirms my suspicions. I have other new releases to buy that aren't mere pieces of fast fashion. Off to get the new Nick Lowe!
Posted 07/10/2007 - 04:17:45 PM by J_R_K_:
 this review isn't harsh enough.
Posted 07/10/2007 - 05:23:01 PM by ReichlJuice:
 People aren't talking enough about this album.
Posted 07/10/2007 - 05:54:42 PM by mattmc387:
 i might be goin out a limb here, but if you hate interpol's first album and actually LIKE antics, you just suck. hating interpol as a whole is understandable, but putting antics over the debut just does. not. compute. okay, so maybe i was like, fifteen when turn on the bright lights came out, but w/e.
Posted 07/10/2007 - 10:29:59 PM by nicemanwashing:
 I enjoyed Turn On The Bright Lights, but needed convincing when it came to buying Antics. As for this, I'm glad the reviews are making my purchasing decision easy. I'll steer clear and buy something else. There's too much amazing music out there to be debating the relative merits of what is clearly a piss-poor album by a huge band...
Posted 07/10/2007 - 11:48:03 PM by yarn24:
 Come on man, a C+ for Maroon 5 and a D for this? That was just a bad review that completely focused on the fact that Interpol jumped to major label and not on the music. A D is just totally unreasonably and unfair, even for someone who doesn't like it. Alfred, your reviews definitely won't mean much to me in the future.
Posted 07/11/2007 - 12:22:20 AM by Hone_Heke:
 If I were to assimilate the above 37 opinions into a refactored prism of "interpolated" Christ-plumbing, the laser-sharp gravitas of disinstitifraction you`re all bothered by, intuits a clean result: Interpol is matter, or, Interpol matters. It is mattered by KlausFraktal and anti-mattered by Florenx and fusion is achieved. If you look around, the nearest review to getting anything like 37 plus comments in the last few months was Spoon which made five. Your megalastic statitician friend computes positive equlibrium on this one folks. For my Hone - money is more important that music.
Posted 07/11/2007 - 03:11:29 AM by florenz6:
 I do get a funny early morning blues reading the amount of comments (mine included) refering to such a complete lack of musical substance. Fast food fashion, yes! 100 commetns on the great Elliott Smith double-cd would be more rewarding! And cw perry's choice to go for the new Nick Lowe album is a good one. Absolutely anachronistic (not unlike the wonderful new achievement of Josh Rouse:), but great! P.S. In fact, as I am on an island, I do have two desert island discs, so to speak, Josh' s one and Euros Childs' "The Miracle Inn", to be released in August. CW Perry, you will fall in love with this one, especially the 15-minute title piece which is a kind of rebirth of old Canterbury scenes, "Caravan minimalism" for the 21th century. See ya, bye!
Posted 07/11/2007 - 01:40:24 PM by cwperry:
 Hone_Heke: No, Paul McCartney's albums has 21 comments as of this moment. So what does THAT say about us all: that McCartney and Interpol are the two most challenging artists today, or that we're all a bunch of brats who are more interested in spewing venom than discussing constructively?
Posted 07/11/2007 - 01:45:10 PM by cwperry:
 To follow up my own previous comment, of course we're not all a bunch of brats; however, the bulk of us are quicker to complain or rebuke than to write in and explain what we do like and why we like it. I often chime in on articles to say a positive thing or two, but half the time I'm the only comment in the box when I do that. And I'm guilty of spewing my own bile here in the past. florenz6 is this message board's freshest, most productive voice and I'm always happy to see his/her (?) constructive contributions.
Posted 07/11/2007 - 05:15:45 PM by adentice:
 30 comments for Simian Mobile Disco - I'll say one thing for Nick Southall, his writing usually generates some interesting debate. For mine, I don't think Interpol is worth (or deserves) all this venom. But one thing I've noticed is there are interesting parallels to be drawn between the fan and critical reaction to the Strokes' first three albums and Interpol's. From what I've read, the same parallel could be drawn in the artistic progression. I would say it's almost pre-destined how fans and critics will react to these sort of indie-buzz/mainstream bands each album in. Anyway, I liked the Strokes' third album so have some hopes for this one.
Posted 07/11/2007 - 06:22:53 PM by alexa17:
 cwperry, I know Interpol and Franz will inevitably be considered "of their time" 20 years hence, but do you really think they'll be that embarrassing? Both bands (especially, I'd argue, the latter) have created some pretty good pop. I have a feeling they'll be remembered at least moderately fondly, even if maybe like someone would remember a crazy pair of yellow bell bottoms from the '70s. They might laugh at the pictures, but also think they looked pretty damn good (and had a hell of a lot of fun) in them. The Bravery, on the hand - and probably the Killers too - are the leisure suits of the 21st century. That's my bold statement of the day :)
Posted 07/11/2007 - 06:24:06 PM by alexa17:
 on the *other* hand, sorry
Posted 07/11/2007 - 06:43:07 PM by MattyClyro:
 shit... am I the only person on the earth who genuinely likes this album? no I in threesome is a good track until he sing the title, I cringe a bit at that. Haven't listened to antics much but from their debut i'm hearing some decent progression fuck, i'm alone lol
Posted 07/12/2007 - 01:27:08 AM by raskolnikov:
 I forgot to mention this: Interpol sucks.
Posted 07/12/2007 - 02:08:23 AM by IanMathers:
 None of these comments are as good as the review is.
Posted 07/12/2007 - 04:30:21 AM by florenz6:
 So, "Little Matters", you can learn a lot!:)
Posted 07/12/2007 - 04:34:14 AM by florenz6:
 P.S. I should cut out the smiling signal.
Posted 07/12/2007 - 04:35:29 AM by florenz6:
 cw perry: In which part of the world do you live? And thanks for the flowers!
Posted 07/12/2007 - 07:18:55 AM by frantic:
 The reason for the negative reviews (here and on Pitchfork) is simple: the album is a grower, and it takes a lot of time to sink in. It's a small step backwards in my opinion, but it's still a great album; I'd give it a 7. Nothing, however, can excuse this review. The first paragraph alone makes me want to find the author, rip out the latest Kureishi book (or whatever is hip these days) off his hands and stuff it down his throat. It's even worse than the Pitchfork review, and that's saying a lot.
Posted 07/12/2007 - 10:32:46 AM by alexa17:
 the Pitchfork review isn't so bad.
Posted 07/12/2007 - 10:59:35 AM by florenz6:
 Re: frantic: you behave like an asshole. And coming back to the music: in my opinion this album is not a "grower", but (if this word would make sense in Enlisch language) a "sinker". Re: Little Matters: It is absolutely unprofessional for a Stylus writer to praise a review by simultaneously putting down all the comments. This is so untterly dull that I assume your brains have finally turned to scrambled eggs.
Posted 07/12/2007 - 11:14:41 AM by cwperry:
 alex17: Sure, I'll grant you that. While it may not be embarassing in the future, I think I for one will wonder exactly how Franz Ferdinand's debut and Antics got so many plays in my house back in the days of 2004-2005 and when I make my list of favorite albums from that time period 20 years from now those will be nowhere near it. I mean, really, if anyone is truly embarassed by music they need bigger fish to fry. Good points, alexa17.
Posted 07/12/2007 - 11:14:48 AM by cwperry:
 florenz6: I live in Chicago.
Posted 07/12/2007 - 01:10:39 PM by alexa17:
 "I mean, really, if anyone is truly embarassed by music they need bigger fish to fry." This is true. (Which is not to say that I haven't thoroughly destroyed all evidence that I ever owned a Sublime CD....)
Posted 07/12/2007 - 01:31:01 PM by florenz6:
 Re: cw perry: Hi! It would be quite difficult to meet at Starbucks, for a Feist session,for example(:)) cause West Germany is so far away! Best wishes from Lanzarote! P.S. Meanwhile I found the Robert Forster text. A good one!
Posted 07/12/2007 - 06:49:45 PM by mtwill:
 mathers: wrong again! amazing! matty: you are not alone frantic: agree your comments, except (i) the pitchfork review was pretty good i thought and (ii) i like when he sings 'no i in threesome', although not nearly as much as i like when he says "i see you as you take your pride, my lioness!" interpol is funny guys! and anyway quoting interpol lines out of context never works - its the inanity of the statements juxtaposed with the sad, anxious music and the urgency of the delivery that makes the interpol magic happen... it would be nice to see a few more new tricks on this record, but its still a pretty good time. interpol has more genuine, unmistakeable style than most other bands out there (hence all the comments!)... florenz:
Posted 07/12/2007 - 06:57:29 PM by sbc100:
 Is Mr. Soto's review about Interpol relatively in line with his colleagues?? Well...maybe not. After checking, it is pretty clear that his rating is just an outlier. Most of the critics put this album on the ~70/100 (or ~B/B-, which is pretty OK for me). Even Pitchfork's rough review is not too far from the mean (6/10). In statistics, these outliers tend to distort or hide the actual results, as Mr. Soto's review is in this case. Of course, if he can rate Maroon 5's "artistic expression" above Interpol's....then he may be simply misinformed about music. And if that is the case, this outlier should be simply ignored.
Posted 07/12/2007 - 07:11:32 PM by AlfredSoto:
 Or it could simply be that Maroon 5 recorded a marginally better album than Interpol. This time.
Posted 07/12/2007 - 08:56:10 PM by cwperry:
 florenz6: Thanks for the invitation ;) I am glad you found that Robert Forster link. As for the Maroon 5 vs. Interpol comparison, I really believe that individual albums' (or movies') ratings should be considered as stand-alone ratings and not useful for comparison to one another. Maroon 5 getting a C- and Interpol getting a D--especially if from two different reviewers--does not mean one is better than the other; it means that one of those albums failed less, or succeeded more, on its own terms. It makes me think of Roger Ebert's protocol for movie reviews (and Ebert is far more relevant and capable than you may think): judge every movie by whether or not it succeeds in doing what it set out to do. By that logic, Dumb and Dumber might get a rating equal to, or higher than, Gone With the Wind, and this does not mean that Dumb and Dumber is the better of the two movies; nor does it mean the reviewer thinks so. I subscribe to this model, and choose not to keep statistics on what album got what and what that means Stylus is thinking and "how could they be so dumb" and blahblahblah . . . try that protocol on for size, you might like it.
Posted 07/12/2007 - 11:57:13 PM by scyte100:
 Really Alfred...I had mixed feelings about this album early on but as always with Interpol, its really grown on me. All pretentiousness aside, this album is pretty good. At first the only tracks I had interest in were Pioneer, Heinrich, Mammoth, Wrecking ball and The lighthouse..Now I cant stop listening to the Pace is the Trick, All fired up, Threesome, and believe it or not (in its simplicity) chemistry...and that leaves us with only 2 tracks! Not Bad. However, I do think had the track order been rearranged, this album might have left a better impression on the listener. Threesome(aside from the lyrics) and Scale do not make great first impressions. "B" in my book.
Posted 07/13/2007 - 10:58:43 AM by frantic:
 @florenz6: the awfulness of this review gives me the right to behave like an asshole. If the review weren't that bad, I'd have something constructive to say. However, it IS that bad, so all I can do is offer my own review. Actually, I'll do just that, albeit a short version: The songs, after they grow or sink, whichever you prefer, are quite good. at least 6-7 are as good as anything they've done so far. They gave the music a bit more room to breathe, while not compromising their style too bad. The lyrics are exactly the same as before: sometimes insightful, sometimes embarrassing. Paul has grown as a singer, and I'm not sure I can say that about the rest of the band. And that's pretty much it. I don't need to read 5 paragraphs of pretentious crap which tells me absolutely nothing about the music, the band or the songs on the damn album.
Posted 07/13/2007 - 02:36:34 PM by florenz6:
 Look, buddy: if this awful is awful or great or whatever, depends on one' s point of view. So, to sauy it very simple, you behave ceratinly more like an asshole than you are the owner of objective truth. your violent fantasies are disgusting, and my personal fault is to offer to much attention to your crap.
Posted 07/13/2007 - 02:41:07 PM by florenz6:
 But your bullshit is only topped by "Little Matters`" "thumb down" for all the comments in comparison to the review.
Posted 07/13/2007 - 05:51:53 PM by mtwill:
 Florenz: Ian always makes the worst comments (and writes the silliest reviews) - its kind of his trademark. Soto: Maroon 5's new record better than OLTA? Um...Ok. Enough said. Stylus: Just curious - why assign out the review of a major new release that a lot of people are interested in to someone who obviously despises the band, who has been 'chuckling' over their 'minor chord meaninglessness' for years (as though TOTBL hasn't been one of the more critically lauded and influential records of the decade). This review is like one of those John Edwards $400 haircut stories on Fox News or whatever - it a hit piece, not a fair or insightful RECORD REVIEW (except here its, uh, apparently moustaches instead of haircuts). So people that share the author's slightly weird contempt for the band love it, and people who like the band get pissed off. As for me, I think OLTA a pretty good listen, nothing to be ashamed of, although probably a bit disappointing over all given the band's prior releases if only for lack of genuinely new ideas (apparently I'm not one of the "us" who has been laughing away for the last few years). So I'm not that worked up about the grade, but it would have been nice to have read something fair and interesting about a band that IS interesting... more interesting than Duran Duran (that's just silly) and certainly more interesting than Maroon 5. But you know, as much as people knock it, at least we have Pitchfork for that...
Posted 07/13/2007 - 06:39:07 PM by alexa17:
 I don't think Ian writes the "silliest reviews," although his comment was stupid. And this review was pretty useless in terms of learning anything about the album. I agree that it's sort of frustrating to get someone who obviously dislikes the band to review a major release, although it's dangerous (exaggeration) to make rules against that.
Posted 07/13/2007 - 11:25:48 PM by scyte100:
 Stylus...... I sense from your readers that this was the wrong band to pick on....umm "On Second Thought" anybody?
Posted 07/13/2007 - 11:51:03 PM by sbc100:
 If Stylus really considers itself a serious magazine, it should at least verify that its "critics" are informed about the bands that they are about to review.It is about building credibility among not only readers but potential ones, like me, who came to know about this magazine through this review. And the more I learn, the more I am convinced that this magazine is not serious: Interpol and Smashing Pumpkins receiving worse reviews than Kelly Clarkson and Maroon 5? This is indefensible. Hey guys: you should review these bands again. Maybe you can start building some respect, like Pitchfork. Sometimes is better to say that you screwed things up than trying to justify what cannot be justified.
Posted 07/14/2007 - 04:49:40 AM by florenz6:
 After several serious listening sessions (for professional reasons, Little Matters! - an insider joke, no showing of intended) I can say that, for my ears, this album is comparable to the ridiculous comeback of "The Police". No one needs this except a die-hard fan base. Even in their early times The Police was a bore, a two-hit-wonder and not much more. Interpol will be a little footnote of the zeitgeist of 2007, in the department of "recycling old patterns with an immense lack of creativity". mMybe the next big hype will be a band called "F.B.I.", who knows?
Posted 07/14/2007 - 11:28:15 AM by scyte100:
 florenz6: "The Police" thats nostalgic .......obviously your taste differs than mine.
Posted 07/14/2007 - 01:34:37 PM by tomburg:
 Alfred, people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Your sense in fashion is abominable. It's like Miami Preppie.
Posted 07/14/2007 - 03:46:00 PM by florenz6:
 scyte: Interpol is so overloaded with old things and sounds (without any fresh approach), that being very nice, you could call them neo-nostalgia. End of story.
Posted 07/15/2007 - 02:21:40 PM by florenz6:
 ... beginnng with the hateful comments of KlausFraktal, refering to dull violent fantasies of other commentators and leading to self-righteous statements a la "one cannot justify what cannot be justified" - I now know what has kept me in this 70 something comments game: I dislike / hate fundamentalism and normative thinking, nearly as much as I hate faschism and Scientology. It's all a meeting of ears and minds (some being, well, out of their minds:)) One should forget about "the real thing" as something hat can be reduced on "the album of the year" or something like that. Kelly Clarkeson vs. Interpol, so what? Let it happen. Pop likes itself (in some extrapolations) to be a world language with fundamental issues. And overestimate itself. This point should be regarded with caution. Like this over-blown world festival with the ghost of Al Gore everywhwere. I sympathize with the ethics behind, but too often the rock machinery produces great cash flow into one' s own pockets - hiding behind the good and the brave things. Next week we will find here a review of the new Pince cd - it deals, of course, with fundamental issues. The cover is terrible kitsch. Kitsch comes close when truth is offered. end of story, 2.
Posted 07/15/2007 - 03:25:23 PM by florenz6:
 .... closing this with some little wishes: I wanna read a great review of the re-edition of COLOSSAL YOUTH. Simon Reynolds has written fantastic liner notes that offer so much interesting background about this early 80`s mystery that it will be hard for any writer not to quote some of his insights. I wanna see how Mallory O'Donnell writes about Hakon Kornstad's fine saxophone solo album "Single Engine". I want some of the Stylus people discover the magic worlds of Hans Appelqvist, Alog and the Kammerflimmer Kollektief. That would be fine. So, here my little holiday comments from the south coast of Lanzarote come to the and finallz:). Will take a swim and then return to my fave hard-boiled thriller of the day: "The End of Frankie Machine". Then, before sleep arrives, the perfect song cycle of Josh Rouse's new one will transport me into the world of dreams. Keep floating! (these are the little things in life)
Posted 07/15/2007 - 04:12:18 PM by Harhol:
 I loved the review, and Turn on the Bright Lights is one of my favorite albums in recent times - song by song reviews are so boring! Nice to see someone shitting on them for a change as well, they could do with being brought back down to Earth.
Posted 07/16/2007 - 04:04:29 AM by florenz6:
 correction: the name of the thriller by Mr. Winslow is "The Winter of Frankie Machine".
Posted 07/16/2007 - 08:24:48 PM by OrvilleM:
 Florenz6, give us all a break, will you? Your (nonsensical) ramblings give me a headache. I do happen to enjoy this album, for what it is, but that is certainly a decision for each individual to make. It isn’t going to make my hypothetical “best of” lists, but I enjoy it nonetheless. So does that mean that I’m not as musically enlightened as yourself? Why must you blather on about whatever you listen to after surfing? Do you think anyone cares? Surely you have more to do than fill up Stylus’ comments banks with useless posts, day after day. I’m not going to argue with anyone who doesn’t like Interpol, that’s certainly anyone’s right, but Mr. Soto’s review is such an immature pile of hatred that it cannot go unnoticed. If you dislike the album, elude to, oh, I don’t know, aspects of the music that you don’t enjoy. Spending so much time worrying about grooming habits and stage presence really has nothing to do with listening to this album. I wouldn’t write off this review just because he doesn’t like the album, I write it off because it’s clear that he never gave the album the time of day – he would have given it a “D” months before its arrival. And then you chime in, telling us that you wouldn’t have given this the time of day even when you were 17 years old. Who cares? Spare us your elitist, broken-English ramblings from the south coast of Lanzarote, please. You don’t like the album? Fine. Making anyone who does out to be some sort of mindless hipster isn’t necessary or cute.
Posted 07/17/2007 - 11:42:16 AM by florenz6:
 Are you "all"? And : "Broken English" was a fine album! Best, Florenz6 (back now in my hometown; you surely wanted to know that)
Posted 07/17/2007 - 04:37:10 PM by barbarian:
 I like the song "Untitled," but I guess that's not on this album... I haven't heard this album... Hi.
Posted 07/19/2007 - 04:38:15 PM by schmeow:
 i guess soto would have given Our Love to Admire a better review if it sounded more like maroon 5. if he judges songs based on whether or not they end up on CD-Rs than i judge CD reviews on whether or not they're full of shit. Interpol inspiring belly laughs? All Fired Up a Pat Benatar wannabe? What the butt-ass is he talking about???
Posted 07/20/2007 - 08:32:53 AM by scyte100:
 Besides this being an excellent disc, "Pace is the Trick" is brilliant!! Cannot stop listening to that song. It has to be one of the most beautiful songs from Interpol....and I own all B-sides.
Posted 07/23/2007 - 09:49:30 AM by raskolnikov:
 Don't forget about how much this band sucks. That is a crucial point to keep in front of all comments in this discussion. I think some people lost sight of that, so I'll restate--Interpol is horrible, anyone who likes them has the aesthetic sensibility of a lazy child, and all of their music is shit. Does that clear things up?
Posted 07/24/2007 - 02:22:08 AM by scyte100:
 And another crucial point to keep in mind is that the comment above demonstrates how irrelevant the music really is. Haters! That in itself should cause anyone to ignore such silly rants.
Posted 08/10/2007 - 02:21:23 AM by yarn24:
 sorry to comment so late, but if you somehow see this florenz6, what is the "fresh approach" that Josh Rouse uses on his dismal new album. As far as I can tell, both Interpol and Josh Rouse are recycling old ideas, but at least Interpol's are somewhat interest. Rouse's new disc is just depressing because he has put out such good material until now (although Subtitulo was kind of a warning sign...).
Posted 08/16/2007 - 04:32:01 PM by florenz6:
 re: yarn24; yes, the new Rouse cd is full of echoes, oldfashioned, whatever you might call it; and it´s nevertheless a fresh approach: melodies I wanted to hear again and again, lyrics with dark undercurrents, songs that, for some reason have not been written in "their" time. I think that it has the class of "1972" or "Nashville" - a laziness full of small black holes. Sorry for the metaphors, I hope M´Orville is not around:)