in reference to an earlier post about The Big Pink

"Members
Robertson "Robbie" Furze – vocals, guitar, programming
Milo Cordell – keyboards, synthesizer, programming
Joined live by:
Jo Apps (sister of Patrick Wolf) – backing vocals
Valentine Fillol-Cordier – backing vocals
Akiko Matsuura (of PRE, Comenechi) – drums
Daniel O'Sullivan (of Guapo, Sunn O))), et al.) – bass
Leopold Ross – bass "

The whole thing reeks of V*CE overrated cool. Can this please be the last post on the internet about The Big Pink?

Last.fm is So Cool

'Cool new feature' over at Last.fm - well, it could've been there for ages - you can see *exactly* when you listened to a particular song. I decided to test this out by checking when I'd listened to Elliott Smith's '2:45 am'.

Track				Duration	Date
	2:45 A.M.				3:18	18 Jul 2009, 23:56
	2:45 A.M.				3:18	25 Jun 2009, 18:39
	2:45 A.M.				3:18	18 Jun 2009, 23:17
	2:45 A.M.				3:18	30 May 2009, 00:50
	2:45 A.M.				3:18	22 May 2009, 00:05
	2:45 A.M.				3:18	12 Feb 2009, 23:58
	2:45 A.M.				3:18	31 Jan 2009, 20:18
	2:45 A.M.				3:18	28 Jan 2009, 03:04
	2:45 A.M.				3:18	26 Jan 2009, 00:01
	2:45 A.M.				3:18	24 Jan 2009, 03:18
	2:45 A.M.				3:18	22 Jan 2009, 02:11
	2:45 A.M.				3:18	22 Jan 2009, 01:03

Also the zine is out really soon.

fame litmus test #1 : Frankmusik

"Unless 20Q.net knows you, nobody knows you!"

30. I am guessing that it is Pete Doherty? Right, Wrong, Close
29. I guessed that it was James Blunt? Wrong
28. Are you European? Yes
27. I guessed that it was Jack Johnson (musician)? Wrong
26. Were you famous before you were 20? No
Do you wear makeup? Unknown.
25. Do you play an instrument? Yes.
24. Have you ever been in trouble with the law? No.
23. Were you on a TV talent show? Unknown.
22. Do you perform Rap music? No.
21. Are you a singer? Yes.
20. I guessed that it was Enrique Iglesias? Wrong.
19. Were you married to someone famous? No.
18. Are you a young girl? No.
17. Are you strange? Yes.
16. Are you a relatively young actor? No.
15. Do you perform Rock music? No.
14. Do you criticize others? No.
13. Were you born before 1975? No.
12. Do you live in modern times? Yes.
11. Do you have a beard? No.
10. Are you an American icon? No.
9. Are you a president? No.
8. Are you part of a team? No.
7. Did you ever compete in the Olympics? No.
6. Are you a One-Hit Wonder? No.
5. Are you funny? No.
4. Were you in a romantic comedy? No.
3. Do you have brown hair? Yes.
2. Were you popular in the '80s? No.
1. Do you have long hair? No.

Dude needs some more 'quirky' Spotify ad time or a few more twitter accounts if he wants to break the internet. Maybe it would help if he 'had some trouble with the law' or something. Sorry James Blunt. I mean, 'Frankmusik'.

rules

These were the recently-deceased literary critic (RIP) John Updike's 'rules' for literary criticism, better than Orwell's rules for writing, at least. Vaguely sucking the frivolous joy out of reviewing, but it's totally anti-cynical-indie-journalism, which is good. Objective and transferable ftz, basically. 'Food for thought'. ;

1. Try to understand what the author wished to do, and do not blame him for not achieving what he did not attempt.
2. Give enough direct quotation—at least one extended passage—of the book's prose so the review's reader can form his own impression, can get his own taste.
3. Confirm your description of the book with quotation from the book, if only phrase-long, rather than proceeding by fuzzy précis.
4. Go easy on plot summary, and do not give away the ending.…
5. If the book is judged deficient, cite a successful example along the same lines, from the author's oeuvre or elsewhere. Try to understand the failure. Sure it's his and not yours?

To these concrete five might be added a vaguer sixth, having to do with maintaining a chemical purity in the reaction between product and appraiser. Do not accept for review a book you are predisposed to dislike, or committed by friendship to like. Do not imagine yourself a caretaker of any tradition, an enforcer of any party standards, a warrior in any ideological battle, a corrections officer of any kind. Never, never...try to put the author "in his place," making of him a pawn in a contest with other reviewers. Review the book, not the reputation. Submit to whatever spell, weak or strong, is being cast. Better to praise and share than blame and ban. The communion between reviewer and his public is based upon the presumption of certain possible joys of reading, and all our discriminations should curve toward that end.

(literally taken directly from wikipedia, soz)