i mean to infer that putting the research's sound somewhere between some indie-pop band and some-pointlessly-irrelevant-example-of-a-random-thing-in-an-entirely-different-entertainment-medium renders the actual comparison a little bit surplus to requirement. it means nothing. it's only marginally less pointless than saying they sound like a different bad "on acid". i don't see how it helps the reader decipher what the band sounds like, or whether the author is excited about it/disappointed by it/enlightened by it/whatever.

ok, so now i sound like even more of a prick than i did before. all it was meant to be was a harmless niggle. ah well, screw it. all i really think is that the research deserve a lot more care and attention than that review gave them. they could actually be huge and brilliant.

i'll stop now, i feel more uncomfortable with every word i write. i'm also slightly drunk. don't insult my intelligence, dickwad.

xxx