Leeds Music Scene

The way we bring it down by The Hoarse

YouTube Google RSS Feed Instagram

Posted by .

Reviewed on 24th March 2004.

 
 

The way we bring it down

By The Hoarse

Where The Hoarse bring it down is simply to your local pub jam night. With a proficient wibbly blues guitarist and armed with a bucket load of tried, tested and generally worn out pub-rock clichés this is the stuff the 12 pint fat bloke at the bar will tell you is the best band you've ever heard.

The Hoarse are not "now", in fact they're so far from it that this CD evokes a sense of admiration for a band sticking to their true values. Of course all of this would be fine and dandy were the songs up to the task of carrying this album past the pre-conceptions of such an antique genre.

For a brief time things look promising, not astounding but promising. Title track "The way we bring it down" opens the album with some gusto and "Bring it on" followed by "Move up close" are by the numbers crowd pleasers. The problems start with the transgression into Oasis style plods shifting from blues rock to blues ballads. "Moon and stars" is no doubt a popular song in the band's repertoire pulling as it does all the right sentimental stunts but it's so formulaic it's hard to credit. The ideas dry up on tracks 5-7 and some severe bottom of the barrel stuff is dredged up in the terrible "Queen D Blues" and equally painful "Smile".

As you might expect the irony of it all is The Hoarse are talented and accomplished musicians it's just that the field in which they've chosen to graze isn't particularly lush.

 

Comments

All replies to this article. Log in to post a reply.

On 15th April 2004 at 18:56 Anonymous 2401 wrote...

The Hoarse - The way we bring in down....
Richard Garnet has clearly missed the point with this band/album. Richard, some bands aren't trying to find that elusive sound to break-through into the bigtime. Not every band is willing to jump on the indy bandwagon and try to aquire those sounds that they think the NME will like. Some bands are willing only to rock the living sh*t out of people like me in the crouds they entertain and care nothing of 'making it' OR impressing students. Do your self a favour - get yourself down to a 'jam' pub and see these guys play.....there's no-one there that cares much for what's in, but what sounds good. If anyone else wants to make their OWN mind up (which seems difficult for anyone around here to do) you can imagine the name of the website ; )

 

On 21st April 2004 at 10:01 Anonymous 30 wrote...

I quote "The Hoarse are not "now", in fact they're so far from it that this CD evokes a sense of admiration for a band sticking to their true values. Of course all of this would be fine and dandy were the songs up to the task of carrying this album past the pre-conceptions of such an antique genre."

The point I was making and you clearly missed in your rant - it wouldn't matter if the songs were there whether they were now or not, but as I point out they don't (in my opinion) have the songs.

I am perfectly assured in the knowledge I am making my own mind up and wasn't aware there was a general opinion/conspiracy against the band which I could follow.

You do not listen to the amount of local music that I do and therefore I suggest that it is you who has actually "missed the point".
As we have said time and again, if you don't want criticism don't send it in!

 

On 12th May 2004 at 11:17 Anonymous 1194 wrote...

Quote from our guestbook:
Name: maladys the daemon
Home Page:
Date: Sun May 09 12:50:02 2004
Referred By: the boogie in my soul
Comments:
Leeds music scene! Oh dear lord, the trouble they cause. It's not the principle, it's the total drelbs they use to do the reviews. The band I work with were once reviewed by a guy who didn't stay for their spot, as he had to go away and have his piles lanced or something. Then he wrote the review, saying what he thought the band were like, and what they ought to do to be more like he'd like them to be like! Then he went on and on and on about an old mate he'd spotted at the gig. The review got printed and we got some kind of sycophantic creeping from the site's organiser for a day or two. Sadly people still read the reviews, but if you let the organiser know how displeased you are and why, he might decide not to use the w**nker again. Cheers

This serves to, perhaps, agree with what you said in your reply. Perhaps mr fukit reacted over-zealously to your review when really it IS only your opinion - and who are you after all? However, I must bring you to task on the 'I've heard more local bands than you' statement. We must have missed each other at every Royal park festival, Leeds Queen Hall (if you are old enough to remember the queens hall) Duchess and haddon hall gigs over the last 15 years. Anyway like Mr Fukit said, feel free to come and review one of the live gigs - You will be made most welcome.

 

On 12th May 2004 at 12:05 Anonymous 13 wrote...

Interesting. But why would a badly written review cause any trouble? Is the author of your quoted message suggesting that the readers of LMS are even stupider than the reviewers? Now that would be a cruel and baseless accusation.

Your message doesn't make it clear where the quotation ends and your comments begin. But does a bad review by an unnamed different person have any relevance to a well written review by someone who is ready to respond to comments?

 

On 12th May 2004 at 13:04 Anonymous 251 wrote...

"It's not the principle, it's the total drelbs they use to do the reviews."

I don't even know what a drelb is (is it Star Trek or something? I'm too busy listening to music). I'm pretty sure I'm not one though.

If you don't like the content on the site then why not write something yourself? Especially seeing as you you have attended every gig in Leeds ever since music began.

REVIEWS ARE PEOPLE'S OPINIONS !!!!! IF YOU DON'T WANNA KNOW WHAT PEOPLE THINK THEN DON'T SEND IN YOUR DEMO OR INVITE PEOPLE TO YOUR GIGS!!!!

It really is that fucking simple.

 

On 12th May 2004 at 15:35 Anonymous 30 wrote...

Quite right Mike! I'm not wasting anymore breathe on it.

 

On 12th May 2004 at 15:38 Anonymous 13 wrote...

Does the urbanizer mean "dweeb"? I don't think you're one of those either Mike. I might be. I went to Finland once, and you can never be sure. But I think it's only fair that people should abuse us for writing reviews. Howeer, the only really hurtful criticisms are the ones that are true.

 

On 12th May 2004 at 16:21 Anonymous 251 wrote...

Well I hope they don't call me Bon Jovi lover then cos that will make me cry. Was Finland nice? I met some nice Finnish girls in Amsterdam. One of them likes our music and has told me to get my ass over there for some rock festivals.

 

On 12th May 2004 at 21:35 Anonymous 13 wrote...

Finland is great - Sibelius, alcoholics and blues music are passions. Lovely place. Is your ass going to let you go as well? Leap at the chance, leap at it. But maybe Lithuania would be cheaper for bootleg CDs.

 

On 13th May 2004 at 01:18 Anonymous 1200 wrote...

I think there is a strong point being made at the top of this thread. So many reviewers seem to judge bands based on the criteria they need to have in order to get signed.

However, since so many bands painstakingly design their music, indeed their self-images, based on this same principle, who can really judge?

Music IS fashion. But it is also art, self-expression, environmental mirror and entertainment.

I like it.


One other new point:
Reviewers always say "If you don't want an opinion, don't send it in". But that's total bollocks. No-one want some complete stranger who's opinion they don't actually care about telling the world their music is shit.

And more importantly, people write reviews and then complain when the band or readers criticise the review. Talk about pot calling the kettle black!

If you don't want people to criticise your review, don't write it.

 

On 13th May 2004 at 10:01 Anonymous 13 wrote...

Two good points. Note duly made in sponge-like object called "brain". Two reponses. One: the material sent with a CD usually gives an indication of what the purpose is - I try to respond accordingly in my reviews. Frequently review copies are accompanied by semi-hysterical self-promotion that includes guff like "active interest from Polydor A&R after storming sets at Wakelfield Arena". Others stress the musical ambition and say something intelligent and accurate. But sadly, some artists send nothing at all ... so we have to guess. Two: I guess the cautionary line should read "If you are not prepared to be disappointed by an amateur reviewer's best shot, then wait until your press agent can manipulate favourable copy in the corporate rags". LMS gets better all the time - but we are a bunch of enthusiasts and dreamers who have day jobs. While I was helping out with my sons' band we didn't send any demos and didn't submit the single for review by LMS ... for a number of reasons it didn't seem like a good idea. (Somone did pick it up though and gave it a fairly positive but uncomprehending review). Bands should think carefully about where and who to send things to.

 

On 13th May 2004 at 10:43 Anonymous 251 wrote...

What a load of shit Jon! Why else are you sending stuff for review if not to gauge opinion? I'm not slagging off people slating my writing, I'm not precious about it. I do it cos I like it, like my band I don't give a shit if it's not to everyone's tastes. I enjoy it and I know there are other people who do too. I write the stuff I would like to read about bands. I'm not going to talk about great use of diminished 7th's and perfect cadences but I will pull someone up for having no basic musical ability. If you perform music, record music or post on message boards you are opening yourself up for criticism. People will always comment. Whisperin and Hollerin completely misunderstood Get Drunk, Screw, Get High! and as much as I'd like to sit down with the young lady and explain to her that she missed the point somewhat I'm not going to go on the site and bitch about it or mail the editor and tell him how the review is harming my band. I don't care if people are recording music to get signed or what their intentions are. If I am asked to review something then I do that, I provide my opinion on how that music makes ME feel and do so in a manner that it will give other people a guide as to whether or not it may be to their tastes. If you want a sycophantic view of everything go to the BBC Leeds website where people generally only send in reviews of bands they like. Then you can live in your perfect world where people don't tell the truth about shit bands.

 

On 13th May 2004 at 12:29 Anonymous 30 wrote...

Mmmm? Questionable arguments Chimp, could we not go round in circles...if you don't want me to criticise your comment on the criticism of my review dont' write one...and so on! Nor do I ever focus on the fact a band should sound right to be signed - I focus on one fact alone...do I like it - if not then I'll give you some reasons and then you make of them what you will....which you clearly have. Anyway I said I wasn't wasting anymore breathe and look what you made me do!

 

On 13th May 2004 at 12:58 Anonymous 13 wrote...

you mean your held your breath the whole time you were typing that! Marvelous!

 

On 13th May 2004 at 13:35 Anonymous 251 wrote...

I did that too and now I am dead. This is my dog typing. It's ace being dead. I didn't have a dog when I was alive.

 

On 14th May 2004 at 12:51 Anonymous 1200 wrote...

MikeQ wrote: Then you can live in your perfect world where people don't tell the truth about shit bands.......
Reviewing is "telling the truth"? I thought it was opinion. All I was really pointing out is that people sending you demos don't want or expect to be slagged off. Why are you reviewing? Because you like people reading your opinions? Cos you like music? Cos you want to help bands by offering creative criticism?

Different reviews create a different feeling in the mind of the reader about the personality of the reviewer. Remember reveiwers: it's a lot easier for a reader to form an instant opinion about the personality of the reviewer by reading a review than it is to do the same about a musician from listening to his music. Nobody listens to a CD and says, "I really like the music but he seems like a bit of a knob"

 

On 14th May 2004 at 13:03 Anonymous 251 wrote...

I don't care if people think I'm a nob.
I write reviews because people like to read them as a way to find out if a band is worth investigating. If a band is shit then I am not going to write good things about them, whats the point in that? I write the things I would like to read. I never write "This band is shit. I'll back it up with what is there or what's not. If I don't like a band, or if I do, I will often use another band or artist as a baseline comparison. That way if I say something is shit but it sounds like xxx then someone may decide they may enjoy it.
Jon, if people don't want to be slagged off then they should not send demos in for review to magazines or websites, they shouldn't even make a CD, in fact they shouldn't play any gigs, certainly not BOTB's, and perhaps shouldn't be in a band or learn an instrument. As soon as you set foot outside your door with any art form you are putting yourself on the block. Sending a demo in is asking for opinion. It seems people like you only want to hear arse licking though and don't want to hear any negative criticism.

 

On 14th May 2004 at 13:33 Anonymous 883 wrote...

wow, this is almost like that review of The Cribs I did which stretched out to 9 pages and 89 comments of random abuse hurled in my direction cos I called them shit. now that's an example of opinions and writing, and whatever else you guys are talking about!!

 

On 14th May 2004 at 16:28 Anonymous 13 wrote...

There are many motives for writing a review. Not all consciously held. The thing that motivated me to start sending pieces in to LMS was that I belived that standards in the venues I had gone into and in the reviews that I read were not as high as they could be. So rather than just moan about it (I did that too) I thought I would try to do something about the the writing. One of my motives in writing is to goad artists into setting themselves higher standards - or at least to be clear about what their own standards (be they technical, artistic, aesthetic, political, social, moral or whatever). This isn't simple, and it doesn't stay the same from one week to the next. Dogmatism is always wrong! ... or not.

 

On 15th May 2004 at 12:45 Anonymous 1200 wrote...

Mike - it's a little bit more complicated than simply "arse-licking vs. proper reviews". The review of Hoarse in question doesn't actually criticise the band much, it criticises the genre they're playing in. So maybe, just maybe, the reviewer should have thought to himself "I know nothing about this genre, maybe I should keep me gob shut". But no, he gave them 2 stars instead. Mike, it is surely the responsibility of the reviewer to have SOME EXPERT KNOWLEDGE, and not just be a "I don't know much but I know what I like". It is not the reviewer's job simply to say whether he like or dislikes something and then back it up in fact. It is also his job to be able to usefully describe the music, and give some insight.

Why you've started saying things like "people like you just want an arse-licking" I've no idea. Seems to me based on this and past experience that you often resort to personal abuse. Please try to find some other outlet for your frustrations than me in future. All I said was that people don't want to be slagged off. Which is true. I'm not saying you shouldn't do it. But I am saying your job is to try to find an understanding of things, and try to realise when you have slagged something simply because you don't get it. Maybe if you expressed your opinions as opinions rather than as if you're reading aloud from the 10 commandments you could be taken more seriously.

 

On 15th May 2004 at 13:43 Anonymous 13 wrote...

"some" expert knowledge? What would that be like? When would a little knowledge (we all have some) become expert enough? And how many bands or artists would get reviewed at all if only the qualified wrote about them? We can only be expert in our own response. That's all we can write about. It would be an intersting argument if you suggested that only musicians with some expertise should play in bands. That would close down a few venues I should think . I agree that the polarisation between arse licking and slagging off is non-deabtable - it's just two things we don't want. On the genre question would you only want experts in unambitious and musically limited pub rock bands to review bands of that genre? Or how about the genre of kids' first band while they're still learning to play doing Iron Maiden covers bands? We're talking about popular music here - not something inaccessibly difficult that requires education and long immersion to comprehend. The stuff gets played, some of it gets reviewed, and if the reviewer makes an arse of it there's a button underneath for people to wade in. No problem - even when many of the complaints are way more ignorant than the original reviews.

 

On 15th May 2004 at 14:33 Anonymous 1200 wrote...

Fair enough. But if someone's playing blues-rock and the reviewer's knowledge only extends to being able to say "this band plays blues-rock, which I think is passe" then what's the point? A bit more insight would be nice.

 

On 15th May 2004 at 15:28 Anonymous 13 wrote...

point taken.

 

On 16th May 2004 at 14:55 Anonymous 251 wrote...

Jon you have a comment on everything so why dont you write some reviews then and we'll all just fuck off cos we're clearly shit compared to your much greater talent and more valid opinions, twinned with a greater musical knowledge.

 

On 18th May 2004 at 00:41 Anonymous 1200 wrote...

Mike - I've emailed you at your band forum in response to this.

 

On 18th June 2004 at 19:53 Anonymous 1194 wrote...

wow, i DID cause a stir didn't I? All I can really say from reading your subsequent discussion is that performing chimp really has said what I felt for a couple of days after I read the review. "Why give the CD a bad review if you don't like the genre?" I thought to myself. No matter how much anyone says "well it's just a dick's opinion", you can't help being cut up for a while when you read someone putting something down that you've worked really hard on. Also, I have seen how personally people can take all this. Reviewers' have friends too? Jesus! Lastly, I have learned how to get a good quote from a shit review! Great eh? I still extend the offer to come down and see the band live, though Richard. It's all water under the bridge. Oh, I forgot, you can't stand rock can you?

 

On 20th June 2004 at 10:59 Anonymous 13 wrote...

I think you missed two important points that came out of the thread. One was that reviewers try to write the truth about what they hear. Reviews are not like product evaluations which measure things. It's a personal thing and that's it. The other thing you missed is that the review in question came down on the negative side because of the quality of the material, not because the reviewer "can't stand rock". The songs, he wrote, were not good enough to support the band's musical talent. To quote "all of this would be fine and dandy were the songs up to the task of carrying this album past the pre-conceptions of such an antique genre". In other words, even though the kind of rock being offered is old-fashioned, it could still work if the songs were strong enough. His ears told him they weren't.

 

On 21st June 2004 at 09:59 Anonymous 30 wrote...

Thank you for that clarity Sam. Frankly I can't believe so much breathe has been wasted on such an average review and CD. Just let me make one thing clear - I love rock in all flavours when it is done well. So anymore assumptions on my character should be made to my face. Finally Urbanizer if you thing you guarded insults are a way to get me to come to see the band then you really aren't doing them any favours.

 

On 30th June 2004 at 12:46 Anonymous 1194 wrote...

OK instant, You're right (cos i know thats all that you need to hear). There has been a lot of breath (no e) wasted on this review.So no more of mine will be wasted after this correspondance. However, the assumption that I would somehow do the band a 'favour' by having you turn up is an absolute belly roll. Visions of grandure, I'm sure, enter the room before you do. And, yes, I WILL make that assumption of your character to your face should you let me know where you'd like it to happen(however, i'd think carefully about whether or not that statement was made as a threat of some kind).
Love and kisses, the Urbmeister

 

On 30th June 2004 at 15:01 Anonymous 30 wrote...

Sorry just not worthy of a repsonse.

 

On 30th June 2004 at 15:06 Anonymous 1944 wrote...

Come on people let's not fight

 

On 30th June 2004 at 15:09 Anonymous 251 wrote...

Quick, lets all get the pacifist!!!

 

On 30th June 2004 at 15:23 Anonymous 1944 wrote...

You ever get the feeling that almost every comment on every article is from us? With a few thrown in from good old Mr Gomm

 

On 30th June 2004 at 15:49 Anonymous 251 wrote...

Maybe we have the worst jobs?

 

On 30th June 2004 at 16:52 Anonymous 1944 wrote...

Well my job finishes on the 16th July....

 
 
 

Photos

0 photos • Upload a photo

 
 

Bands

1 band associated with this article.

The Hoarse

rock blues

Fans

0 fans of The Hoarse

I'm a fan