On 28th September 2005 at 23:14 Anonymous 4732 wrote...

I'm guessing that rule number 1 is "Don't review your mates". Because some of us can see it coming a mile off.

"Very unique" is a phrase you use twice. "Unique" isn't an adjective that permits a qualifier: things are either unique or they aren't. There's no relatives. "Quite unique", "rather unique", "somewhat unique", or your own favourite "very unique" don't exist.

And neither does psychedelic punk. It's a contradiction in terms.

And while I'm on, the exclamation mark loses its potency if you use it over and over again! Really! It does! Honest!

See?

If your review tells me anything - and I'm having to read really hard between the lines here - it's that 2012 are a pub rock band: technically competent but no great shakes.

Maybe you should think again before doing your mates "a favour".

On 29th September 2005 at 00:19 Anonymous 3717 wrote...

No holding back on the reviewers today, is there?

On 29th September 2005 at 15:36 Anonymous 3235 wrote...

Everyone has their own opinion on music, if you don't like it you don't like it. Fact is, i was sharing my opinion of the band, that's all so deal with it!

On 29th September 2005 at 15:40 Anonymous 4015 wrote...

Agent_W: Where did you get the 'mates' thing from? I see no suggestion of it.

On 29th September 2005 at 17:59 Anonymous 4735 wrote...

They are no where near as good as this review suggests anyway. They are certainly not "Very unique" as the reviewer claims.

On 29th September 2005 at 18:53 Anonymous 4732 wrote...

He comes across as being a mate of the band because there's absolutely no attempt at objectivity or impartiality, only fulsome praise. Which makes it a pretty pointless exercise. What does the review tell the reader about the band? Not much. It's just a cack-handed attempt at positive publicity. Well-meaning, perhaps, but cack-handed nonetheless.

Also, I suspect it's not a coincidence that the reviewer has submitted precisely zero other reviews to the site.

On 30th September 2005 at 15:53 Anonymous 4735 wrote...

Does this happen often then? Bands need to get heir mates to write them a flawless review to try and make themselves look good

On 30th September 2005 at 16:44 Anonymous 4015 wrote...

Some of the most respected local scene writers, not naming anyone in particularly even though two names immediately spring to mind, do it all the time. It's easy to find out. Check what else they've written. More convincing than the 'no other reviews' argument is 'ten other reviews, and all of the same band.'

To be honest, I think it's to be expected. This argument comes around every now and again and to be honest, I just think 'who cares?' So it's a bit of unfair hype. Big deal. It happens.