Site New Answers Search Boards ILE ILM Answers New Question New Questions New Poll Blog View Register Login

When reviewers try and sound cool but totally fuck up references to instruments

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
I was just reading this review Cook has returned the Fatboy Slim brand to market. Here, he's backed more by rock than the burble of the 808, but... which reminded me of these reviewers and their misconceptions of electronic gear. I mean how can a drum machine an 808 for godsake "burble" obviously Johnny Loftus meant a 303.
...and how many times have you heard a reviewr talk about drums from a 303 or a 909 style synth line.

― Savin All My Love 4 u (Savin 4ll my (heart) 4u), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 05:04 (twenty-one years ago)

Ha ha... You, I *hate* it when a reviewer mentions the 303 in the context of a song that has an squelching bass line wich is not the 303... and a minute after that I *hate* myself for being such a geek.

― Diego Valladolid (dvalladt), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 05:49 (twenty-one years ago)

I remember a review of a Marc Bolan/T Rex album (Record Mirror) that stated that "Gloria Jones blows a mean clarinet" even though there was no clarinet on the album. And the credits listed G.Jones as playing "clavinet" which as you all know is a kind of electric piano keyboard...

― mark grout (mark grout), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 05:49 (twenty-one years ago)

Yeah, I see these all the time. I've encountered reviewers who mistake Hammond organ for synth, chorus pedal for feedback, saxophone for bass clarinet, volume pedal for wah-wah, etc. I really don't think too much about these mistakes, so I cut 'em some slack (I'm no technician and I sure don't know everything; and I once knew even less) unless I disagree with the reviewers opinion, in which case I (unfairly) hold it against them. ("One and a half stars?! What a fucking moron - why should anybody value the opinion of some ignoramus who can't even tell the difference between an amplified harmonica played through a wah-wah and a guitar!?")

(Oh, and I don't know the first thing about drum machines or brands of synthesizers, so whatta hypocrite!)

― Myonga Von Bontee (Myonga Von Bontee), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 05:57 (twenty-one years ago)

What about when reviewers talk about the "feedback" all over Loveless. I actually don't think there is any.

― Spencer Chow (spencermfi), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 05:59 (twenty-one years ago)

quite.

― mark grout (mark grout), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 06:07 (twenty-one years ago)

People fuck up trumpet and saxophone all the time, which is mindblowing to me. I mean if you really can't tell the difference just say "horn" to be on the safe side.

― djdee2005 (djdee2005), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 06:12 (twenty-one years ago)

Or perhaps just concentrate on old-fashioned concepts such as, "is the record any good or not?"

― Marcello Carlin, Wednesday, 6 October 2004 07:08 (twenty-one years ago)

that is more uncut style.

marcello how come yr earlies quote always precedes mine in adverts. bastard. YOU BASTARD...

― doomie x, Wednesday, 6 October 2004 07:10 (twenty-one years ago)

Especially since I got the album name wrong. Life's a bum deal innit?

― Marcello Carlin, Wednesday, 6 October 2004 07:20 (twenty-one years ago)

... i was about to start an angry thread on ilx about it but since you 'fessed up...

hey have you heard 'magic numbers?' - its terrific.

― doomie x, Wednesday, 6 October 2004 07:22 (twenty-one years ago)

It's some single, that's for sure. I came across Sean "Guilty Pleasures TM" Rowley ranting on about its greatness in Rough Trade on Saturday. I asked him why he wasn't playing anything from the Ayler box set on his show. He said he wouldn't dare try it.

― Marcello Carlin, Wednesday, 6 October 2004 07:27 (twenty-one years ago)

ayler box set? you've lost me...

i am strictly neo when it comes to music.

though i just recently purchased joe byrd and the field hippies. and it didn't sound like hippie music at all! amazing!

― doomie x, Wednesday, 6 October 2004 07:30 (twenty-one years ago)

Albert Ayler. Greatest saxophone player in history. Invented punk jazz and injected it with holy sex.

― Marcello Carlin, Wednesday, 6 October 2004 07:34 (twenty-one years ago)

Or perhaps just concentrate on old-fashioned concepts such as, "is the record any good or not?"

Isn't describing the sound of a record often a part of that? And wouldn't describing the sound of a record entail mentioning the names of the instruments, most often? If you want to write criticism, you have to get yr information correct. EVERYONE makes mistakes, but it doesn't keep me from getting frustrated.

― djdee2005 (djdee2005), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 07:45 (twenty-one years ago)

I'm more interested in whether the record makes you laugh or cry or want to have sex, what wisdom it has to impart to its consumers, what difference it is likely to make to the/my world. Is it worth £15 of my money/an hour of my time or not? If not, is it likely to be worrh it in six or 18 months' time? Is it a record that might suddenly turn around and mirror your life to you in 50 years' time? That's what matters, pal.

― Marcello Carlin, Wednesday, 6 October 2004 08:07 (twenty-one years ago)

Oh jesus christ.
I don't think its really all that absurd for a reviewer to describe how an album sounds. Usually when they mis-name an instrument, it's while they are describing WHY you should buy the album i.e. "The best song is the poignent track "So What," over which Miles Davis plays a moving saxaphone solo."

for example.

― djdee2005 (djdee2005), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 08:18 (twenty-one years ago)

Still, I think it's not bad if the instrument/tool is mentioned, specially when maybe it's the sub-bassy Moog or the squelching 303 what's making you laugh/cry/want to have sex. It doesn't have to end in all reviews being Guitar Player/Future Music-like...

― Diego Valladolid (dvalladt), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 08:24 (twenty-one years ago)

its boring to describe the instruments. wot? you want to? read guitar magazine then. 'using his yamaha 3203, exclusively built for several pick-ups...'

― doomie x, Wednesday, 6 October 2004 08:25 (twenty-one years ago)

djdee otm

― weasel diesel (K1l14n), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 08:26 (twenty-one years ago)

I would be considerably more annoyed by reviewers who couldn't spell words like "poignant" properly.

― Marcello Carlin, Wednesday, 6 October 2004 08:46 (twenty-one years ago)

what about critics who can't spell "worth" properly?

― weasel diesel (K1l14n), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 08:55 (twenty-one years ago)

"worrh" refers to the possibility that in six or 18 months' time the listener might be feeling frisky with the reborn airs of spring and the contours of emotion and technique in the record might inspire him or her to exclaim "WORRH!" as an indication that he or she may be up for some delightful moments of intimacy with their partner.

― Marcello Carlin, Wednesday, 6 October 2004 09:05 (twenty-one years ago)

Poignent is midway between poignant and plangent. I'm sure Reynolds has used it in one of them books what he has wrote.

― Michael Jones (MichaelJ), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 09:09 (twenty-one years ago)

"WORRH!" Exactly like a Siel monophonic synth bass patch!

― Diego Valladolid (dvalladt), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 09:19 (twenty-one years ago)

marcello, do you really think anyone pays the slightest bit of attention to what any of us are saying anyway?

writer: "I think this record is good"

reader: "fuck off grandad (in my case)/alright carlin, where's the john lennon feature, then?"

― stelfox, Wednesday, 6 October 2004 11:37 (twenty-one years ago)

i like reading about what instruments are on a record. sometimes it does influence whether or not i buy the thing. it gives me a clearer picture of what the music actually sounds like (haha unless the reviewer fucks up the reference).

― pfeffernuesse (Jody Beth Rosen), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 11:42 (twenty-one years ago)

i don't give a shit whether the reviewer likes it. i'd rather hear about chamberlains and ondes martenots.

― pfeffernuesse (Jody Beth Rosen), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 11:46 (twenty-one years ago)

I would much rather read a review that included descriptions of instrumentation than one that talked about the reviewers desire to have sex.

But maybe that's just me.

― supercub, Wednesday, 6 October 2004 11:47 (twenty-one years ago)

supercub otm

― pfeffernuesse (Jody Beth Rosen), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 11:47 (twenty-one years ago)

xpost: "Albert Ayler. Greatest saxophone player in history. Invented punk jazz "

I object to this description.

― Hurting (Hurting), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 12:48 (twenty-one years ago)

marcello, do you really think anyone pays the slightest bit of attention to what any of us are saying anyway?
writer: "I think this record is good"

reader: "fuck off grandad (in my case)/alright carlin, where's the john lennon feature, then?"

-- stelfox (...), October 6th, 2004.

hahah dave you are obviously unfamiliar with my method of record pitching, viz.:-

carlin (brandishing ace cd): "FUCKEN DO IT"
p**l l****r: "only if you stop dangling me out of the window by my left ankle"

admittedly this methodology may explain why i have not appeared much in u***t as of late...

― Marcello Carlin, Wednesday, 6 October 2004 12:51 (twenty-one years ago)

xpost: "Albert Ayler. Greatest saxophone player in history. Invented punk jazz "
I object to this description.

-- Hurting (Hurtingchie...), October 6th, 2004.

Objection overruled!

― Marcello Carlin, Wednesday, 6 October 2004 12:52 (twenty-one years ago)

Overruling, uh, over-overruled!

― Hurting (Hurting), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 12:53 (twenty-one years ago)

No but seriously what makes it "punk jazz" other than the fact that it's noisy?

― Hurting (Hurting), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 12:54 (twenty-one years ago)

A music critic getting instruments wrong is as bad as a book reviewer not being able to smell.

― mei (mei), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 12:54 (twenty-one years ago)

Writing about music is like lawyering about astronomy, or whatever.

Sometimes I think there ought to be a test to become a music writer where you have to know a certain amount of music history, certain basic musical terms, be able to recognize styles, instruments, etc.

I once read a review in which the writer basically complained that "instrumental music" was hard to get into. Come on! This person should not be writing music reviews!

― Hurting (Hurting), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 12:58 (twenty-one years ago)

mei, i can tell you think that analogy is terribly clever, but it really isn't.

― weasel diesel (K1l14n), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 12:59 (twenty-one years ago)

one thing about music writing, is that the only people who sit there and pore over it are other writers (or rabid music nuts). everyone else just wants to skim through interviews and reviews, grab some basic info, put the mag down and then chuck it in the recycling bin a few weeks later.

― splooge (thesplooge), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 13:01 (twenty-one years ago)

"the only people who sit there and pore over it are other writers (or rabid music nuts). "

Well sure, but it's music writing, so music nuts are the key audience.

― Hurting (Hurting), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 13:08 (twenty-one years ago)

But I think his point is that liking music and liking writing about music are two different things.

Which is kind of the same as the 'makes me want to have sex vs. nice wah-wah pedal work' argument.

― supercub, Wednesday, 6 October 2004 13:11 (twenty-one years ago)

Overly technical information about equipment is completely tedious, particularly with regards to 'normal' instruments (for instance, the make and year of a guitar or bass is pretty much the last thing I want to know). Uncommon instruments, when mentioned, help the reader to get an idea of what the record/band is about. However, when/if a reviewer mentions an instrument, regardless of whether it is a common or uncommon one, they should at least TRY to get it right.

I have found that no person knows the difference between a xylophone and a glockenspiel, and this NEVER FAILS to piss me off.

― emil.y (emil.y), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 13:26 (twenty-one years ago)

I can't tell a xylophone from a glockenspiel, so when I write, they're all just "bells."

― Joseph McCombs (Joseph McCombs), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 13:28 (twenty-one years ago)

i once read a interview with a producer turned artist where one entire paragraph included a breathless list of all the instruments/bits of tech the producer was proficient on, as if to illustrate just how broad brushed he really was. it was nice to read for tech nerds like me, but for anyone else, it must have meant nothing.

― splooge (thesplooge), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 13:30 (twenty-one years ago)

Who gives a fuck about "anyone else"?

― Marcello Carlin, Wednesday, 6 October 2004 13:33 (twenty-one years ago)

enough of your pretentious waffle marcello. you know n*g*l **ill*a*s*n is the man when it comes to vintage reggae knowledge and that the world is a richer place for g/-\vin mart1n's aesthetic

― stelfox, Wednesday, 6 October 2004 13:34 (twenty-one years ago)

just to dearil this thing totally - did you get that mp3 sorted?

― stelfox, Wednesday, 6 October 2004 13:35 (twenty-one years ago)

no worries dave. gail b says she'll sort it out for me. i'll let you know if that goes trombone-shaped.

― Marcello Carlin, Wednesday, 6 October 2004 13:37 (twenty-one years ago)

i ive a fuck about 'everyone/anyone else'. they are the ones reading it after all. i dont think they would want to read writers crawling up their own asses in every review or feature. thats what blogs are for.

― splooge (thesplooge), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 14:42 (twenty-one years ago)

*give* not *ive*.

― splooge (thesplooge), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 14:43 (twenty-one years ago)

So what? Nobody cares what you think.

― Marcello Carlin, Wednesday, 6 October 2004 14:52 (twenty-one years ago)

i don't agree that writers should crawl up their own arses each and have had this out with marcello before but i also reckon writers should be able to write and educate their audiences. i know more about what i write about than 95 per cent of the people reading it and, as such, my opinions are the right ones, so yeah i'm thinking of the reader all the time and giving them the best tips/insights i can. however i'm not gonna write down to them, otherwise how will they learn anything.

― stelfox, Wednesday, 6 October 2004 15:07 (twenty-one years ago)

and who gives a shit about what you think marcello? greil marcus is quaking in his boots.

OTM stelfox.

― splooge (thesplooge), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 15:31 (twenty-one years ago)

always be sure to dumb it down just the right amount for us thickies plz dave

― weasel diesel (K1l14n), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 15:58 (twenty-one years ago)

mei, i can tell you think that analogy is terribly clever, but it really isn't.

-- weasel diesel (kilian(dot)murphy24@mail.dcu.ie), October 6th, 2004.

I thought the pun on spell/smell was quite funny, but I know it was stupid.

As for the analogy, it's not particulary clever or anything, but it is accurate.

― mei (mei), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 16:02 (twenty-one years ago)

People confuse vibes with glockenspiels and xylophones a lot too.

Look here's the point: As a critic, you should NOT HAVE MISINFORMATION IN YOUR REVIEWS. Yes the key to being a good writer is how well you write and make the people want to fuck your favorite artist blah blah blah the point is, I think it is very important to put a premium on having accurate information. I don't see why this is an issue.

― djdee2005 (djdee2005), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 16:04 (twenty-one years ago)

What about when reviewers talk about the "feedback" all over Loveless. I actually don't think there is any.

colm's song "touched" has quite a bit of processed feedback.

― gygax! (gygax!), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 16:09 (twenty-one years ago)

but feedback proper?

― latebloomer (latebloomer), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 16:16 (twenty-one years ago)

always be sure to dumb it down just the right amount for us thickies plz dave

i'm not saying anyone's thick, just that i happen to know quite a lot about what i cover and most other people don't. explaining stuff, giving accurate information and a really worthwhile, considered opinion in a manner that people can understand, work with and enjoy while flexing a few of my own creative muscles is not dumbing down in any sense. on the other hand i am certainly not going to say that the reader is as important as me, because they're not - otherwise i wouldn't need to be a critic, they would be! you can hit a happy medium, too. take for instance when i don' t know as much as i might about a given subject/musical style/artist, i recognise the limitations of my knowledge, am honest and try to tie the work to suitable references so it makes all makes sense and hopefully still steer people in the right direction, especially if they are familiar with my other work, my tastes and aesthetic. that's my job .

― stelfox, Wednesday, 6 October 2004 18:06 (twenty-one years ago)

and if anyone wants to dredge up any silly ilx buzzwords like e being a "gatekeeper" of my favourite music, don't. i've done more than enough to throw said metaphorical gates wide open for everyone.

― stelfox, Wednesday, 6 October 2004 18:11 (twenty-one years ago)

hey stelfox, who do you write for (if you dont mind me asking)?

― splooge (thesplooge), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 18:20 (twenty-one years ago)

>"feedback" all over Loveless.

I don't recall the precise interview. But Shields mentioned one of his favorite sample sources: guitar feedback solos, with their sustained but imprecise warbling pitches. He'd sample 'notes' from them, then perform the chord sequences on a keyboard. So not actual unbroken feedback, but definitely the sound of feedback.

― (Jon L), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 18:31 (twenty-one years ago)

But come on, there's not really any identifiable feedback (maybe half a second at the end of a song - but I'm not even sure of even that).

― Spencer Chow (spencermfi), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 18:50 (twenty-one years ago)

Well it depends on what you mean by identifiable; when you sample 2 seconds of feedback into a keyboard and begin playing chords, then the sound behaves in a radically different manner than in-circuit feedback. Something like 'to here knows when', those chords are obviously sampled guitar feedback.

But you're right -- is it still guitar feedback if you're performing the sounds with a keyboard? It's like saying it's still a piano after splicing out the attack or running the tape backwards.

― (Jon L), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 19:01 (twenty-one years ago)

"talk about drums from a 303 or a 909 style synth line."

909 is a drum machine yo.

― superultramega (superultramarinated), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 19:35 (twenty-one years ago)

I've seen Stelfox's stuff in XLR8R.

― djdee2005 (djdee2005), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 19:44 (twenty-one years ago)

the opening elephant roar of "touched" sounds like guitar feedback to me.

― gygax! (gygax!), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 19:55 (twenty-one years ago)

There's an alt weekly newspaper here in which the music critics ALWAYS humiliate themselves when trying to talk about digital recording technology.
I remember a review that made a point of mentioning the "24-bit system" used to make the record in question, and then went on to say that a typical CD release "only used half that bit rate". As someone who is paid to be a tech geek, this is beyond offensive.

― Tantrum The Cat (Tantrum The Cat), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 20:29 (twenty-one years ago)

"Loomer" has feedback ALL OVER THE PLACE. I'm not sure how you can miss it. (Or maybe it's just a bunch of multitracked bass-EQ'd single-note guitar drones or some weird E-bow thing with which I am not familiar)

― Curt1s St3ph3ns, Wednesday, 6 October 2004 22:34 (twenty-one years ago)

Music critics are the art of the pretend forgetfulness.

― Helios Creed (orion), Thursday, 7 October 2004 04:03 (twenty-one years ago)

and who gives a shit about what you think marcello? greil marcus is quaking in his boots.
OTM stelfox.

-- splooge (sploogeyo...), October 6th, 2004.

Judging by the 40,000-odd hits my blog gets every day, I'd say that quite a lot of people give a shit about what I think.

One of whom, incidentally, is Greil Marcus.

Since you asked.

― Marcello Carlin, Thursday, 7 October 2004 06:42 (twenty-one years ago)

i care what marcello thinks, for god's sake!
i write for xlr8r and various british newspapers, splooge.

― stelfox, Thursday, 7 October 2004 08:51 (twenty-one years ago)

i asked cos you were being quite the obnoxious ass with your 'who gives a fuck what you think?' rhetoric.

― splooge (thesplooge), Thursday, 7 October 2004 09:33 (twenty-one years ago)

splooge otm re: obnoxious asses

― weasel diesel (K1l14n), Thursday, 7 October 2004 09:35 (twenty-one years ago)

(xpost)

And here's me thinking you were just acting like a failed writer jealous of the success of others.

― Marcello Carlin, Thursday, 7 October 2004 09:35 (twenty-one years ago)

*yawns*

― weasel diesel (K1l14n), Thursday, 7 October 2004 09:40 (twenty-one years ago)

on second thought this is pretty entertaining - stelfox and marcello battle it out to see who can be more self-important and egotistical.

― weasel diesel (K1l14n), Thursday, 7 October 2004 09:42 (twenty-one years ago)

Behave yourself, petal, you're a failure. Just get used to it.

― Marcello Carlin, Thursday, 7 October 2004 09:44 (twenty-one years ago)

marcello has his nose in front...

― weasel diesel (K1l14n), Thursday, 7 October 2004 09:48 (twenty-one years ago)

i'm not battling anything out and thought that what i said above might have spelled out to anyone who can read that i'm not being in anyway as hardline as marcello (not that i don't have a huge amount of respect for his work and quite like him, despite our occasional bust-ups), nor do i view myself as some omnipotent fount of rectitude. that people pay me for my opinions and observations and a lot of readers enjoy my work lead me to think i do have stuff to say that people can learn from if they're interested, that's all. if you don't like the fact that i'm verty moderately successful at what i do, then that's your problem killian. and please let the record state that i wasn't the first person to resort to childish personal jibes here. prick

― stelfox, Thursday, 7 October 2004 09:50 (twenty-one years ago)

what stelfox said

― Marcello Carlin, Thursday, 7 October 2004 09:52 (twenty-one years ago)

I would say, unless in a magazine meant for musicians (preferrably keyboard players), I'd rather see references to other artists than to drum machine or synth brands.

― Geir Hongro (GeirHong), Thursday, 7 October 2004 09:53 (twenty-one years ago)

i think i should leave this thread now - i'll leave you two morons to whine about how the only reason people could take a dislike to your posting style is "jealousy". bye!

― weasel diesel (K1l14n), Thursday, 7 October 2004 09:54 (twenty-one years ago)

Farewell. You coarse, piteous, spiteful little man.

― Marcello Carlin, Thursday, 7 October 2004 09:56 (twenty-one years ago)

god almighty - i am almost entirely sure that wasn't my fault

― stelfox, Thursday, 7 October 2004 10:04 (twenty-one years ago)

im not a failed writer, thank you, and im not - *snicker* - jealous. seriously, get over yourself, man. some of us just try not to have this seemingly self-important sense about the job, or their bloody BLOG for gods sake, and more importantly, try not to be needlessly rude about it.

still, i suppose its easy to get away with things like that on a message board where you dont have to say it to someones face.

― splooge (thesplooge), Thursday, 7 October 2004 10:09 (twenty-one years ago)

i am not involved in this

― stelfox, Thursday, 7 October 2004 10:11 (twenty-one years ago)

Neither am I. Thank goodness.

Let's leave "splooge" with his terminal tremors, readers, shall we?

― Marcello Carlin, Thursday, 7 October 2004 10:14 (twenty-one years ago)

well, he's not said anything unpleasant to me so i ant getting involved.
anyway my basic point was that if you write about *what you know* and don't try to chat shit about things you don't understand, then you won't make these mistakes. simple.

― stelfox, Thursday, 7 October 2004 10:19 (twenty-one years ago)

i havent said anything unpleasant to stelfox cos he hasnt said anything unpleasant to me and was fine with simply discussing the topic at hand.

anyway, i will leave marcello to contentedly fellate himself as he seems so professional at it. bye bye!

― splooge (thesplooge), Thursday, 7 October 2004 10:26 (twenty-one years ago)

Judging by the 40,000-odd hits my blog gets every day, I'd say that quite a lot of people give a shit about what I think.

One of whom, incidentally, is Greil Marcus.

Jesus fucking christ which one of you has a bigger dick too?

― djdee2005 (djdee2005), Thursday, 7 October 2004 14:01 (twenty-one years ago)

its boring to describe the instruments. wot? you want to? read guitar magazine then. 'using his yamaha 3203, exclusively built for several pick-ups...'

Who the fuck is talking about instrument fetishism? We're just saying if yr gonna talk about a trumpet solo that you get it right that its a trumpet playing.

― djdee2005 (djdee2005), Thursday, 7 October 2004 14:10 (twenty-one years ago)

if you can't tell the difference between a trumpet and a mandolin, then it's best to talk about deleuze.

― stelfox, Thursday, 7 October 2004 14:12 (twenty-one years ago)

(xx post)

Not only that, we've got bigger bank balances and better lives. Oh, and I am the earthly incarnation of the angel Gabriel.

(xxx post)

Hey splooge, you need a shave! Now if you can get your trembling hands to behave, why don't you try unwrapping a stainless steel razor blade?

― Marcello Carlin, Thursday, 7 October 2004 14:57 (twenty-one years ago)

i wouldnt mind shaving you marcello, preferably with a kitchen devil breadknife and my patented trembling hands.

― splooge (thesplooge), Thursday, 7 October 2004 15:01 (twenty-one years ago)

Kindly keep your prevert perversions within the confines of your used George Foreman Grill.

― Marcello Carlin, Friday, 8 October 2004 07:32 (twenty-one years ago)

how about i just place your inflated head in my jumbo size george foreman grill and wait for one of your adoring 40,000 fans to come and rescue you? maybe you can post blog entries from inside the grill! im sure the worldwide blogging community will be on the edge of it's collective desk chair. greil will doubtlessly be taking notes, im sure.

― splooge (thesplooge), Friday, 8 October 2004 09:38 (twenty-one years ago)

Such violent tendencies in one so old, impoverished and frustrated!

You probably don't even have enough for a down payment on a SIMON REYNOLDS ROASTER.

― Marcello Carlin, Friday, 8 October 2004 12:06 (twenty-one years ago)


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.
Site New Answers Search Boards ILE ILM Answers New Question New Questions New Poll Blog View Register Login