Back in 1998 The Sunday Times ‘Culture’ section album reviews served as an excellent guide to the new, musical quality and adventure. In more recent years it has become less useful because of its tendency to review and admire the over-hyped and over-valued. There are also occasions when the paper’s reviewers have been scathing in their criticism – often in my opinion quite wrongly. At this time of year there’s little of any consequence to review as the industry goes into short-term, deep hibernation. It also seems to be the period in which Times reviewers (and one in particular) seek victims and unsheathe razor-sharp blades to murder music most brutally – regardless of quality. Now one has to acknowledge that reviewing is dominated by the subjective - beauty is indeed in the eye of the beholder – and is the reason why we listen to albums several times over a period of weeks before we pass our humble judgement. With very few exceptions, we only feature albums which achieve a minimum standard and can be recommended with some confidence.

In today’s Times the knives and bouquets were out in equal measure. Gruff Rhys’s second solo album (CANDYLION) received 4 out of 5 stars and was ‘pop CD of the week.’ At this comatose time of year not a great achievement, but I’m still listening to it and am struggling to find merit. In sharp contrast, the Frames latest album, THE COST, was savaged in the most brutal terms – it was the most vile assassination of an act and its music that I have seen in many years of reviewing. After having included the album in our top ten of 2006, I was puzzled. So I read the review several times to try and make some sense of it. I couldn’t. The reviewer was DC and he (or she) started the review as follows:

“Snow Patrol were the biggest album band in Britain last year: joy for their fans, depressing for detractors, who think they’ve dumbed down for success. Ireland’s the Frames have never come close to anything commercially comparable, and THE COST shows you why: bluntly they make Snow Patrol sound like Throbbing Gristle.”

1. 50% of the review talks about another (very different) type of band - Snow Patrol.

2. I would seriously question whether a major selling album is necessarily a very good album. History is littered with albums that sold in relatively small numbers and are now viewed as classics.

3. I know Snow Patrol well and have covered them since 1999 (live and on records - before they became well known) and I’m pretty sure the guys would sincerely regret the comparisons DC made with a band they much admire.

4. For a review to be biased in such an obvious way raises questions in my mind over the reviewer’s professionalism and motivations.

5. I also know the Frames well having covered the guys since 1998 and I can tell you that Glen Hansard and his band do not write and perform songs for the benefit of the DCs of this world. And doesn’t record in order to sell millions of albums. Despite this the band is Ireland’s most popular with significant chart and critical success. The band also has a building following around the world for both its superb standard of live performance and albums. Few (if any) bands I know have existed since 1989 and are enjoying a growing fan base – worldwide including in the UK (without airplay, without hype, without media coverage, and without the backing of a major label).

6. The review, in my view, so far is unprofessional, irrelevant, and insulting in the extreme.

Now for the music…

“This is music so unadventurous, so lacking in originality, that even a three-album-per-year forecourt buyer might blanche. If that seems harsh, check out whimsey-soaked exhibits such as ‘Falling Slowly’ or ‘Rise’: wimpy, warbling, soporific instrumentation, cliche-mired lyrics, music wholly without merit or balls. There can be no excuse.”

1. What does DC mean by unadventurous and lacking in originality? And what yardstick is being used here? Snow Patrol? Razorlight? Sugarbabes? Who? Perhaps DC is suggesting that the band is copying some other acts or acts? The Frames sound is unique to the Frames and they write and perform with passion. And you know what DC? The Frames connect with an audience more than most bands around today. If you were truly professional you’d accept an invitation to go see the band perform in London in February.

2. The remainder of the review is so far off target I can’t even repeat it. And I’m afraid it reflects more on DC’s judgement and skill rather than on the band’s music. There is or should be ‘responsibility’ and ‘truth’ at the heart of good journalism…

The music media generally is sinking deeper into the stinking bog of mediocrity, but I expected something slightly better from The Sunday Times. This review should never have been written, let alone printed. THERE CAN BE NO EXCUSE…