[Ryan, please look up the meaning of 'fascist' -- it's a loaded word that's killed a lot of people -- and in the future maybe think twice before you throw it around so carelessly. Because THAT, my friend, is 'childish.' As for 'making you give a shit about the new Dr. Dog album', well, that's ain't my job. We are streaming it on Phawker Radio. If you are too lame to give it a listen and decide for yourself then that's your own damn fault. -- The Ed.]

I’m sorry, but if you claim not to understand what that sentence means, then you’re a liar. Obviously, it’s saying that Dr. Dog are excellent on the technical aspects of songwriting, but the songs themselves are soulless. The review in general was perfectly clear in articulating that idea. Sure, the reviewer could’ve used simpler words and sentences, but maybe he wanted to say it in his own style utilizing this process called “writing”.

Enough with the knee jerk fucking responses to every pitchfork review of a Philly band. It was embarrassing enough with Philebrity’s A-sides/BC Camplight
‘apology’ fiasco, now we have to be subjected to your bitter sentence-by-sentence ‘breakdown’ that doesn’t even offer any goddamn reasons why the Dr. Dog album is actually good! You think that might be important to mention??

At least you didn’t use the “Pitchfork writers are pretentious losers who never get laid” stock response. Although I’m sure someone will mention it in the comments. Wait for it…

["All that said, Fate still manages to be a master class in illusory “good” songwriting." = Dr. Dog are excellent on the technical aspects of songwriting, but the songs themselves are soulless? Hmm, yeah, not so much. As for telling me what I can or cannot do on MY own blog, I will refer to my response to Funlips up above. -- The Ed.]