Album Reviews

tUnE-yArDs – Nikki Nack

on May 06, 2014, 12:01am
tune yards - nikki nack C
Release Date
May 06, 2014
digital, vinyl, cd

Merrill Garbus plays fast and loose with cultural signifiers, and her band name alone indicates an antagonistic bent with its case-shifting approximation: tUnE-yArDs. For her third official album, Nikki Nack, Garbus ventures even farther down her multi-colored, veering rabbit hole, picking up where her 2011 sophomore effort, w h o k i l l , left off, but not necessarily achieving the same success. Her proper debut, BiRd-BrAiNs, was initially released on Marriage Records and then reissued by 4AD in 2009, but it was w h o k i l l that racked up critical approval and a cult following for Garbus’ quirky, vibrant vocal layering and flashy pop mosaics.

Even in the three years that have passed since then, the lens of critical examination has shifted a bit, or perhaps, become more nuanced. One of the touchstones that Nikki Nack evokes in my mind again and again is Paul Simon’s Graceland (1986). That Simon’s classic record drew heavily on South African pop was part of its appeal, but if it came out in 2014, conversations about cultural appropriation would be rampant. In the same way, listening to Nikki Nack is sometimes an uncomfortable experience, and descriptors like “pseudo-tribalism” easily surface even on cursory listens. Where does influence end and appropriation begin? In many senses of that dichotomy, it probably depends on the listener. But African pop’s euphoric groove is almost impossible to confuse with anything else, and most of the album relies on the foundations of that tradition.

“Rocking Chair” specifically suffers from the feeling that it’s a track crafted to assume the easy longevity of actual heritage folk tracks, but it feels stiffly studied instead of free-flowing from an actual shared vernacular. She glibly mixes folksy fiddles and a hoarse, hollow well of vocal yelps that feel unnatural in their guttural phrasing. She’s faced cultural tourism critiques before for her face painting, and even for w h o k i l l track “Gangsta”, which tackles gentrification and stereotypes with a rather heavy hand, as does Nikki Nack’s “Left Behind”. A line goes, “We said we wouldn’t let them take our soil,” which feels more than a little rich from a white woman raised in New England. Sure, these lines can easily be mythology and not autobiography or realism, but the record routinely engages in this kind of odd projecting.

The attempt that Nikki Nack makes to grapple with serious social issues is strangely belied by the album’s collage-like feel and carefree elements. For instance, album closer “Manchild” asserts, “I mean it/ Don’t beat up on my body,” potentially addressing issues of domestic violence and that gruesome ilk. But the track is buoyed by cowbell and tinny click-snap beats and seems ill-fitted for its subject matter. Earlier on the album, “Real Thing” contains the lyrics “I come from a land of slaves/ Let’s go Redskins, let’s go Braves,” which conflates a series of intensive racial issues in America into a neat, flippant phrase that seems to value end rhyme over its own endgame. Is this her attempt to bring attention to these inequalities and the capitalistic support of stereotypes by American sporting complexes, or simply to rhyme two problematic examples? Time and time again, all the finesse and flex of the album’s distinct harmonies and intricate structures are undercut by clunky and even bizarre diction. Often the rhymes feel too dead on, like end couplets were adopted simply to follow the pattern with no real ear for grace.

It’s odd, because in some ways, this is the kind of art that many of us have been crying out for — art that actively engages with social issues and seeks to confront or assert liberal stances instead of juggling the same eros and alcohol-fueled ideas. But her focus also strays. An odd one-minute-plus mid-album skit called “Why Do We Dine on the Tots” relates a cannibalistic tongue-in-cheek short story done with the same funny voices many of us adopt to read books to our favorite kids. It’s an embarrassing, albeit brief, moment in a record fraught with other flawed lyrical flubs.

But even after all these observations, the way the record sounds is almost enough to keep the jagged edges from sticking in your craw. Lead single “Water Fountain” is hookier than a DJ Mustard radio smash, and even if it unnaturally contains the phrase “ride the whip,” it’s impossible to shake the handclap rhythm that jitters its way right under your skin. The evolving orbit of “Look Around” is another high point, undulating through the adoration of a stable lover. Its tightly packed harmonies are grated through distortion, but the crisp backbone of vocal acrobatics is Garbus’ strongest asset. “Stop That Man” and the other album single, “Wait for a Minute”, are other bright spots, expanding into dream pop territory and the crossbreed form of alt-R&B that the last five years have manufactured. When the record hits, it hits so cleanly and sweetly that superlatives spring to mind unbidden. But the record’s highs simply can’t balance out, or make up for the lows.

Parts of Nikki Nack are interesting, deeply beautiful, and insanely catchy. Other parts are painful to listen to given their overt blindness to the nuances of holding conversations like the ones she attempts to initiate. Regarding her conversations with others who questioned why she was traveling to Haiti, Garbus herself writes that she went to “situate myself in a non-western musical tradition.” Then, indicates that her listener was shocked by writing, simply, the word “Pause.” Too bad she gives herself the credit for innovation in the silence that ensues, instead of considering it’s her audience that is skeptical of such open cultural tourism.


Essential Tracks:  “Water Fountain”, “Stop That Man”, and “Wait for a Minute”


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Greg Giraldo
July 11, 2014 at 3:51 am

I’m sorry, apologists, but I completely agree with this review. I have been a huge fan since 2009, but the lyrical content of this album just feels contrived and clumsily sanctimonious. w h o k i l l was an album that took huge chances but hit the mark; this album pulls back but feels like an overconfident miss.

Michael Cameron
June 14, 2014 at 5:59 pm

I absolutely loved this album until I read this review. I knew nothing of her bio previously, but now that I know that she’s a “white woman from New England” who “indulges in cultural appropriation” and “pseudo-tribalism”, I promise to feel as “uncomfortable” as Ms. White.

Seriously, can we ditch the pseudo-intellectual dime store anthropology and focus on the music?

Jordan k
June 26, 2014 at 11:24 pm

I think you’re confused- the author is using “actual intellectualism” as opposed to “pseudo”, whereas you are practicing “anti intellectualism”.

jordan k
May 21, 2014 at 9:13 am

Cultural appropriation on a blatant scale. But lord help you if you point that out (or any issue of race) to a bunch of privileged white kids. Some of the tantrums in this comment thread are downright comical.

May 21, 2014 at 4:55 pm

That whole whiny “cultural appropriation” argument that’s been thrown at bands the last few years, Vampire Weekend most prominently, is ridiculous. Fact is we live in an interconnected society where everyone can know about art from anywhere and by anyone. Illusions of “authenticity” don’t fly anymore. Besides, the only appropriated thing on this album are the rhythms, which are more beefed up/expanded/interesting afrofunk derived than anything resembling lazy plagiarism. No one complained about this with Talking Heads, did they?

Jordan K
May 26, 2014 at 10:12 am

Oh, racism is over? Thanks for pointing that out. Hadn’t noticed.

May 26, 2014 at 5:25 pm

Tapping into foreign musical influences constitutes racism? Just like that? Great, thanks for the notice.

“They say I’m the real thing, but I’m not real thing”

“I come from a land of shame, blood and guts are all I claim”

“Hope I don’t choke on all the truth that they bring”

“Glory glory it’s good to be me!”

How much more self awareness and attention (and self deprecation) can an artist bring to her aesthetic inauthenticity before fools give up trying to peg her for being an oblivious appropriator? If she’s racist, she’s the most open-hearted racist I’ve ever heard, quick to align herself with those who have endured struggle without shamefully forgetting her distance from that as a priveleged white female herself.

Again, Talking Heads and Eno did similar things in the 80s, and the fact is their use of African influences wasn’t thoughtless racism, but genuine attempts to use ideas that African music brought to the table to critique western music without ever acting as if they were the real thing.

Oh, and for the record, I’m not a white kid either.

Jordan K.
May 27, 2014 at 12:16 am

I’m not saying she’s a racist. I’m saying she’s an appropriator, which propagates racist frameworks. And I am white, and recognize that this is genuinely f**ked up.

May 27, 2014 at 1:40 am

I’m very interested in knowing how her use of (very) vaguely tribal/Afro beats –let’s be honest, the album has more hip hop and R&B DNA than Afro–propagates existing racist societal frameworks, especially when she uses those beats to explicitly call attention to her own privilege and those very racist frameworks that allow her easy access to those beats in the first place.

Throwing concepts like “appropriation” and “racist framework” around just to remind yourself you’re a thoughtful white person doesn’t do anyone any good.

jordan k
May 27, 2014 at 7:12 am

Bull. I’m calling this appropriation on how she goes to Africa or haiti learns some things, comes back, paints her face and pretend she’s a member of the diaspora so she can cash the check. And do me the courtesy of leaving the personal attacks out of this. She gets to do this because she’s a white girl from Vermont. How do you think that would work out if she was black and American, went to Africa, came back with this sound? Her album would be consigned to the 99 cent “world music” bin.

jordan k
May 27, 2014 at 7:14 am

And there is nothing vague about it.

May 27, 2014 at 10:14 am

Yeah, precisely because one would assume an African-American woman going to Africa, lifting beats, and coming back would be doing so to generate some illusion of “authenticity” as a black woman in touch with her roots– but Garbus is white and not feigning any sort of authenticity whatsoever, outside of a genuine attempt to give those beats a voice by acknowledging the sticky complexity of her using them. Why is a white woman going to Haiti automatically appropriation? I happen to think her attempts to learn about non western music are for the genuine purposes of making music that is vaguely startling for western people to hear–to call attention to issues that negate any possible exploitive use of the art form for personal gain. Again, the beats may be derived from an Afropop atmosphere, but listening Nicki Nack doesn’t remind one of Afropop on the so much as a startling and kinda abrasive non-western funk, with difficult subjects being thrown around to boot. Do you really think that facepaint fools people from noticing the expensive looping pedal she’s got at her feet? Or her skin color? Do you think she doesn’t know that? It’s the fact that she’s white that makes any of this situation significant. She’s making art out of her contradictions. It’s far too simple to yell shameful appropriation whenever someone uses a foreign influence. Appropriation for noble and complicated purposes deserves more thought.

May 27, 2014 at 2:40 pm

Also the first personal attack was yours on on all the “privileged white kids” throwing “tantrums” here because they’re stating their disagreement with the review

Jordan K
May 28, 2014 at 7:25 pm

Not even bothering to respond to that last bit. Applying a critical lense to the issue is not the easy thing to do. The easy thing is to say “Meh, the music is good, so whatevs.” That’s the easy thing to do. I want very badly to like this album because she is very talented, but I can’t allow myself ethically to ignore appropriation when I see it. And I cannot support it. And I’ll call it when I see it.

June 27, 2014 at 6:30 pm

You give your analytical faculties far too much credit. Sure, lending a “critical lense” (ie questioning it’s conceptual and aesthetic merits, which you claim to do) to a work of art is easier than simply enjoying it on a visceral, musical, aesthetic level. Yet lending this sort of “critical lense” that you have just performed for us is also far easier (and so much more unfair) than ACTUALLY CRITICALLY ENGAGING WITH THE WORK, WHICH YOU SEEM TO BE UNABLE TO DO. Your conclusion seems to be: good music but I have to add my trust “critical lense” and oh no! White woman using African rhythms and musical stylings! Anything that has this identity propogates racist cultural structures! PERIOD. Maybe the music is good, but it’s appropriation, and since this is as complex as I can analyze the aesthetic identity of the work I’m gonna stick with it. Blatant cultural appropriation!!!!

Whereas, someone dedicated to actually critically engaging with the work would note, rather than ignore and leave out of their analysis as you blatantly just did in your intellectual lazy last comment, that the entire album is obsessed with pointing out the racist cultural frameworks that people much less subtle artistically than Garbus perpetuate while distinctly using those Afro rhythms to call attention to the sticky complexity of cultural appropriation and to question the nature of authentic artistic expression. Without those rhythms, it wouldn’t be nearly as successful or powerful or risky a work of art as it is. It’s brilliant because she risks being simplistically interpreted and given demeaning labels by people like you who won’t allow yourselves to give her complex argument

June 27, 2014 at 6:34 pm

…the due it deserves. Funny how someone can ignore the conceptual scheme, lyrics, complex presentation, lyrics, musical deployment of appropriated elements, and lyrics and come up with something as simple as “it’s appropriation and I can’t look past that.” Jeez. That’s an argument for a one dimensional view of music. Never take risks. I’ll leave it with one of those pesky lyrics, which actually is the first verse on the entire album, which addresses everything you complain about, but which you couldn’t hear because you were too busy worrying about the Afro drums and “couldn’t look past it” to the things that would qualify that very thing.

“You tried to tell me that I had a right to sing
Just like a bird has to fly
And I wanted to believe him cause he seemed like
A really nice guy
Oh, but I trip on the truth when I walk that wire
When you wear a mask, always sound like a liar”

June 27, 2014 at 6:40 pm

second sentence should read “Sure, lending a “critical lense” (ie questioning it’s conceptual and aesthetic merits, which you claim to do) to a work of art is *****harder**** than simply enjoying it on a visceral, musical, aesthetic level.”

also, *its

June 27, 2014 at 6:46 pm

and lastly, your middlebrow attempts at conscientious artistic analysis of works you can’t even begin to wrap your head around because you can’t “allow [yourself] ethically to ignore appropriation when [you] see it” and therefore become blind to what the artist is actually using that appropriation for needs to stop. if you’re not as smart as Merill Garbus and can’t fathom the various levels of contradiction she’s purposely rather than inappropriately playing with, that’s your problem, keep it to yourself please. Stop trying to pass along your muddled critical morality as “actual intellectualism.”

Jordan k
June 27, 2014 at 6:50 pm

Anonymous- nice contribution. Really, truly inspired. Bravo. Kbrito- as I’ve said, the music is fine. But it’s appropriated. No belittling of my opinion is going to change that fact. You seem to have a hard time accepting that, and I’m sorry that you can’t wrap your head around that. But I’m done trying to explain that to you.

June 27, 2014 at 7:15 pm

Relax bud, it’s clearly still me.

Again, if the ultimate complexity with which you view the music is “it appropriated,” and you can’t understand why that’s a strength in this particular context, your argument is too simplistic to reason with. Music must be and can only be understood in the context the author has created for it, (forget the music being good or not, who cares?) and your opinion is blatantly ignoring the context altogether in an attempt to be conscientious of the possible racial subtexts it (doesn’t) feed into. Can’t argue anymore with an assessment that operates on naively discriminatory principles before even analyzing the work in its proper context.

Jordan k
June 27, 2014 at 8:40 pm

I heard the music first, liked it, THEN looked up a picture. Also, while my argument is simple (not simplistic), the true roadblock here is that you are arrogant and pretentious enough to think that I don’t understand the music. The racial subtext of the music is cheap and two dimensional. It’s a sophomoric attempt at “acknowledging” privilege without actually checking it. This is my problem with the artist. It’s enough to bother me. It doesn’t bother you? Fine. Just because I do not like it doesn’t mean I don’t get it, you condescending little turd. Now THAT is a personal attack.

June 27, 2014 at 9:32 pm

WOAH HE GOT EM but seriously dude for you to dismiss what you simply call an “acknowledgement,” (music having a social reality, it’s never just an “acknowledgement”. It’s all you can ask out of an artist, that they transcend simple sloganeering to create a body of work that actually signifies conflict in itself and asks a listener to recognize it. An artist can’t roll out in tanks and stop neocolonialism, but they can start a conversation about it, and it’s a lot more abrasive to start a conversation about it through a risky use of musical elements in itself, especially when you don’t simply rip off those elements but USE them to go elsewhere.) isn’t supportable unless you’re accusing her of being motivated by what she’s supposedly weakly critiquing. All your comments have been based on the arrogant perception that “it’s so obvious the racial subtext she’s putting out there is half baked so she can make money off the catchy beats without getting criticized why are you all so dumb not to see that!” And yet, i don’t know where you’re perceiving an ulterior conscious (or accidental) motive that is propagating racial frameworks. In whose right mind does the music she is making seem likely to spawn a bunch of Afrobeat ripoff imitators or get her high on the pop charts? Seriously? Everything about this album screams IM
TRYING HARD TO SAY SOMETHING. The fact stands that all of the music is abrasive rather than highly accessible, and never appropriates without suggesting conscious effort to go beyond that to something significant. In other words, your argument only works if you find the album’s use of appropriation to be lazy, and if anything the one critique I can agree with about the album is that it was overthought and overworked and not lazy enough. If it was lazy, in context that would have been cause for the exact criticism you’re making, that this woman is easily banking off privilege and lazy dilettantishness and the disgusting lack of effort came through. There’s no way in hell Garbus can be accused of that.

June 10, 2014 at 3:00 pm

“How do you think that would work out if she was black and American, went to Africa, came back with this sound? Her album would be consigned to the 99 cent “world music” bin.”

Do you seriously believe that?

Jordan k
June 18, 2014 at 8:24 am

Do you seriously not?

Michael Cameron
June 27, 2014 at 8:19 pm

I’m glad that Bach, Mozart, Debussy, Ellington, and dozens of other composers didn’t live in a world where genuine intellectual curiosity of music beyond their spheres wasn’t subject to this ludicrous claptrap. I would even go so far as to say that a musician who doesn’t reach outside of her immediate comfort zone is more suspect that artists like Garbus. The reviewer and others seem to think that this kind of “cultural appropriation” is a modern, jet age phenomena. Not so. Please reserve this term for screaming, inebriated Redskins fans with headdresses, not Garbus.

May 15, 2014 at 6:19 pm

brilliant review of nikki back that addresses all the points made by this poorly reasoned article and shows for them up for the idiotic gut reactions they are

Rich Fegley
May 14, 2014 at 10:00 am

This review is so terrible that I actually felt the need to post on this site. I couldn’t agree more with the negative comments about this review. This crappy review was re-published on TIME’s website.

It’s sad to think that this is what TIME readers will think of this album release.

Also, these comments are not shown on TIME’s website. No comments at all there.

June 1, 2014 at 9:03 pm

Worst review ever! Agreed!

May 11, 2014 at 8:11 pm

A let down ultimately. Overthought, overproduced and underwritten. Not much meat on the bone, except that meaty bass thankfully reappears, but now that sounds dangerously close to becoming the Tune Yards equivalent of a violin solo in every Dave Mathewes Band song.

Some empty ‘woo ha’s’ and a new more expensive sheen slapped on top. Some good ideas and decent hooks, but after the albums over I didn’t want to play it again like I did with whokill. Really wanted to love it.

Move along.

July 4, 2014 at 5:40 pm

The part where you somehow compare the fluid, functional, and arrestingly inventive basslines to a Dave Matthews violin solo (the opposite of all those things) is the best part of this comment.

“Move along.”

May 11, 2014 at 6:27 pm

I’d love to see Caitlin join in on the discussion and defend herself here. I agree with all the criticisms posted in these comments of her review, and I want to know what she thinks about it. Is this really how an album ought to be reviewed?

May 10, 2014 at 12:34 am

Agree with all the comments below. This is a terrible review. The critisims of privilege aimed at the artist are equally applicable to the author. Thank god a well meaning white author is defending the exclusive access of the other to their own cultural product.

Matt Evans
May 9, 2014 at 6:02 pm

Wow. This is so off. Not to even speak of the actual musical and creative merit of the record, which I believe do not properly address, your ideas about cultural tourism and appropriation are pretty shocking. Should artists never look outside of their immediate environment for inspiration and training? That would make for an intensely boring musical landscape, in my opinion. Also, I am curious if you hold every artist to the same standard of how often they should address social issues in their work. Sure, Nikki Nack is not a humanitarian effort to bring awareness to issues, but why fault it for what it is not? I don’t think that this review truly gives it credit for what it is.

liam targarygreen (@liamchgreen)
May 8, 2014 at 8:08 am

whoaaaaaa apparently you should not eff with tuneyards fans, judging by the comments.

May 7, 2014 at 8:14 pm

lol gb2tumblr caitlin

May 7, 2014 at 12:31 pm

This review reflects the utter lack of cultural relevance and sense of humor Consequence of Sound has embraced recently. Due to this review, I am removing CoS from my RSS feed.

May 8, 2014 at 3:21 am

I feel the same, and it isn’t easy. I know that there are many talented and thoughtful employees of COS that deserve their jobs, and do not deserve to be disrespected or unemployed simply because others in their organization are a disgrace to a proud and respected industry.

That said, Caitlin White deserves every ounce of disgust being leveled at her, and has no business writing music reviews. If she had stuck to reviewing Nikki Nack and not appreciated it, I would simply chalk it up to a minority opinion. I might even have admired her for providing a counterpoint to so many glowing and respectful reviews. But this borders on character assassination, and her questioning of Merrill Garbus’s sincerity, integrity, talent and motivation makes her an embarrassment to COS and music journalism. Her accusations of cultural “appropriation” and “tourism” clearly demonstrate how ignorant she is of the very genuine attempts of others to understand, share and pay homage to admirable peoples and traditions beyond her own personal comfort zone. Ms. White seems to believe that studying Haitian drumming, dance and culture in both Oakland and Haiti is simply a ploy to legitimize some sort of fraud or theft. She finds fault with lyrics that she considers innapropiatly boastful without ever acknowledging those that are self depreciating, questioning, or vulnerable. She finds specific lyrics to be objectionable while ignoring the context or medium.

Caitlin White and COS are probably THRILLED by the number of negative comments. A simple perusal of her previous contributions to this website proves that very few readers found her opinions to be comment worthy.
Congratulations Caitlin and COS! You are generating record recognition and feedback through meanness, incompetence, and supreme douchebaggery. May your finer employees and advertisers find better revenue sources free of your tabloid level of journalism.

May 7, 2014 at 12:29 pm

Likening this to Graceland is as lazy as journalism gets. I’m not nearly as pessimistic as you seem to be, so you’ll have to explain to me what’s wrong with cultural appropriation in the first place (which you would know this album contains very little of if you actually listened to African music). Should people not listen to Bombino because he grew up listening to Jimi Hendrix and Mark Knopfler? “The lens of critical examination has shifted a bit, or perhaps, become more nuanced” – yeah, no. Music criticism in 2014 is as far from nuanced as it can possibly get. Pieces like this don’t bring it any closer.

May 7, 2014 at 4:19 am

This review is the first time i have ever felt to blatantly abuse the writer. Full of assumptions, judgements and alot of crtitique that Merrill didnt put enough social justice into her music? Also has the writer listened to her previous music, spratic and inaudible sounds seem to be a trend. I think for the most part Tuneyards has always experimented with sound not to revolutionise society but instead to behave inside its niche.
*not a big fan, just hate the review.

May 6, 2014 at 9:16 pm

what a bitter interpretation of this album lol

May 6, 2014 at 5:41 pm

Well, it’s official. Consequence of Sound is now Pitchfork.

May 6, 2014 at 2:05 pm

I think a lot of this goes back to the question of the purpose of art. Is it to point out hypocrisies in social life? Is it to inspire the viewer/listener/audience? Is it for the art-maker’s self-satisfaction? Does every piece of art have to have a meaning and message behind it, or can it just be something that spilled out from the artist’s imagination? This article suggests that art is not successful if there isn’t an active, clear voice that stems from it. If that is so, there are many songs, paintings, theatre pieces, sculptures, and other pieces of art that should be discounted for not having a strong enough presence.

Personally, I disagree with most of what was said in this article. Sure, “Why Do We Dine on the Tots?” was a surprising skit in the middle of engaging songs, but it added a layer of randomness to the album, something that tune-yards does well. And yes, Garbus is a white woman who grew up in New England; that shouldn’t restrict her from having fun in conjecture with social justice.

That said, I didn’t get the sense that this album was social justice-filled when I heard it. Sure, you can look at the lyrics and come to the conclusion that the lyrics are supposed to be moving, real, and important. But could they also be metaphors? Could they be from different points of view? I certainly think so.

May 6, 2014 at 1:42 pm

Silly me, I thought I would be reading a music review. Instead, I am subjected to a critique of the artist herself, including blatant insults. Like watching “Mean Girls” without the humor.

May 6, 2014 at 1:39 pm

I am continually dumbfounded by how far down this website has gone. How is this a review of her music? At best it’s an attempt to study her character and motivations but from a safe distance. I mean, seriously, you call into question her sincerity is because some of the lines rhyme well? Eek. Heaven forbid an artist with a social conscious has a playful bent (let alone is white). Look, just be honest with yourself and separate the two. Turn this article into a character study and try again with the review.

buzzword nation
May 6, 2014 at 11:52 am

hey yall here’s a review that focused on the actual music

May 6, 2014 at 1:33 pm

How novel! Thanks for the tip.

May 6, 2014 at 2:10 pm

It’s quite interesting to see that NPR, Rolling Stone, Spin, NME, and several other music journals gave it a fairly, if not very favorable review. But of course this was the first one I read.

May 6, 2014 at 11:29 am

This review is the height of superficiality

CoS notwhatitusedtobe
May 6, 2014 at 11:03 am

A line goes, “We said we wouldn’t let them take our soil,” which feels more than a little rich from a white woman raised in New England.

Judging someone based on their ethnicity. Real classy Caitlin White.

Fiesta Boy Ben (@HolidayKirk)
May 6, 2014 at 1:52 am

Woo boy people might be maad about this.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,437 other followers