<?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1"?>
<rss version="2.0">
<channel>
<title>Blogcritics Comments on Queens of the Stone Age - Songs for the Deaf</title>
<link>http://blogcritics.org/</link>
<description>A sinister cabal of superior bloggers on music, books, film, popular culture, politics, and technology - updated continuously.</description>
<language>en</language>
<copyright>Copyright 2005-2006 by the authors</copyright>
<lastBuildDate>Tue, 3 Oct 2006 17:05:45 EDT</lastBuildDate>
<docs>http://backend.userland.com/rss</docs>
<generator>Blogcritics.org custom software</generator>

<item>
<title>Comment by Johnno on Queens of the Stone Age - Songs for the Deaf</title>
<link>http://blogcritics.org/archives/2002/08/29/162531.php#comment-450629</link>
<description>George is spot on</description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">450629@blogcritics.org</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 3 Oct 2006 17:05:45 EDT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Comment by george on Queens of the Stone Age - Songs for the Deaf</title>
<link>http://blogcritics.org/archives/2002/08/29/162531.php#comment-357185</link>
<description>i thought this album is amazing, if you see it for what it is. Easy to listen to and some pretty catchy tunes, as for the radio interludes i think the guy who wrote the article was a bit stuck for things to point out on this album. When you think about it all radio stations are nearly exactly the same and they certainly all play the same music, therefore they are making a valid point. Also I do not feel Queens Of The Stone Age are the type of band to seek self glorification by the means of 30 second interludes on albums. I would like to know the kind of music the person who wrote the article listens too, perhaps her prefers motzart, or a piana concerto?as he seemingly knows nothing about rock music.</description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">357185@blogcritics.org</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 24 Apr 2006 19:27:22 EDT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Comment by Phillip Winn on Queens of the Stone Age - Songs for the Deaf</title>
<link>http://blogcritics.org/archives/2002/08/29/162531.php#comment-299</link>
<description>Er, also, at the moment that I write this, using &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B00006FXB6/pageturners0c/&quot;&gt;this link&lt;/a&gt; to order the disc will get you the bonus DVD and still save you $2 - $10.99 instead of $12.99.</description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">299@blogcritics.org</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 30 Aug 2002 17:31:23 EDT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Comment by Phillip Winn on Queens of the Stone Age - Songs for the Deaf</title>
<link>http://blogcritics.org/archives/2002/08/29/162531.php#comment-298</link>
<description>Ouch! I liked it quite a bit better, and reviewed it &lt;a href=&quot;http://blogcritics.org/archives/2002/08/26/151724.php&quot;&gt;a few days ago&lt;/a&gt;, but I can see where Kenan is coming from. For excellent, solid hard rock, this is the stuff. For challenging your brain, this probably isn&#039;t your cup of tea.

Still, I didn&#039;t find it workmanlike so much as refined. The radio snippets annoy me immensely, especially now that I&#039;ve thrown the album into a randomly-select playlist with a few other albums, but it&#039;s still a great album.</description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">298@blogcritics.org</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 30 Aug 2002 17:27:46 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

</channel>
</rss>