A well-written, thoughtful and ludicrous review.

The reviewer's attempts at musical insight are wobbly at best. For instance, he initially finds it difficult to ascertain "the central sound" on the album, and settles, seemingly without much confidence, on the violin. Then in the next sentence, he points out this is due to the "sheer number of times" the violin is used. Well, how about the sheer number of times the drums are used? Or guitars? Those instruments are actually used more than the violin. The bass, too. And the human voice, lest we forget. So: It must be more than the sheer number of times that made the violin the lead contender for "central sound", no?

Is the reviewer disingenuous here? Maybe. To be frank, it sounds like he suffers from violin bias (there is a website for this if you need help - just google it) and tries to have his cake and eat it: The album is all over the place, I can't find a central sound, but this violin is driving me nuts - they use it so much! Like ... every song!

Doesn't add up, we're afraid.

Just because the reviewer is unused to hearing the instrument in this context does not mean the band finds it novel enough to force it into places it doesn't naturally belong, or arranges its songs. (The Chief Smiles are thoughtful people!) It's quite an assumption to make - that the instrument has somehow been shoehorned into the songs. No, it's more likely that the reviewer unfortunately had to shoehorn the violin into his rock vocabulary instead of letting The Chief Smiles - gently, lovingly - do it for him.

Another point: Though there are some minor pop elements throughout, the album - if one must classify in this way (sigh) - is obviously a rock album. Referring to the music on 'Help Us Help You' as "pop" is more compelling evidence that a more savvy reviewer may have produced a more appropriate and insightful critique.

Regarding the reviewer's idea that The Chief Smiles must think "each song should have major musical changes in it": This is another specious assumption, and another baseless one. Not every song on 'Help Us Help You' has a major musical ... errrr ... change? Wait a second - what exactly is a "major musical change" anyway? This sort of pseudo-musical lingo sometimes surfaces in Rolling Stone and the like, so it's really no surprise to see it here, though that doesn't diminish its ineffectiveness. But anyway: Not every song has a major you-know-what, or even a minor one (hmm, this is a slippery slope). And the suggestion that splitting a certain song in two (because of one of those infamous MMCs) "would have improved the experience for the listeners greatly" is insulting to those same listeners. That's prime speak-for-yourself territory, there. And asserting that there's "no reason" why the two parts couldn't have been separated is an insult to the creative and editorial process of the band.

"The Chief Smiles seem to have gotten the idea in their heads that the violin should be used in every song" ... hmm ... The reviewer seems to have gotten the idea in his head that the violin *shouldn't* be used in every song. Ladies and gentlemen, this is a rock band with a violin in the line-up. If you don't like it - fine. But don't struggle against it. Don't try and separate the elements in the band. For the love of all that's holy, *don't assume* a contrivance just because *you* don't get it, or like it. And don't try and wish it away, cause it ain't going anywhere. Accept it; let it into your homes. Kick off your shoes. Play card games for pennies with it. Don't just let it win but don't rub it in if you take it for all the pennies it's got.

We could go on but we'll end on this compelling thought, sure to cause much soul-searching amongst Boston (the band not the team) fans and perhaps among the members of Boston themselves: There is something inherently gratuitous and, darn it, wrong about warning readers they will be "sorely disappointed" by an unknown band's album. It's rather difficult to be disappointed - much less sorely so - without expectation, wouldn't you say?

First off, thank you for your detailed response and also for the compliment of it being "well-written", the same goes to you. Now lets get move on to your other points.

You have a few well thought out points that address logical errors in my review. Your are correct that me saying the violin is the central sound because of the sheer number of times it's used was not the most well thought-out comment. Perhaps I should phrase it differently. I think that the violin is the central sound because of it's distinct quality. It's used in such a way that it immediately draws attention to itself, something I mentioned in the review. When the violin appears, everything else is put on back burner so it can have its moment. When it's gone, things flow together nicely, with nothing center staging anything else. Perhaps I should have also stated that it sounds as if you're trying to tie the album together by infusing this violin into it, that's why I would call it the "central sound". Read over the review again, and you'll see why I think this doesn't work.

To answer another one of your complaints, I DID NOT call, label or reffer to your album as a "pop" album. Sorry, but your flat out wrong here. I stated that the music sounds more comfortable when it's pop oriented, that however, DOES NOT mean that I think the album is a pop album, I simply think the music is best when it does veer into the pop hemisphere. I also never label the album anything except for the mandatory article category tags where I list what kind of music it is. I selected "pop" because the album contains pop elements, "Indie Rock" because mainly the music is indie rock music, and "alternative" because the album could certainly be called that.

What next? Ahhh . . . major musical changes as you've decided to "label" them. You have a point that I don't explicitly, clearly, and painstakingly define what makes each change a change. However, surely you can understand what a change is. You can also, perhaps, comprehend how explaining each change to a mass audience for multiple songs would be a very lengthy and complex ordeal. Instead I give an example of one such specify change, which illustrates the point nicely. But let me clarify for you - a major musical change would be where a song starts off with a set beat and flow. Then, halfway into the song, this established rhythm is replaced by something completely differently. See? It changed. A lot. Obviously this doesn't apply to every change, it's just an example. There's also a broader definition of such changes in the beginning of the review.

On to violin. Here your logic becomes deeply flawed. You start out with a badly flawed argument that "The reviewer seems to have gotten the idea in his head that the violin *shouldn't* be used in every song". This is a very bad argument/rebutal to make for a number of reasons. Let me give you an example - I write an online review of McDonalds entire burger lineup, the quarter pounder, the big mac, all of it. In the review I state that McDonalds seems to have gotten the idea in their heads that all burgers should have pickles on them, since they serve every burger with pickles whether or not you want them (and yes, I know real McDonalds don't do this). McDonalds then sees the review, gets angry, and failing to come up with a sound rebuttal argues that "the review obviously thinks every burger *should not* come with pickles". Do you see my point here? It's a childish and flawed argument. All you're doing is turning my words around in an unbecoming manner and hoping people will agree. You don't have your own point, you're simply stating that you think the violin should be in every song, which goes nicely with what I wrote. You then go on to insult not only me (it's okay though, I have tough skin), but also your fans and potential audience members by saying that if they don't like the violin and perhaps think that the music sounds way, way better WITHOUT the violin, they obviously just "don't get it" and are "struggling against it". Maybe you think we should all just listen contently to whatever is played and forced upon us without any criticism?

Finally, we come to the end. You choose to end on a "compelling thought" was you put it that it's hard to be disappointed if you don't have expectations. While this is true, it's very rare that anyone listens to, watches, or reads something new without expectations of it. If no one really has no expectations then obviously anything will sound okay. You have to have expectations in order to adequately judge and therefore review something.

McDonald's may have gotten angry, but we didn't.

There is nothing inherently childish about turning someone's words around, especially if it proves a point. It's only childish if it is done purely on a semantic level. In this case, we had the point - or argument - first and it just so happened that a riff on your own phrasing worked well to express the point.

In case you are still distracted by our using a phrase that echoed your own to illuminate one of your blind spots: The point is that you don't seem to understand the idea that the violin appears in every song because that's what the band is: A rock band with a front-and-center violin. (We accept the risk of "insulting" potential fans by asserting that.)

Your McDonald's analogy is telling in this regard. You speak of pickles. Case closed right there. The violin in our band is not the pickle. It's not a secondary ingredient. It's the meat itself, or at least one of the major, mysterious ingredients in that meat.

This is why someone else should have reviewed this album. Not only are you mistaking a meat patty for a pickle, but you're comparing the ingredients in a music group with the ingredients in ... not just food, but assembly-line food like McDonald's. This further betrays an orthodoxy on your part that's an unhealthy thing for bands like us. It's not that you shouldn't be that way. A lot of people like McDonald's and god bless their little hearts. But we're not surprised that such a diner's gag reflex kicks in when presented with haute cuisine like ours. (One-time only hint: there is some tongue-in-cheek in the previous statement. Find other instances of this elsewhere in this commentary and win big prizes!)

You probably never should have written the words "sorely disappointed". It was illogical, disingenuous and not a little mean-spirited. But then, it's probably wrong to lay the blame at your feet. Really, who can fault a young buck for trying to make a name for himself by taking on the big boys, right?

Perhaps a more thorough editorial process may have streamlined the piece, though nothing short of an overhaul could have made it worth anything to us - or anyone else - as a critique, without having to read between the lines. All we walk away with is a long-winded version of "I don't like violins as the focal point in a rock band. Oh PS I also don't like it when songs change abruptly."

At this stage, we won't go point-by-point through your flawed rebuttal (except to say we never said you labeled the *album* as "pop" - though you did claim "Fit to be Tied", a song with only one line of lyrics and six different musical sections including a drawn-out instrumental passage "is able to dig into its pop-oriented nature" ... ahem).

**********************ALERT!***********************************
People of the internet! You must know this! There *are* more than a couple songs without those dastardly "major musical changes"! The violin is the focal point of the band but is *not* slathered all over every song like sunblock on an albino! Yes there are even songs where it appears *only briefly*!
**********************ALERT!***********************************

Eh, if it weren't for your wonderful and revealing McDonald's analogy, this would be a chore to write; no doubt it is a chore to read.

Congratulations, this article is an Editor's Pick!