Comment on January 23rd, 2007.
pitchfork?
Comment on January 23rd, 2007.
No, my usual target, Allmusic.
I'd probably come up with more examples from Pitchfork if I read more of the reviews.
Comment on January 23rd, 2007.
Oh, and: Good to see you here!
Comment on January 23rd, 2007.
The phrase sounds like someone ran a random phrase generator over a Christmas carol.
Without knowing anything else, I would hazard a guess that the typist was very, very pleased with the album but didn't want to ruin zir *cough* street cred *cough* by gushing over it like a squeeing fanboy/girl.
Comment on January 23rd, 2007.
The whole review is a rave. (And not terrible.) Faced with a phrase like that, I don't know what to think about what the writer was thinking. It seems transparently awful. But god knows my own syntax is often clotted; I assume there are people out there retorting "you should talk!"
Comment on January 23rd, 2007.
If the rest of the article is reasonably cogent, I'll lay the blame at the feet of an editor either for not catching it, not caring about it, or deciding that deadline was five minutes ago and who can get pissy about one bad sentence.
If the entire piece reads as badly, then the Original Typist should be advised that another career might be not merely nigh on worthy of consideration but actually worthy of consideration.
Comments can contain some xhtml. Names and emails are appreciated but not required (emails aren't displayed).