Zoo Weekly slams Frankenbok's new album

[Lord Tim]

Guys,

Just got this MySpace bulletin sent to me from Dan from Frankenbok:

This was written in this weeks ZOO weekly. Now considering the highly intelligent content inside this delightfully inane publication we cant expect them to have rocket scientists writing their album reviews. But Toby McCasker seems to have been given this illustrious job even though it would seem he got his writing credentials out of a weeties packet.

Cop this for highly constructive critiscism:

"Aussie hard rockers Frankenbok havent done themselves any favours with this whiffy deposit of ten smelly turds. The songs are nothing if not ironically titled - Failure To Learn? More like Failure To Learn... When To Quit! Tired stuff from a band of blokes who ought to chuck it in and get jobs in IT. EX-VOCALIST ADAM GLYNN HAS GONE ONTO BETTER THINGS WITH FIVE STAR PRISON CELL. CHECK THEM OUT INSTEAD."

Okay. Now, we here in the Frankenbok camp are by no means adverse to constructive crtiticism. Hell, you cant expect everyone to dig your shit. But what we do get our backs up over is people who obviously have a problem with the band shitting all over us personally in a deliberate attempt to give us bad press to hurt our album sales.

How do we know this?

Well, for a start, nobody from either the band or the record label ever sent ZOO weekly a copy of our album for review. How the fuck did they get a copy when the album only came out on Monday? This would lead us to assume Toby hasn’t even heard the album, or that he made a concerted effort to get his hands on one just to deliberately bag it out.There are other things we have found out after doing some research that would also lead us to this conclusion.

Now, I have only been in this band for a few months now, and I had nothing to do with the writing or recording of the new album. And it is my personal opinion that this is Frankenboks finest work to date. For me, if this is what Toby thinks about such a good record then I am afraid ZOO need to find themselves a new reviewer who has at least a pinky toes worth of taste in music and doesn’t use his employer as a vehicle for his personal vendettas against people.

Apart from the fact that this kind of behaviour is totally unprofessional, it is also unethical and illegal. ZOO magazine has used our artwork WITHOUT either our record labels or our permission. Well I guess we cant expect too much though from peddlers of such lowest common denominator crapola [pieces of fruit shaped like genitals… wow I think they just blew my mind].

And finally, if anyone would like to give old Toby some constructive criticism, here is a direct line to him at the mag:

02 8916 6614
and here is the mags email address:
info@zooweekly.com.au

Cheers,
Dan and FRANKENBOK.

Now, while Dan (and all of the band) are really good guys and I think they're pretty good, I'm not gonna jump in and blindly defend them - especially since I haven't heard the album and don't know if it's good or not, but come on... am I the only one here who also thinks this is pretty sus?

What do you guys think?

[Goreripper]

I think it's hilarious. It's a crap review, but really, who cares? As Dan's at pains to point out, it's in Zoo Weekly!

[Lord Tim]

HAHA! Too true!

[sadisticsatyr]

wtf is Zoo Weekly?

I would take it serious if it was in Drum Media.

[Goreripper]

Originally Posted by sadisticsatyr

wtf is Zoo Weekly?

I would take it serious if it was in Drum Media.

It's a magazine with lots of tits in it, mostly from ex-Big Brother bimbos.

[Trephinator]

Definitely seems suss - especially with the "Frankenbok sucks, Five Star Prison Cell rule" conclusion.

Does a publication actually need permission to print album artwork in a review? I would've thought that would fall under fair use provisions or something similar.

Is it a bit unethical to mass mail out someone's personal phone number?

I've got no negative opinions about Frankenbok, Five Star Prison Cell or anyone else involved - but it seems like Frankenbok are running the risk of inflaming the situation further - if this Toby fella has a bit of power at Zoo we could see a whole lot more Frankenbok bashing if there's too much retaliation.

Just my thoughts...

[Lord Tim]

Ah, I'd say that'd be the general number of Zoo rather than a personal one.

[fire_angel]

Like people read Zoo for intelligent reading. This whole situation sounds fishy, and if i was Frankenbok, i'd be sending some complaint letters to both the Zoo head editor, and the board of publications. Going out of your way to falsely hurt the crediblity/sales of a band is something you'd expect from some moron on metal-archives. Not a 'reputable' magazine. Maybe they can go on ACA or TT haha.

[Goreripper]

Originally Posted by Trephinator

Does a publication actually need permission to print album artwork in a review? I would've thought that would fall under fair use provisions or something similar.

I thought you were a band manager. Shouldn't you know this?

Originally Posted by Trephinator

Is it a bit unethical to mass mail out someone's personal phone number?

It's a work number, but I nonetheless agree.

Originally Posted by Trephinator

I've got no negative opinions about Frankenbok, Five Star Prison Cell or anyone else involved - but it seems like Frankenbok are running the risk of inflaming the situation further - if this Toby fella has a bit of power at Zoo we could see a whole lot more Frankenbok bashing if there's too much retaliation.

Awesome publicity, especially considering the bogans who read Zoo.

[Goreripper]

Originally Posted by fire_angel

If i was Frankenbok, i'd be sending some complaint letters to both the Zoo head editor, and the board of publications. Going out of your way to falsely hurt the crediblity/sales of a band is something you'd expect from some moron on metal-archives. Not a 'reputable' magazine.

No, it's something you should expect when you put your art out there for people. It's not defamatory. It's not saying they're cross-dressers or closet homos or kiddie rapists, it's just saying they suck and their old singer's band is better. I've said much the same about other bands heaps of times, although rather more eloquently. With all due respect to Dan because he's a champ, complaining about a bad review is just silly. Launching a campaign against the magazine that published it is either really, really silly, or utterly brilliant.

[Lord Tim]

I think what he's getting at is that it's an unethical way to do it.

We've had some utterly moronic reviews for both LORD and Dungeon where people clearly haven't even listened to the album (I remember one for OSB that said it was nothing but flowery fantasy metal with songs about dragons... um, yes. Sure was. Not ) and while that's annoying, you do have to live with that.

This sounds like it's something else entirely by the way it's described here. I don't know the facts of course, so it could be all pissing in the wind, but if how Dan explains it is accurate, it sounds like a deliberate hatchet job, which really gets under my skin...

[Goreripper]

Yeah there's that too, but there's tons of ways someone could have got hold of the album before it came out. I was talking to Greg from Librariusmetallicus yesterday and he's had a download of the new Alchemist album for weeks. It does sound like a hatchet job, but there's little that can be done about it. Dan and the guys have a right to be angry, but they should deal with it in another way.

[fire_angel]

They should bring cold hard justice to the Zoo mob by challenging them to a jousting match. The sword is mightier than the subwoofer.

[chrisvp]

Originally Posted by Goreripper

It's a magazine with lots of tits in it, mostly from ex-Big Brother bimbos.

well then it does qualify for a magazine not worth toilet paper , Frankenbok I reckon are a great band , great bunch of guys and to have their album reviewed by some peanut who clearly has not heard it is hilarious, I hope they milk it for what its worth

[And behold a pale horse]

To be honest I'd prefer to purchase a Zoo magazine over a Frankenbok release, but even more than that I'd prefer to ignore both all together.
Was his review unprofessional, unethical, immoral? Does it matter? Why must one be analysed over his or her taste in music or opinon - no matter how biased or barbarous.
I think bands are guilty of loving their music too much, perhaps even blindly so; lending their passions to corrupt their sensibilities and modesties with their art. This audaciousness to demand an explanation for a critique; no matter how simplistic or short-closed I'm sure from the Zoo review we can all surmise that 'Toby' did not enjoy the album and that he prefers another, equally horrible band over it.
Sometimes a jagged, boorish summary such as Zoo's is able to more effectively put forward the obvious aversion and loathe 'Toby' possesses for the band, certainly it subscribes to the Zoo clientele. Sure he could have dissected the album and spoke more gently with references to it but sometimes something is just 'Bad', why can't we say it so?
Despite having said all of this I'm sure this 'controversial' review will stand to do more for Frankenbok then its absence would have done. The human curiousity is a strange thing - I for one am slightly interested to hear what such a 'turd' album would sound like...

[Goreripper]

Originally Posted by And behold a pale horse

I for one am slightly interested to hear what such a 'turd' album would sound like...

Which is why any review is a good review.

[And behold a pale horse]

Originally Posted by Goreripper

Which is why any review is a good review.

Exactly.

[Winmar]

I reckon I'd be pretty pissed off though if my album got that treatment after I put all that work into it.

[Rick]

You probably shouldn't be in the music industry if you can't take criticism though, even if it is from some smacktard.

[TheDenimRager]

Ditto to that. So they got a bad review - so fucking what? Deal with it. IMHO If you cant handle bad reviews, quit your band. Starting a 'campaign' to basically invite fans to flame the magazine is twice as juvenile as the review was in the first place.

[Awake_In_Animosity]

If you put your album out there for review you have to expect stuff like this. I for one agree Five star are far better than Frankenbok. I was well over them in about 2003/2004 after they got nearly every international support back then. I am sure the album is not as bad as this review but everyone is entitled to there own opinion.

[Aussie_Metalchild]

I'd just brag to all my mates that an album I played on got reviewed in Zoo and it was hilarious.

Bit of a pity that the review was dodgy, would be nice to have some constructive critisism. But hey! Thats just me!

[black_tooth_grin]

Originally Posted by RickIth

You probably shouldn't be in the music industry if you can't take criticism though, even if it is from some smacktard.

I concur!

I read the review last night when I went into Safeway, quite hilarious.

[Lord Tim]

There's just something about this stuff that gets my back up, though.

Like if the reviewer listened to it and explained why he thought it was shit and then marked it accordingly, then it'd be like "OK, guys, suck it up" - that's happened to us a few times over the years and while we obviously didn't agree with it, it's like "Well, what can you do? He didn't like it. And as much as we think he's clearly retarded or deaf, we gotta live with that" This seems more like something malicious to me.

For all I know this album could absolutely be steaming piles of crap and the reviewer was right, but I think there could have been a bit of a better explanation and the timing of the review less 'convenient' as Dan mentioned in the original post.

I know this is how the world works, but injustice really pisses me off...

[Winmar]

I was thinking along the same lines. If someone hears the album and thinks it's shit, it's fair enough for them to say so (and the band concerned should just cop it and move on). But if they haven't heard it and bag the album out because of some personal vendetta, it's perfectly lawful etc, but not exactly nice, and any other reviews from said person shouldn't be taken seriously.

But yeah, who takes anything in Zoo seriously anyway?