wax off
isn't Nads simply the best name for a product ever? especially one that promises very painful hair removal? the site claims that it "looks like green toffee and can be used anywhere on the body.....just smooth on the gel and remove it with linen strips." oh, those wacky australians.
Comments
have you just happened upon this product? is it 1999 again? time to go listen to some wrens.
Posted by: shawn | February 25, 2004 05:40 PM
no, but it just crossed my mind today and made me laugh. and i like the new wrens album! it certainly doesn't sound terribly out of place in a world where bands rock n' roll trends are being recycled at ever increasing rates. dismissing it as "so 90s" or whatever is simplistic and lazy.
Posted by: jamie | February 25, 2004 05:48 PM
I'm lazy.
Posted by: Dan | February 25, 2004 06:26 PM
yeah, that reads a bit harsh doesn't it? i get defensive about that album. no offense meant to either of you.
Posted by: jamie | February 25, 2004 06:29 PM
No need to apologize. Shawn dissed you in your blog. Time to fight back. And like I said, I'm lazy.
Posted by: Dan | February 25, 2004 06:56 PM
wrens are so 1994 to me.
Posted by: sujan | February 25, 2004 06:59 PM
when are you going to have the orange soda review?
Posted by: kfan | February 26, 2004 10:36 AM
coming very soon. i sent marc the raw copy last night.
Posted by: jamie | February 26, 2004 11:02 AM
Nads does not work very well but the Nair home waxing works well, though it's messy. Definitely recommend the Nair fruit stip waxing kit--great for the lip and bikini line. But if you're going to wax your legs, you should just go to a pro. Just my two cents on home waxing...
Posted by: Claire | February 26, 2004 12:24 PM
Dan,
As I was listening to the Exploding Hearts at the gym this morning (and loving them), it occurred to me that it's unjust for you to think they're so great but dismiss the Wrens the way you do. While I dig the way they rock(ed) out, the Exploding Hearts sound like a bunch of guys who said, "Let's try to record an album that sounds as much like the Clash as possible." It ended up sounding great, but it's just about as derivative as you can get. So give the Wrens a break.
Posted by: jim | February 27, 2004 03:49 PM
Sujan,
As Einstein might have said (you can't say for sure that he didn't): It's always 1994 somewhere.
Posted by: jim | February 27, 2004 03:51 PM
Young Einstein?
Posted by: sujan | February 27, 2004 04:28 PM
Jim,
Shawn started the Wrens bashing in this thread, not me! Get off my back, Flood! I defended Jamie!
I actually was just talking to Sujan last night about what it is I like about the Exploding Hearts that I don't about the Wrens. I'm not sure- maybe that the Exploding Hearts sound vibrant and fresh in a way that those 1978 bands don't. I realize that that is just a result of more modern production though.
I don't know why I don't love the Wrens, but I think it comes down to two things- my reaction against the unbelievable press that the Wrens get and the fact that I just don't think the songs are all that good. They are a band that nobody cared about eight years ago, they didn't change their sound as the rest of the indie world did so when they put out an album sounding very similar to what they were doin in '96, they are all of a sudden super great?
But, I guess it simply comes down to I just don't think the album is as great as all of the press it is getting. That is all.
Posted by: Dan | February 27, 2004 04:36 PM
Dan, I just like giving you a hard time. You don't have to like the Wrens. Anyway, I think Jamie might like them more than I do. I am a fan, but not a superfan.
I agree that it's somewhat unusual for The Meadowlands to be getting the amount of praise it has. Maybe the writers who are all over its shit were just looking to champion a band that no one else was really paying attention to, and they got carried away. But I do think it's a good, solid album. Whether it's one of the best 60 of the past 10 years, that I'm not so sure of.
Posted by: Jim | February 27, 2004 05:27 PM