I'm intrigued... whatever can you mean?Methedrome wrote:It is not outside the realm of proven possibilities that there are individuals who may not be what they seem.
Also, it's a bit sad, it seems to me, that the chat on here is more focused on bickering between posters about whether someone or another has the right to post negative reviews, the correct way to do so, the quantity of smoke, the level of the vocals, etc. I think this says more about The Sisters than it does about their fans, unfortunately.
On the subject of smoke Andrew Eldritch once wrote:One of the reasons is that our early records had a certain amount of sonic haze to them. I don't really like to hear records and then be able to visualize every twang that every damn fool musician is playing on the record. I like to hear a song when I hear a record. I'm not terrifically bothered about being able to hear people playing instruments. That's very secondary to me. And one of the reasons that I think the smoke on stage is valid is because it provides a similar kind of haze. If the song can't reach the back of an arena or a hall or a club, then it really doesn't matter how much you prance around and show your underwear, it still doesn't really cut it.
But I CAN actually see musicians on the Denver pictures! What about extreme fog?!
