He sets up a false premise just so he can knock it down with his own pet thesis. He argues that Buzzcocks seemed behind the times in post-punk 1979 so that he can disprove it by saying Shelley's romanticism had been as radical as anything the post-punk bands were doing.
But in order to do that, he has to pretend that
Singles Going Steady was the band's major statement for 1979. To do this, he has to completely ignore
A Different Kind of Tension - no mention of it anywhere in this very, very, very long and rambling "appreciation," despite the fact that it and
Singles were released almost simultaneously. Acknowledging side 2 of
Tension (as well as the three singles following it, especially "Are Everything") would require admitting that the band was moving into a post-punk mindset just as much as the Clash and the Jam were. And that would undermine the entire history lesson he was attempting to impart to Pitchfork readers. So for the sake of the point he was desperate to make,
Tension becomes the man behind the curtain he wants the readers to pay no attention to.
A Different Kind of Tension was where Buzzcocks were in 1979.
Singles Going Steady was an introduction to the band geared for markets where those past singles had not been readily available. But Heller had a pet theory to prove, so he fudged those facts to do so.
I complained on Goodreads that his book on science fiction rock of the 70s was a mile wide but an inch deep - it covers a lot of ground, but has no meaningful analysis of
why so many bands embraced sci fi in the 70s. I considered that a weakness before, but after this Pitchfork review, I think I'm fine without Heller analyzing anything.
