Ah, sorry to hear that. Nice list nonetheless. Hope you're planning on reviewing the new eluvium double lp when it drops.

Album Rating: 4.0 | Sound Off

I hope I get time to, it'll be nice to see him return closer to the Copia/In The Garden days.

is flea funky on this

Album Rating: 4.5

Sorry I don't mean to insult you. Just saying the overall tone at the start kinda distinguishes from the actual musical elements you covered. I am not criticising your actual approach to reviewing, you're obviously better at it than me.

it's okay

Man, I don't get it. I don't get the fours, or even the 3.5s. solid 2.5 (I take off .5 because I feel like I was mislead). I'll explain.

I know it's going to be a really unpopular opinion, but I think this album is more bland than The King of Limbs, and worse than The Eraser. I don't understand how you can take the cast of musicians and end up with a product that sounds like THIS. I think it would be more honest to call this a solo album than Atoms for Peace (which implies that it is a collaborative super group, which this is obviously not). True, you get a hint here and there of Flea's bass skill (though not a single song actually takes advantage of it), Nigel's production, Joey and Miguel, but it feels more like they are songs featuring the artists on a Thom Yorke album rather than an effort together.

I'm a fan of Radiohead. I'm a fan of 'The Eraser'. I am not a fan of this. It sounds like boring house music with Thom mumble-wailing through all of them. It's the usual Thom Yorke lyric affair. SUPER disappointed.

This is eh

Album Rating: 3.5

A lil' homogenous but digging it

this is kinda boring

Album Rating: 3.5

Super chilled and layered, I think most of these songs work better out of context

Album Rating: 5.0

this is an amazing album. it does sound more like another thom yorke solo album rather than an album by a new super band, but i don't care. the album is great. that is all someone should care about.

Album Rating: 3.5 | Sound Off

"Despite finding it marginally enjoyable, I am severely disappointed in Amok.





you gave it a 3.5 though"



Chortles, I don't grade like you all do. So I will run through my system. :P



2=unforgivably broken

2.5=has too many mechanics that makes listening unenjoyable

3=average

3.5=not average, but held back by way too much

4=could have been great if not for an imbalance in quality and ideas

4.5=almost great, but a few songs are just good

5=all songs are great.



I grade on a numerical system. Whatever mean I get out of how I rate each track is what I go with. 1 or more fives almost always secures a 3.5 rating, regardless of how I emotionally feel about a record. I rate this way to avoid the extremes of personal bias. Nothing is an automatic 5 and nothing is ever a 1, because I feel that end of the grading spectrum is unnecessary (needlessly negative and biased). I mean if you fail a class (anything less than a 3), it doesn't matter if you get a a .5 (10%) or a 2.5 (50%). You failed either way.