It doesn't matter, I was only comparing that one track.
It does matter, because your review is rather misguided then.
This is why I said early Slipknot, not the Slipknot you know today.
It's more like one tenth of early Slipknot, rather than early Slipknot.
I compared them so people could reference the way they sound, my comments were taken out of context and misunderstood. I still stand by what I said, it's not my fault if people are going to leap to conclusions without having a proper think about what i'm saying..
Funny how you mentioned context. It's out of context to describe an experimental track from an experimental band, with a generally non-experimental band that may very well have used Disco Volante as a source of inspiration.
This Message Edited On 03.25.09
No it doesn't, and it doesn't make it misguided at all I don't know how you can go from one small niggly detail I made to discrediting my whole opinion. I'm not being hypercritical here or overly positive, I am pointing directly at how I feel about the album.
Eh, what I pointed out was just one piece of your overall not-so-good review. It's all about producing a valid opinion with the appropriate evidence. You've drawn up things that didn't need to be drawn up, and which have led to the detriment of your review. Of course, you keep strenuously denying that you've done anything wrong, so good luck to you.
This is irrelevant, when I say "early Slipknot", I am referring to days they were willing to experiment so and just this one track.
Also irrelevant is having to bring up Slipknot and ICP in a Mr. Bungle review. I'll be blunt: no one gives a shit about your similar sounding reference points. Particularly when you're bringing up reference points from out of the blue. Heck, it's almost an insult to inform the Sputnik community that Mr Bungle here sounds like ONE, ONLY ONE of Slipknot's early songs.
I've already covered this. I'm comparing the tracks themselves, not the bands agenda as a whole..
Album Rating: 3.5
Well, I was going to come back and try to clairify my points but it looks like people have been busy here already.
For the "Why does multiple listens make any difference compared to one or two"? Think of it like a movie. There are movies that you can watch once and laugh your ass off, or at least enjoy, and when it's over it done. On the other hand, there are movies that after the first time you watch, you start them right back over to pick up new things and make connections you didn't the first time. Then after four, five, six views everything finally clicks and the movie makes sense and you love it and it actually kind of means something more because you worked for it. Music can be the same way. You're going to make connections and associations you didn't the first time, and it will allow other parts to make more sense, and one day it will just click. It might seem like a foreign concept to people whose only experiences with music are through the radio and such, but it's true.
As for your Slipknot association. In a review you want to keep associations between bands as widely understandable as possible. You don't want to take a band that's universally accepted as nu-metal and refer to one song off of an obscure demo and think people will make the association. The same way I wouldn't try to review Cannibal Corpse (Death Metal) and refer to them as being similar to Cynic (Jazz/death/prog), trying to make a connection between CC's new album and Cynic's first demo.
As for the buddies in the mall scenario. I'm not implying that's you. I'm using it as a hypothetical situation where your approach would be acceptable. For a review you want to give more information. Instead of saying, "After School Special and Phlegmatics are quite weak, leaving me with a bad taste in my mouth", you could say "songs such as After School Special and Phlegmatics begin the decline for this album by seeming to simply lack any kind of direction. It appears that by this point in the album the band are perfectly willing to sacrafice musical composition in the name of their "zany" antics, and this approch just leaves a bad taste in my mouth". Now we know how it affects you personally and why. If you just include the personal reaction without a reason then no one can identify or relate.
This Message Edited On 03.25.09
Digging: Conjurer - I
Album Rating: 5.0
As we always said with a friend of mine, the first album was like seeing the world through the perspective of a mad clown, Disco Volante was like seeing the world through the perspective of an underwater barman & California was just a fucked up jukebox ( in a good sense). You can't really underrate a band like Mr. Bungle. It's not because they are too good for that (and they are). It's because they never cared.This Message Edited On 04.03.09
Smell the Cheese, I was all ready to write an angry reply because this is one of my most favorite albums but I realize that you are genuinely trying to listen objectively and give an honest review. I was the same way when I first started to listen to Mr. Bungle. I hated the stuff because it was so far away from what I was used to. It took me literally years to gain an appreciation for the band. Give it some time and don't write them off after one listen. And also, the self-titled album is probably better to start off on because the music is not so "schizophrenic". I haven't read any of your other reviews (this is actually the first review I have read from this site) but I'm sure you will/have improved with time (as with most things in life). Cheers.
P.S. I know the last post for this review was almost 2 years ago, I just had to say something!
Album Rating: 5.0
Yea this is my favourite Bungle album, this was the case after my 35th listen or so. This album needs a lot of time to grow on you, Dessert Search for Techno Alla is just the most accessible on the album. Now days (150 listens later) my favourite song is Platypus.