Converge Jane Doe
» Back to review

Comments:Add a Comment 
NeutralThunder12
March 31st 2010


8742 Comments

Album Rating: 5.0 | Sound Off

and yes, the album is conveyed musically by it's reflection and interpretation of the lyrics, but you still didn't talk about anything relevant enough, instead, you talked about philosophy and focused too much on what this album is not rather than what it actually is. Bannon is a brilliant vocalist/lyricist, and while the band is definitely overrated, specifically this album, a rating of 1 is just stupid. The album has some great musical moments, and while it has it's fair share of weak tracks, it is definitely higher than a 1.

Brokenjewel
March 31st 2010


1247 Comments


@jesusjuice - I'm guessing the review maybe took an hour to write and makes an interesting counter to the endless hyperbole thrown at this album. I utterly disagree with the review and believe is designed to be provocative, but it's funny, well thought out and more of a contribution than a great deal of reviews on here.

Knott made it needlessly personal by viciously attacking the character of someone he doesn't know from adam, the fact that he thinks this review indicates that whoever wrote it has no life is astonshing and childish. And if watching a bunch of retarded apes kick a bag of air around a field for 90 minutes is 'getting a life' then I'd rather stick with reading.

jesusjuice1179
March 31st 2010


1784 Comments

Album Rating: 2.0

this album just seems like noise that's completely random and spastic and incredibly difficult to keep up with

Thor
March 31st 2010


10200 Comments

Album Rating: 5.0

I can't say that I agree with this album being awful but your claims were very new to me, and you backed them up well. Though I do think the Shakespeare quote was a little over-the-top.

Masochist
March 31st 2010


8051 Comments


So...my problem with the review is that it wasn't written for Sputnik. NOT because you didn't get your point across, or grammar or spelling or any rudimentary thing like that, but because it seems you didn't consider your audience.

As some language philosophers have noted, it does no good to make the greatest argument in the world if no one is willing to listen because of the way you present it. Example: If you had the world's most monotone, dry-voiced speaker on stage talking of how it can be scientifically proven that the world would end on 12-21-12, no one would care because they'd all be asleep. Likewise, you make a great argument about how the lyrics speak of a specific, nameless individual everybody, but you wrote it as if you were speaking to music theory majors, and not Sputnik. Most of the complaints about your review are due to the verbosity, and while it might not bother some people, it does bother most; it's because of this, perhaps only because of this, that I believe you've failed with this review.

Of course, that also comes with the presumption that you KNEW that you would get that reaction in the first place, yet decided to publish it anyways. That's just selfish...why write the review if you knew people would pay more attention to the vocabulary than the points being made?

In terms of the rating, I could care less (except personally, I think that "it's an album written by no one" is a slightly weak argument for a '1' rating, if only because that's A LOT of '1's you'll be handing out). I'm actually slightly appalled that the staff requires a review of 'Jane Doe' in order to justify a '1' rating. WHAT THE FUCK!? Not sure if people know this, but I can't stand this band. I hate their music, and all but two songs I've heard have been just mindless screams to me, and BAD screams at that. Why the fuck would I need to justify my dislike of this band to you? All things considered, "I hate their music" should be justification enough, regardless of who likes it or not.

(That being said...the song "Jane Doe" is, coincidentally enough, actually all right to me).

Digging: Flying Lotus - You're Dead!

Ghostechoes
March 31st 2010


1353 Comments

Album Rating: 4.5

2. moreover, it is legitimate to criticize the review's style and choice of words. but if you do, explain precisely how and why it is that a certain word or phrase is inappropriate or over-the-top. otherwise the criticism means nothing

I let you know when you submitted an early draft of this review, that the following sentence was, essentially, meaningless: "Put simply, Jane Doe is a symptom of the fetishization of the personal itself... "

As expected, you replied like a complete douche, and with a condescending tone said: "you obviously have not read Marx, so you can not understand what I mean by fetishization." And my response was that you should avoid confusing verbiage, since you are writing for a general readership, which should not have any specific background knowledge to understand what you are trying to convey. Or, at least provide the meaning with which you are using the word 'fetishization.'

eternium
March 31st 2010


16338 Comments

Album Rating: 5.0

This is the worst review I've ever read.. a third grader could make more coherent and understandable paragraphs.

"Hey, I'm going to use big words that I've heard before, try to write like a college professor, but make no sense whatsoever."

The English language has been violated.

jesusjuice1179
March 31st 2010


1784 Comments

Album Rating: 2.0

Most of what you put together in a sentence really makes no sense whatsoever

"More basically, though, a fetish is an inanimate object which primitive peoples often worship. It can be a statue of a god or some other material token. In the 19th century, discoveries were often made of aboriginal tribes that worshiped fetishes.

Thus, in Marxist discourse, a fetish refers to something intangible that is made into a concrete object and asserted or even worshiped as an immutable reality. The fetishization of the personal involves the public worship and overvaluation of personal experiences as somehow more significant, even though this is only an illusion covering over the absence of signification."

i can't even begin to comprehend what that means, and you said "more basically", which is quite redundant

eternium
March 31st 2010


16338 Comments

Album Rating: 5.0

Meanings of a word changes, there's a reason that there's a new dictionary every year. It is dumb to use a word in a way that nobody else uses. A bitch can be a female dog, but I would never talk about a bitch and assume that everyone knew I meant my female dog. Obviously, everyone would assume I was referring to some female human. You know, kind of like the one this album is about.

myhigherpie
March 31st 2010


3027 Comments

Album Rating: 5.0

Wow.

I just want you to know, good sir, that your analysis of the aforementioned "Jane Doe" has profoundly affected my opinion on the album. I can safely say that your words have enlightened me to the true inherent meaninglessness of Jane Doe. I'm sure that everyone will feel the same way when we say that we have all been utter fools in our zombie-like obsession with this piece of garbage. Please, accept my fullest gratitude.

Brokenjewel
March 31st 2010


1247 Comments


It would be incredibly restrictive to only use the most commonly held meaning of a word; in fact that would prevent the kind of evolution eternium is talking about. Some words, like 'gay' have taken on completely new meanings, but 'fetishization' is used in critical theory and psychoanalytic theory, it hasn't changed completely.

Ghostechoes
March 31st 2010


1353 Comments

Album Rating: 4.5

The second meaning was the one assumed when I criticized your sentence I mentioned above. Considering that praise of personal experience is, in my opinion, essential for great lyricism, I found your sentence to be completely meaningless.

eternium
March 31st 2010


16338 Comments

Album Rating: 5.0

Whatever. How much of your point about the album I did understand was idiotic anyway. You seemed to imply that Converge isn't original just because the album is personal and many albums before this have been personal. You also apparently have a problem with vagueness, which is often believed by most people to be a positive, as it allows for multiple interpretations, thus allowing the lyrics to relate to the listener all the more.
You made no remarks referring to the music itself, which is the ultimate fail for a music review.

Brokenjewel
March 31st 2010


1247 Comments


Obviously reviews need to deal with the music, but if the lyrical content is such an issue then it seems appropriate to focus on that. This is hardly an unknown album and as an opposing view the review, for me, adds a useful end of scale to the 'normal' opinion that surrounds it.

StreetlightRock
Emeritus
March 31st 2010


3772 Comments

Album Rating: 5.0

you know if you actually took on what barthes said re the death of the author youd realise your whole argument falls apart.

that is all.

Digging: The Flaming Lips - With A Little Help From My Fwends

Ghostechoes
March 31st 2010


1353 Comments

Album Rating: 4.5

You also apparently have a problem with vagueness, which is often believed by most people to be
a positive...

123. The misconception that verbose writing is indicator of high level of scholarship is ridiculously widespread.

eternium
March 31st 2010


16338 Comments

Album Rating: 5.0

Go be Jacob's psychologist or something so that you might be useful.
You can tell him about how all of the emotions he feels are fake and unoriginal just because millions of others have felt like he does.

TheSpirit
March 31st 2010


17930 Comments

Album Rating: 4.0 | Sound Off

i dont know much about this post-modernism psycho pseudo intellectual bullshit babble, but i enjoyed your review

Enotron
March 31st 2010


7695 Comments

Album Rating: 5.0 | Sound Off

I actually really like this review.

zarquan99
March 31st 2010


1051 Comments

Album Rating: 4.5 | Sound Off

maybe if you actually wrote a coherent review instead of disguising your own meaning with obscure words then i might actually take this seriously. Converge DID write the album and had all the ideas for it... its Jacob Bannon's job to write about things and tell people about them. Thats why he's a SINGER (vocalist... he doesn't sing much lol.) And addressing your claim that Jane Doe is "anonymous" yeah your right thats the fucking point. The message is that when the relationship is eventually over the person just becomes another person and you forget about them, they might as well be anonymous. He explains this in the Hall of Fame interview of the album in the back of Decibel's top 100 albums of the decade. As far as your opinion on their musical talent you obviously know absolutely nothing about punk or metal and the traits of these styles.... anyway i don't why I just wasted 5 minutes of my time addressing your stupid troll review.



You have to be logged in to post a comment. Login | Create a Profile





FAQ // STAFF & CONTRIBUTORS // SITE FORUM // CONTACT US

Bands: A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z


Site Copyright 2005-2014 Sputnikmusic.com
All Album Reviews Displayed With Permission of Authors | Privacy Policy