Tera Melos Patagonian Rats
» Back to review

Comments:Add a Comment 
mecca
September 7th 2010



87 Comments

Album Rating: 5.0

i would be happy to post up a long positive review. am i allowed to? i haven't ever really used Sputnik to so great an extent.

SeaAnemone
September 7th 2010



19987 Comments


anyone's allowed to. at the topof the recent reviews there's an "add" button

Digging: Natural Snow Buildings - The Night Country

StreetlightRock
Emeritus
September 7th 2010



3766 Comments

Album Rating: 3.5 | Sound Off

I am 452 agreements with you.

Glad to see you write this actually, it isn't that amazing.

Digging: Interpol - El Pintor

Enotron
September 7th 2010



7695 Comments

Album Rating: 3.0 | Sound Off

thanks 8]

it being tera melos the technicality is impressive, but the overall songwriting did very little for me

Enotron
September 7th 2010



7695 Comments

Album Rating: 3.0 | Sound Off

^you are a fiend good sir

oh and qwe invited me to looser than loose, get souped

WeepingBanana
September 7th 2010



10092 Comments

Album Rating: 3.5

in citrus heights is probably my favorite song on here as of now

ti0n
September 7th 2010



1384 Comments

Album Rating: 3.5 | Sound Off

The problem is that you simply look at it from the wrong perspective. You think it 's incoherent and that it's poppy. But i don't think that at all. Why? I will explain it to you.
Incoherent for example is one point you suggested. Well it's Mathrock. Simple guitar riffs like it's in other Mainstream bands are not in there. Besides the guitar riffs might make some people think that it's incoherent. But if you listen to it more often you will find the concept behind it. And there is one believe me because it sounds so fucking good.
I also disagree with the Pop part.
This is normal Indie / mathrock with demanding guitar riffs and has really nothing to do with pop.
Pop is Weezer, Coldplay or stuff like that. It would be nice if you can explain to me why you think "they tries so hard to do Pop". I really can't find any place where this can be the fact.
That's why i think your review isn't good. Proof me I'm wrong dude.



Digging: Royal Blood - Royal Blood

SeaAnemone
September 7th 2010



19987 Comments


Proof him. PROOF HIM

Enotron
September 7th 2010



7695 Comments

Album Rating: 3.0 | Sound Off

OK I WILL PROOF YOU!

first off, the question is "is this review well-written?". not "does the reviewer look at the album from the wrong perspective?". Negging somebody for their opinion is incredibly low.

second off, did you read the review? I obviously listen to math rock and I praised their first album, whose riffs are way more intense and more innovative than they are on here. If you read the review, you would realize that the band's attempt at more songstructured writing makes it sound incoherent, due to the clash of the wild, spontaneous guitar riffs and trying to bring in hooks and more clarity.

and third, you are completely in the minority as far as the pop thing goes. every review I've read of it has mentioned its attempt at including a more pop sound and you'll find that the general listeners agree. I think you have a very generic viewpoint of what pop music can be. Indie bands very often incorporate a hook and some sort of pop-based structural touch and this is what becomes indie pop(the vocals on here sound like several different indie pop groups). pop music is something that grabs at you, incorporates a hook to create a sense of familiarity with the song. and the band failed to define themselves on that front.

HighandDriving
September 7th 2010



3283 Comments

Album Rating: 4.0

A TYPO. SO FANNY.

wild instrumentals came off as distracting and somewhat nulls the truly unique sound they would have
had if they stripped the vocals. I explained how the vocals would've been nicer if they found their
niche, which I really thought they didn't.

The vocals have found their niche; lo-fi vocals: so to not compete with the instruments. Though,
this maybe mainly cause Nick can't sing well.

Unique sound? Maybe ten years ago. It's refreshing to have a legit math-rock band effectively add
vocals to their repertoire. Rather than, say, Don Cab.

Enotron
September 7th 2010



7695 Comments

Album Rating: 3.0 | Sound Off

ok but they sort of do compete with the instruments. and even if they didn't, then they would be a waste of time. a drone in the background. it doesn't really help your argument.

SeaAnemone
September 7th 2010



19987 Comments


and yeah- how in the world do people say this is "classic" before it's even been released?

Enotron
September 7th 2010



7695 Comments

Album Rating: 3.0 | Sound Off

even if the album literally had no flaws, the rating is very shallow for such a recent release.


HighandDriving
September 7th 2010



3283 Comments

Album Rating: 4.0

ok but they sort of do compete with the instruments. and even if they didn't, then they would be a
waste of time. a drone in the background. it doesn't really help your argument.

Using compete wasn't the right word to use; they compliment the instruments more so and take a back
seat to what is essentially still a math-rock band. The best, and easiest example, would be Fang
Island; who employ a very similar vocal approach. There were little to no complaints regarding their
vocals simply because there was none to be had. They're a indie jam band who use catchy lyrics to
compliment their tight musicianship. I'd listen to both Fang Island and Tera Melos is they were
lacking vocals but you can't say the same for a mass majority of indie bands. Vocals in songs like
Aped fit perfectly with the song, and the vocals break-up when the band starts rly shinning and
jamming out. So there really isn't a problem with them. Somethings not wrong with the band;
something wrong with you the listener.

the problem with this isn't really the music itself it's the songwriting like it's so aimless and
there's no concrete feeling of oh ok this serves a purpose it's just noodling away into nothing

Welcome to Math-Rock. But seriously, this is much more concentrated than their math-rock peers and
more baggy than their indie peers. I think that was their aim.

ti0n
September 7th 2010



1384 Comments

Album Rating: 3.5 | Sound Off

I think I can understand you now. But nothing the less i find this album, where indie rock bands actually sounding all the same, does a nice step aside. And i welcome this new fresh air very much.

HighandDriving
September 7th 2010



3283 Comments

Album Rating: 4.0

Ha I just noticed you mentioned Fang Island in your review.

Touche.

porch
September 7th 2010



8453 Comments


i dunt agree with u so the review is bad proof me wrong and i ownt neg



Enotron
September 7th 2010



7695 Comments

Album Rating: 3.0 | Sound Off

haha. idk I feel like this would be a solid 4 for me if the vocals weren't present.

oh and use this "

" when you are quoting somebody, makes it more clear.

ti0n
September 7th 2010



1384 Comments

Album Rating: 3.5 | Sound Off

"haha. idk I feel like this would be a solid 4 for me if the vocals weren't present.

oh and use this"

Based on this i would rate circle takes the square as the roots undo a 2 instead a 5 dude...

shablaman54
September 7th 2010



281 Comments

Album Rating: 4.5 | Sound Off

really good review, you make me feel bad about loving this album



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