|
Album Rating: 5.0
You're fucking retarded if you think this album is anything short of a masterpiece.
| | | Album Rating: 2.5 | Sound Off
It is the best 2 I have ever rated, bar none.
| | | Album Rating: 3.5
2.5 suck it bitches
| | | Album Rating: 5.0
Just as judging music on a solely emotional basis is equally retarded.
I didn't say that, did I
I just don't understand how everyone just assumes this album will have the same emotional impact that it had on them; maybe my musical taste doesn't follow the same pattern?
We don't, just stop fucking reviewing this album. No one cares about how much you hate this anymore. Just. Fucking. Stop.
| | | Album Rating: 3.5
everyone should just stop reviewing and bumping this in general.
| | |
Teehee.
| | | Album Rating: 3.5
DIE MOTHERFUCKER DIE
worst way to start a new page ever
| | |
lol This record has several 5 rating reviews and I haven't heard a single track.. Let's change that. >_>
| | |
Still a 3.
| | | Album Rating: 5.0
This album can't really not be a 1 or a 5 I feel like.
| | |
no, it's possible
| | |
I can't believe anyone who enjoys music would say that they want a band to not experiment and try and form a ninche for themselves. I have no reason to listen to another band that wants to be Orchid when I already have Orchid to listen to.
It is possible to fall flat on your face while experimenting, but trying something new should never be demeaned in art.
| | | Album Rating: 4.0
Trying something new should be demeaned if it's without focus, talent or redeeming values.
A band should experiment, but with FOCUS. Less we have another Number 12 Looks Like You (whom I actually did like, but some of their work was off the wall ridiculous, and many times just plain stupid).
| | | Album Rating: 2.5 | Sound Off
JustJoe
December 16th 2010
951 Comments
Report this Post
Album Rating: 2
Still a 3.
| | | Album Rating: 3.5
woha its so emotional
| | |
I see what you mean, but experimental music without regards to focus or any sort of a pattern that makes sense will be bad in an of itself. While the finished product might be of poor quality perhaps the poorly assembled ideas are good ones, and those can go to influence other bands. And at least they would have tried something. That is more than most bands can say.
I really do agree about the focus aspect though. That's why I didn't like Plan B, by A Lot Like Birds.
| | | Album Rating: 5.0
This review reads merely like a rant of someone frustrated at how they couldn't get into the album. It's totally ineffective as a review.
'The results hardly ever live up to the hype that usually surrounds a release that promises to ‘revolutionise’ or ‘radically redefine’ a genre' - this is such a silly way to listen to music, which I hope the reviewer doesn't actually do in his/her own life. By judging the music purely through the expectations and feelings of others you'll never be able to get into it and understand it yourself. If you go into albums expecting them to 'revolutionise' music, you'll set expectations which are almost impossible to be met. To review the album based off this premise is stupid - judge it by what it is, not what others claim it to be.
Second paragraph has essentially the same flawed preoccupation of the first, while has a few general points without any examples.
'One should be able to approach it with a clear and open mind and from there proceed to coldly, dispassionately explain why exactly it fails so spectacularly.' - this is ironic as the review reads entirely as if the reviewer listened to album based on the hype - not with an open mind, and the review/rant doesn't 'dispassionately' explain the band's supposed 'failure'. I don't get the idea of 'failure' - so we know for certain what the band was trying to achieve? Should music/people's expression/emotion/art be approached as 'success' or 'failure'? No, that's stupid and takes out the obvious emotional/expressional basis of all music. I wonder how the band would react if one told them their music was a 'failure' - they would be totally bewildered.
'Only by adhering to this strict clinical sobriety can one achieve the detachment required to properly dissect As the Roots Undo, itself such a pathetically maudlin piece.' - this is ridiculously pretentious, ironic considering this is essentially what the review accuses the album of.
'Circle Takes the Square borrows generously from the genres of screamo and post-rock. In so doing, they’re drawing on two musical styles that fall decidedly outside of the mainstream, each of which tends to attract diehards and aficionados.' - another bizarre way of approaching music. It's as if bands decisively and consciously choose which 'genres' are best for their expression; this is not how art is made in the real world. The 'diehards and aficionados' comment is totally irrelevant to the actual music, yet the review can't give up its obsession with who listens to the music - rather than concerning itself with the music itself outside of a few vague comments.
| | | Album Rating: 5.0
'it’s disappointing. You know where it’s going from the start...the band vainly tries to fit in another ‘unexpected’ section to remind the listener that they’re defying expectations.' So it's overly predictable, then overly unpredictable? Okay. I found the build-up of 'Non Objective Portrait Of Karma' one of the best, most intense I've ever heard, and so what if it's predictable, most music is (especially verse-chorus based stuff). I used to find this album too chaotic and unpredictable, but then I actually listened to it and gave it the time a complex piece of music deserves, and the formerly chaotic parts didn't seem so any more. The notion the band is preoccupied with telling the listener they're 'defying expectations' is absurd and hilarious. Again, I wonder what would happen if one were to (in person) accuse the band of doing this. They wouldn't know what you're talking about. The review cannot judge the music for what it is, just what it thinks it should be - even if the actual musicians themselves had totally different ideas about their creation/expression/art.
'God knows enough people have uncritically gushed over As the Roots Undo’s ‘groundbreaking’, ‘unprecedented’ synthesis of screamo and post-rock.' - still no engagement with the music (the purpose of a review). I love the idea of those stupid 'uncritical' masses enjoying this without first meticulously questioning and challenging it - I mean, how dare they enjoy music and feel a natural connection to it?
'It all has an air of cheap emotion hanging over it – the ridiculous lyrics, the chick singer, the soooo artistic (though actually amateurish) cover art.' - what does this even mean? There's no actual points made here, it's pointing out some aspects of the album and trying to find some negative spin to tie them together. Where are people claiming the album art is so artistic? Whether they exist or not, here, the review judges the album purely through the paradigm of others' feelings about it, ie reading like a rant at someone angry they couldn't get into the album everyone else loves, and specifically, aspects others love, like the supposedly 'ridiculous' lyrics. Also, what's with the sexism? I don't see what's significant or exceptional about a female ('chick') being one of the vocalists.
'And it’s not hard to see through it, if you pay enough attention.' - this is absurd. What's there to 'see through'? If someone feels an emotional connection, or even just enjoys say, Hot Cross, have they just not yet seen through it's 'cheap emotion'? Lol.
| | | Album Rating: 5.0
Also, lol at the reviewer only registering here to post that one review.
| | | Album Rating: 4.0
tl;dr
| | | |
|
|
