Album Rating: 3.0
I really like Ghost, so I was quite disapointed with this one. But I don't think it's as bad as you say, but excellent review nonetheless. Have a pos.
This is a great album. Sputnik should disregard every word of this here review.
Lol, thanks man.
What do you mean?
I liked the intro track on Ghost, but that was it.
That linked song was just very boring.
Digging: Martin Grech - Unholy
I had to stop reading this review after the first few sentences of the second paragraph. It's written like some highschool senior looking through a thesaurus for every word that is longer than 1 or 2 syllables just so he can impress his college friends.
Didn't look through any thesaurus, actually - I just listened to the album and wrote. Also, how is this:
"Here’s the thing - from front to back, Winter Forever is uniformly bland. Vocalist Kyle Soto sounds the same on every single song, refusing to branch out and dabble into his post-hardcore sensibilities and instead choosing to play it safe. An ineffective utilization of idiosyncratic vocals mars the potentially decent opener (as well as most other tracks)."
it is a bit wordy and needlessly dense. just because you know certain words doesn't mean that you need
to use them.
"just because you know certain words doesn't mean that you need to use them. "
look at it this way, you have to take in mind what you are reviewing. sure, something like this that's
coming from a high brow bent works well reviewing something like Arvo Part or some statement of an
album but for what is essentially a pop-punk album it's a needlessly difficult style. you're trying to
shove too much into a box that only holds so much. it's not so much that you used complex wording,
but it is rather extraneous. you can tell you didn't like the album because the review is just as much
of a chore as your listening experience. it's almost like you're imparting your frustrations on to
your readers. obviously there's going to be a big chunk of sputnik that thinks it's awesome because
they equate wordiness with the how intelligent the critique is, but don't get too carried away in
stuffing your reviews, remember what happened to Caleb a year or so ago when he crossed the line
between being erudite and brow beating?
caleb is a shitgoose
I don't see the fault in the review (biased, I know) because it reads absolutely nothing like my arvo part review, it's just an assessment of an album I ultimately found dry and bland... I don't see how I went over the score. Are we not supposed to focus on structure or use words above a 5th grade level when approaching pop-punk music? At any rate, I'm not dabbling in philosophy or using some kind of deeply profound tone. I guess I get what you're saying about it feeling extraneous, but only very small parts of the review seem that way, I think the vast majority of it is pretty fluid. Your criticism seem very harsh, like, unnecessarily so, but thanks all the same for voicing your opinion.
Album Rating: 1.5
ok yeah that song kind of sucked ass
i hope they're better live with TA and pianos
i feel like a lot of punk and hardcore bands get unfairly praised compared to other genres. between the scathing elitism of most indie reviews and the coddling familiarity of most punk reviews, this was a breath of fresh air from the usual situation
great review gyro!
i feel like a lot of punk and hardcore bands get unfairly praised compared to other genres.
I hear that.
ghost was better but this is solid
remember what happened to Caleb a year or so ago when he crossed the line between being erudite and brow beating
this is so wordy. i don't know what either of those words mean
Idk, I don't think the review seemed overly complex, but whatever.
Great review Matt. I like this a bit more than you, but I agree that this is really forgettable.
Digging: Bjork - Vulnicura
That isnt even what wordy means but you know that. Great sarcasm though, you should sell your jokes to
Big Bang Theory. Their writers seem to appreciate swill.