This review is a decent jump in quality but it still feels somewhat impersonal.

Album Rating: 3.5

Well, in anycase, June 2nd will yield albums I am very excited for. So expect something on them, mainly the new Tankard album, new W13, new Jorn.

Album Rating: 3.2

Ive seen people give you good advice and you just act like you're above it. Get over the ego and you can get better.

Album Rating: 3.5

Im not above it, I just want advice that isn't vague as fuck or "stop reviewing"

Well thats because you dont put your advices into use. When u write paragraphs, use more words when describing your thoughts. If an album is well produced, what makes it well produced etc. Just look at more reviews and see how they do it.

Use a thesaurus if you have to, just make sure it does not belong to Jacquibum

Jacs reviews will have you swimming in dictionaries

Also in all seriousness my best advice is to take advice.

focus on structure and cohesion. you have the lineup randomly plopped down in the review and you have this line about the length being its strength/weakness without having actually said anything about the album yet. you could blend that in when you're describing the actual music and those descriptions should provide imagery of the sound and feeling, which feel lacking in your review.

there's no need to qualify your paragraphs with what aspect of the music you're about to talk about either. don't say "vocally [...]" or "lyrically [...]" all the time - a good review will flow naturally.

anyway you'd get more constructive advice if you were more receptive to it.

My tip: if you're giving an Oceano record above a 2, you have bigger problems than anything to do with writing composition.

If you are going to scrutinize someone for their enjoyment of an album you have bigger problems than someone writing a review about their enjoyment of Oceano.

Even if it's fun to shit on music tastes to an extent.

Have you heard Oceano? They're the musical equivalent of 'shit on a shingle'.

I haven't heard them but maybe i'll enjoy shit on a shingle. I heard everything else they did was pretty bad so maybe not

Album Rating: 3.2

fine, I'll give it a go at explaining why your review needs work.



Both the first and fourth paragraphs are throwaway. When Jac said it was like reading a bad wikipedia article, these areas are why. There are ways to work in the names of all the band members and information like their being signed to Sumerian records, this being their x record to date, etc. but listing the information like this is checking off facts in an emotionless, unexciting way. For example, when you want to bring up the band member's names, you can insert them into sentences in which you speak about their contributions.



This line can be adjusted from "which is a big deal considering Adam Warren's gutturals are pretty hard to overpower." to "which is a big deal considering vocalist* Adam Warren's gutturals are pretty hard to overpower." It's not necessary to list off every member of the band, but if you feel like it's needed then just do this. Anyone can google the list of band members and if it's not already in the band's bio here on sput then you can just edit it in yourself.



"The usual tropes of deathcore are ever present, double bass, chugging guitars, breakdowns and immense gutterals blanket the record like snow." why is this left alone as its own paragraph? It could easily be inserted into a larger descriptive paragraph so that it doesn't hinder the flow of the review so much. Also I believe you want to replace the comma after "present" with a semicolon. I forget which is proper to use sometimes between a colon and a semicolon so could be wrong, but it's definitely not a comma.





"This is the first album recorded with Andrew Holzubar on drums and also their first as a 4 piece." here you can drop the second half about it being their first as a four piece as I don't see how it has any real relevance to the content here unless you know something I don't. You should expand on the remaining half of the sentence since again, I don't know how it's relevant. Why is this being Andrew Holzubar's first appearance with the band important? Does it have any effect on the end result?

Album Rating: 3.2

"Overall, TLDR, Oceano have delivered another solid release, but I feel its time to shake things up again like Ascendants did." very lackluster finish, a TLDR is basically always a bad idea unless it's a one-off joke.



There are other things to touch on, such as using less "I think x, I like x" sort of lines that tend to be flavorless, but these things are the most glaring faults I saw. There are some fine descriptive lines at the core of the review, so you're not totally flubbing the attempt really. You can smash a few of these paragraphs together and you should look at what your overall focus in the review is rather than checking off what happens. Think about what makes the album work or not work as a whole before you start writing. Mostly it comes down to creating an actual cohesive intro and conclusion to your reviews since they seem to be the major failings, the body paragraphs tend to be much better comparatively. This one for example you basically shoehorn in wiki facts as an intro and a TLDR at the end instead of an actual intro and conclusion.

Game taking on the clean-up role

Album Rating: 3.5

This album is pretty chuggy but the synths sound cool and blend well with the rest of the music, gives it an atmospheric feel.

Album Rating: 1.5

"I just want advice that isn't vague"



And thats why nobody went in-depth before. To really explain everything youre doing wrong takes a mini-essay because, like i said, you dont even have a grasp on basic writing skills.



Give up, tbh. If you still write like a middle schooler in your 20s, theres no helping you.

Now wait a second Adolf he has a DEGREE IN MUSIC. I think we should give him a shot since he is, without question, better than us and has more brain cells than the collective of sput.

Also holy fuck Game good job