Review Summary: It's over 5000 songs! On one disc! In eleven minutes!
5 of 7 thought this review was well written
It starts off innocently enough, with the sound of a piano being playedâ€" but before long, a hi-hat is heard counting down behind a grim riff, somebody shouts "GO," and we are off. For five straight minutes, we are lost in a violent wall of noise. Drums blast, vocals shriek, guitars are distortedly strummed, and all of it is totally incoherent and seemingly random. This is the first track of Anal Cunt's infamous "5,643 Song EP."
What that violent wall of sound is really made up of, on both tracks, is 5,643 songs, layered on top of each other in the studio to create an elephantine cacophony of noise. This Frankenstein-like, cut and paste approach is effective at actualizing audio bedlam, but if melody is what you seek, then look elsewhere. Both tracks on the "5,643 Song EP" are very similar and virtually indistinguishable from one another, and neither has a distinctive rhythm or melody to latch on too. This is, essentially, noise musicâ€" albeit very unique noise music.
Despite its uniqueness, however, this EP is pretty much unlistenable. Though it is, thankfully, only eleven minutes long, that feels like an eternity when you are subjected to a non-stop barrage of random pandemonium. It's originality can't make up for the sheer difficulty of listening to it.
At any rate, check this out if you are looking for something differentâ€" just don't expect to get through it all.
I never said I enjoyed it "so much." I enjoy it, on occasion. However, some people may not be as all-knowing and well versed in music as you are, and thus want an idea of what noise music/this album is like. So, I describe it for them ("a non-stop barrage of random pandemonium"). Noise music, that I enjoy anyway, generally has some cool soundscapes/effects to listen for. This is just, as I said, random pandemonium.
"its like sayin yea as a fan of blackmetal i must confess i was appalled by the abundance of lo-fi tremolo picking"
@Lambda anyone who is even remotely familiar with AxCx can guess that an album of theirs such as the 5643 Song EP should be rated between 0 - 2/5. But it takes a particularly strong listener to hear it out with an open mind and find something in the music that others have missed (good or bad) and argue that.
Your review suffers from you stating too much of the obvious.
Well your review is certainly satisfactory for anyone who hasn't listened to their music before but it is best for a reviewer to aspire to write in a manner that addresses points that both the newb and the experienced listener will want to read.
Better not to unintentionally exclude anybody and it will only make you stronger and more compelling to read as a writer.
"It's like me saying I wrote this review with the intention of it being awful. According to you, it isn't awful then."
No. It's still awful. It just means you intended it to be ;)
"I'm all for randomness, but it has to sound good. This doesn't. "
I totally agree but you don't specify this anywhere in your review. It's mostly just a summary of facts and there's nothing really investigative or interesting about it.
"If being a random cacophony of noise is what this album sets out to do, then I don't like what it sets out to do. "
That's good. You should use your review to explain WHY you don't like it iinstead of simply stating that you don't (:
"you don't specify this anywhere in your review"
The review: "this EP is pretty much unlistenable" ;)
"explain WHY you don't like it"
Because it is random pandemonium with no melody or rhythm at all (I know it's noise music, but good noise does have something in it like that usually, buried deep within it's depths; this doesn't). But songs are virtually indistinguishable from one another, and it is incredibly difficult to listen too. Oh wait... I already said all that in the review. (:
I don't think Anal Cunt are a very serious band at all. Decent review, but you could have given a bit more background-for example what happened in the band's career shortly before or after the release of this EP.
"Because it is random pandemonium with no melody or rhythm at all "
"But songs are virtually indistinguishable from one another, and it is incredibly difficult to listen too"
These are not inherently bad things.
You do mention all of those things in the review though, I guess. But you don't put them into context like you just did right now. You just state them and then you assume your readers are going to see it as criticism because that's the way you think it should be read. You should be more specific about this stuff. I don't consider "incredibly difficult to listen to" a bad thing, nor do I consider "virtually indistinguishable songs" a bad thing. Or "lack of rhythm or melody". These are descriptions. Not criticism.
"Despite its uniqueness, however, this EP is pretty much unlistenable."
This is the only part of the review that actually says anything about the quality of the music. The rest is just facts and descriptions that you expect us to make conclusions on when that is what you should be doing instead. Because it's your review, with your assesement attached.
My whole point is that this doesn't read like a 1.5 at all. The fact that it's awful seems to be glossed over in favor of descriptions. It seems weird to me. Do you see what I'm getting at? I'm just trying to help you refine your reviewing style a bit.