Light Pupil Dilate
Snake Wine


3.5
great

Review

by Tyler EMERITUS
November 10th, 2007 | 42 replies


Release Date: 2007 | Tracklist

Review Summary: Imagine Mastodon's Blood Mountain with a hardcore twist. Oh, and not shitty.

With Blood Mountain, Mastodon entered new territory. I'm told they broke new ground. That isn't true.

Mastodon took their sludgy foundation, cleaned it up a little and, rather than the using an interesting concept like the ones found on their first two albums (okay, Remission wasn't exactly a concept album), they scuffed their music up with an embarrassingly lame story.

Blood Mountain was a shitty album, full of drumming that didn't fit, short songs that seemed to drag and a hilariously stupid concept. These factors combined, apparently, made Mastodon a progressive metal band. I'd argue that it made them lame, but now we're jumping into synonyms and that's when it all gets confusing.

Light Pupil Dilate kind of sound like Mastodon. Old, good Mastodon. Don't get it twisted; they're not a copycat band, but it's a pretty safe comparison to make. Maybe it's the Leviathan-like production, the similar vocals or the fact that two of their members did preproduction work on Blood Mountain. More likely, however, is the idea that maybe the comparison stems from wishful thinking.

From the get go, you'll notice that the vocals and drums hold the strongest comparisons to Mastodon. The drums are rhythmic and intense, obviously not unlike Brann Dailor, though unlike Brann, the drums serve as a propulsive force rather than a self-serving pat on the back. The vocals typically take a dual approach, alternating between harmonised yells and deeper shouts; though don't be surprised to hear some cleaner sung passages that add a grungy intonation into the mix.

After a listen or two, you'll notice that while certain comparisons are apt, the two separate themselves in their foundation. While they both similarly lay on the distortion, Light Pupil Dilate use their [post-]hardcore appropriately, even though it's been slightly downplayed since their debut.

That leads to the positives. What this band brings to the table –other than their stupid name, stupid song-titles and stupid album name- is their understated blend of several sounds. They carefully mix post-punk, post-hardcore, sludge metal and ol' fashioned rock and roll, a formula they seem to have down to a tee.

And that, the formula, leads to the negatives.

This album lacks a selling point. Snake Wine comes without any real standouts. Rather formulaic in its otherwise solid foundation, you basically know what you're getting after a song or two. The guitars are heavily distorted, and often times you'll hear the bass taking a lead while the guitars keep crushing; a nice change from the typical "I play bass so I can show up drunk and hit root notes" approach. Amidst all the rhythmic syncopation you'll hear textured guitar work, evoking the bands love for Helmet and Fugazi. But in the end, it's kind of the same thing over and over.

Snake Wine brings an interesting sound to the table, reminds you of some great bands that put out shitty albums in the last few years and, in short, sells themselves short by playing it safe. Obvious comparisons to Mastodon aside, Snake Wine uses some interesting angles that set them apart from the masturbatory prehistoric "prog rockers". While the chaotic and groovy drumming is perhaps the greatest highlight, the album succeeds by providing consistently good music but fails at going the extra mile.



Recent reviews by this author
Masked Intruder Masked IntruderAtheist Jupiter
Aeon Path of FireAdam Haworth Stephens We Live on Cliffs
Autopsy The Tomb WithinOrbs Asleep Next to Science
user ratings (6)
3.4
great

Comments:Add a Comment 
Tyler
Emeritus
November 10th 2007


7927 Comments

Album Rating: 3.5

insomnia write-up. mentioned mastodon a lot because i think it was necessary. put these guys in metal, because that's what i felt like, but they could just as easily go in hardcore.

Jim
November 10th 2007


5110 Comments


good review mr coke

Tyler
Emeritus
November 10th 2007


7927 Comments

Album Rating: 3.5

thanks monsieur ali.

Altmer
November 10th 2007


5714 Comments


Paragraphing is kind of short for me to actually make for a fluent read, but other than that good review.

Skyler
November 10th 2007


1084 Comments

Album Rating: 3.0

This is actually a pretty cool album. Would definitely recommend this to anyone who

is a fan of Mastodon.This Message Edited On 11.10.07

Tyler
Emeritus
November 10th 2007


7927 Comments

Album Rating: 3.5

yeah I was in journalism mode when I wrote this, I had just been doing some reading. Noticed the paragraphs were small and that's more or less why. I figured I'd run with it. If anyone else has any real problems with it I can tighten it up once I get some sleep (which I haven't yet).

Brain Dead
November 10th 2007


1150 Comments


[quote=review]Blood Mountain was a shitty album, full of drumming that didn't fit, short songs that seemed to drag and a hilariously stupid concept. These factors combined, apparently, made Mastodon a progressive metal band.[/quote]
Uhhh... I believe the reason that Mastodon were classified as progressive metal after Blood Mountain is because Blood Mountain was full of gigantic, 70's progressive rock style solos (Capillarian Crest). Did you listen to it?

Tyler
Emeritus
November 10th 2007


7927 Comments

Album Rating: 3.5

Of course I listened to it. That's called a joke, because the album is boring as fuck. See, what I did there was I made fun of both the hilariously ironic "progressive rock" conventions and the fact that the album sucked.

Brain Dead
November 10th 2007


1150 Comments


well geez you seemed to be puzzling over why mastodon were progressive metal so i gave you a hint.

Tyler
Emeritus
November 10th 2007


7927 Comments

Album Rating: 3.5

They aren't progressive at all. That was the joke. I said that because the album's story was hilariously stupid, the songs drawn out and the drumming self-serving, they were now fitting to be lumped in with a progressive constituent.

It was just a segue, dont look too much into it.

Zoo
November 10th 2007


3759 Comments


Nice review. This doesn't really sound like something I'd like but I'll give it a listen anyway.

thesystemisdown
November 11th 2007


416 Comments


This review is horrendously bad. I mean the parts where you got off your high horse long enough to discuss the album you were reviewing were pretty good, but I saw no reason to make such constant comparisons to Blood Mountain/Mastodon. I don't really care that your opinion on Blood Mountain is so negative, but to turn the majority of a fairly short review about one album into an endless bash of another is ridiculous. This review was 75% sound-off on Blood Mountain, 15% comparing this band to Mastodon, and 10% talking about the actual band and album. You've done way better than this.

Tyler
Emeritus
November 11th 2007


7927 Comments

Album Rating: 3.5

Listen to the album, then you'll understand the comparisons. The first third is about Mastodon, then I used that album to segue into how this band does what the other should have. I mentioned it to get everyone's attention. Obviously it worked.



This review is more like 20% making fun of BM, 20% comparing this album, 30% summarising this album's overall sound and 30% conclusion.



But I get that pointing out that one of your few 5 rated albums is terrible can get you worked up. Just imagine if I made obvious pokes at SOAD. Oh that would be fun!



Seriously, I built off my first impression, then addressed obvious comparisons to explain why those impressions hit me. You saying I didn't mention the sound on the album just leads me to believe you read the first bit and threw a tantrum.This Message Edited On 11.10.07This Message Edited On 11.10.07

thesystemisdown
November 11th 2007


416 Comments


The fact that I love Blood Mountain is irrelevant. If you had made an equal number of references to, say, Limp Bizkit I would probably have reacted the same way. And I read the whole review, and it seemed like all you did was A) talk about Mastodon/compare this band to Mastodon, B) mention what the band does technically, and then C) for maybe 1/10th of the time mention your own personal opinion.

Tyler
Emeritus
November 11th 2007


7927 Comments

Album Rating: 3.5

Whatever you say El Capitano. I will try to beef it up but there isn't much else to day. I dont know what you think a review is but I really don't have to go into any explicit detail.

Zoo
November 11th 2007


3759 Comments


[quote=thesystemisdown]This review was 75% sound-off on Blood Mountain, 15% comparing this band to Mastodon, and 10% talking about the actual band and album.[/quote]
You might want to reevaluate those percentages. They're a tad off.
[quote=thesystemisdown]like all you did was A) talk about Mastodon/compare this band to Mastodon, B) mention what the band does technically, and then C) for maybe 1/10th of the time mention your own personal opinion.[/quote]
I see it more as Cocaine is using Blood Mountain as a reference, knowing that it would be an album from a band many can relate to.

Tyler
Emeritus
November 11th 2007


7927 Comments

Album Rating: 3.5

I used it as a segue. Why?

1. It was a HUGE album

2. Two of this band's members worked on it

3. They have a similar sound

4. Matt Washburn, who produced this, also worked with Mastodon in the past.



thesystemisdown
November 11th 2007


416 Comments


As a segue it wasn't that bad but when you kept bringing it up throughout the review it stopped being cute pretty fast.

Tyler
Emeritus
November 11th 2007


7927 Comments

Album Rating: 3.5

The first 177 words are focused on BM and that's me being really, really generous to your lax observation. The next 400 barely mention Mastodon. Just drop it.This Message Edited On 11.10.07

Commortus
November 12th 2007


237 Comments


Blood Mountain wasn't horrible by any stretch of the imagination.



You have to be logged in to post a comment. Login | Create a Profile





STAFF & CONTRIBUTORS // 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 2005-2023 Sputnikmusic.com
All Album Reviews Displayed With Permission of Authors | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy