Album Rating: 3.0

seems odd when your definitions are boxed in

there's an interesting debate about whether emotions are tangible as they're produced by chemicals

i mean even if it were being used to mean 'definite' why not just use the word definite? or straightforward? especially when tangible is used most commonly to define something physically real. again though, no need to make a big fucking thing of it

jesus christ

Album Rating: 4.0

Damn, wasnt expecting all this debate but what can ya do. Nino I wasnt trying to be rude, I was just pointing out how easy it was (a google search) to realize that it's a real word.

Pleasant thread yay! Sweet rev as always

grief is intangible. yet he drowns in it. spirituality is intangible. yet he can feel it.

Album Rating: 4.0

^. really wanted to pick this up on wax today... hoping my store's still got a few copies left

i still haven't gotten around to R Plus Seven so i gotta wait on this :/

churchwave

After watching meet your creator I want to see this guy live

trick go head and meet your creator, meet your creator

Album Rating: 4.0

I've seen him live, and while you certainly won't get that level of stage show in the meet your

creator video, he sounds wonderful nonetheless. It was a few months before R Plus Seven came out and

sitting there listening to stuff like Boring Angel and Chrome Country was like "ohh shoot, this new

album is gonna rule". And it did.

“in many ways Oneohtrix Point Never’s latest EP is the indoctrination of this idea”
This doesn’t really make sense dude, sorry! Who’s being indoctrinated by this EP? Maybe you mean it’s the “manifestation”, or “realisation” of the idea – or do you mean it’s the product of Daniel having been indoctrinated by Tim’s concept?

“Commissions I collects three pieces for performance, artwork, and film over the past few years” – you mean, it collects three pieces which have been made/produced over the last three years? Or it has collected them over three years (how an EP can manage that, I'm not sure)?

“virtual synchronization of various forms of musical hybridity in constant, sweeping elevation toward tangible real-world spirituality”
Okay, people have said already that spirituality is intangible, but I think I get what you mean – it might be clearer if you said something like “a tangible sense/feeling of spirituality” (spirituality itself is intangible, but you can get a definite sense of its presence – sorry, I know that’s a cumbersome way of posing it, but maybe you get what I mean). Actually what you might be getting at is.. well, organic, visceral? As opposed to digital?
Also “virtual synchronisation” – the synchronisation isn’t virtual, someone’s done it "IRL"! – but it’s a synchronisation of virtual things. be careful with your subjects/articles!

The second paragraph is good, but (just a matter of taste) careful with using too many adjectives. If something needs that much description maybe don’t cram it all into one sentence, draw it out – it makes the individual sentences easier to read (more elegant), and also spells out what you’re getting at more precisely.

Maybe be careful with using sayings or clichés, too. Your writing’s too good, things like “to say the least”, “shiver in the spine” – well, it’s a bit like dropping slang into a piece of formal writing, it brings the creative tone down. There are prettier ways of phrasing these things without copy-pasting a million other people’s stock phrases.

Final paragraph – “The piece was used alongside a number of other artists “ – again, careful man! The PIECE was used alongside other artists’ PIECES, in a compilation. The compilation wasn’t composed of one song and a group of uncomfortable-looking musicians somehow squished into a collectors-edition box.

Finally, there are some words – evoke, hybrid – that you use quite a lot, and the review could maybe benefit from some variation. Just an opinion though

Hope this helps, I'm not "having a go", it's just a really well-written piece that I thought could really benefit from a few minor changes.

Album Rating: 4.0

Appreciate the words Bergtatt. I'll explain myself here - Tim's idea of "fake church music as apposed

to real church music" is being indoctrinationed into Lopatin's music. Not saying he directly stole this

idea or anything, but when I listen to this EP I think of that quote and can hear it directly in the

music (therefore the idea is being indoctrinated into the music).



As for the performance, artwork, and film bit, I think what I said is fine. To clarify further, I meant

that the EP collects three pre-existing pieces Lopatin did for various performance, artwork, and film

unrelated to the EP over the course of a few years. Perhaps I could have re-arranged the wording a bit

but I still think it makes sense on its own.



Actually what you might be getting at is.. well, organic, visceral? As opposed to digital? Yes

that's what I was trying to get across. I agree the sentence could use some rewording with "virtual

synchronization" as "synchronization of the virtual" and I'll change it to that so my point comes

across clearer.



I'm going to respectfully disagree with your adjectives argument. I like putting music under a

microscope and pointing out details through adjectives. I think I did a sufficient job of spacing out

my ideas within that realm, and I think often times "spacing" out ideas can lead to choppy and awkward

sentences.



As for the clichés bit I agree certain types of overused phrases can tone down creative writing, but I

think the examples you picked out work fine within their context and don't come across like clichés (I

believe 'Music For Steamed Rocks' is literally shiver/goosebumps inducing at points). Also I don't

think slang terms necessarily hurt in reviews, because being academic and "formal" with your writing

without allowing yourself to break free from that leads to stiff and lifeless writing that simply isn't

fun to read.



"The piece was used alongside a number of other artists" I'm not sure why you highlighted this bit

because when you read the rest of the sentence it makes sense. It was a group of artists who

contributed various takes on the song 'I Only Have Eyes For You' and OPN's version was used "alongside"

a number of these artists versions one after the other in a film made by Doug Aitken.



Anyway thanks for the thoughts and taking the time to go that in-depth Berg ~

Album Rating: 3.5

Daniel Lopatin is a legend.

Album Rating: 4.0

i only just now heard i only have eyes for you and i'm stunned by how good that was



there's just too much lopatin for me to handle

How do you pronounce this bands name?

Album Rating: 3.5

"opening-4-sound-garden"