Album Rating: 4.5
Wow, there's been some fascinating discussion going on here.
The flow chart ruled.
|
| |
Album Rating: 4.0
That has to be the best flow chart I've seen in years, in fact ever.
|
| |
Album Rating: 4.5
That flowchart is made of delicious pie. As is this album.
|
| |
How? Name five bands that sound like them. They are just a watered down version of Q and not U with really forced soul overtones. But that is just my silly opinion. Some other similar bands, And you will know us by the trail of dead, Bloc Party, Bad Brains, The Velvet Teen (early). I might have missed the mark entirely but there will be plenty of flames for this statement coming soon.
|
| |
Album Rating: 4.5
there will be plenty of flames for this statement coming soon.
I wonder why...
|
| |
I might be off base, but it is not make those claims because some of those bands have black members. Aren't you being inadvertently racist by pointing that out?
|
| |
Album Rating: 4.5
Kele Okereke definitely sounds like Tunde Adebimpe obvsThis Message Edited On 09.25.08
|
| |
Album Rating: 4.5
Ignoring the fact that TVotR don't really sound like any of those bands, the fact that you can say they sound like them in spite of the fact that those bands dont really sound alike would pretty much tell me that they aren't generic.
|
| |
Quite a buildup for this album. Good review, you've convinced me to pick it up...hope I'm not disappointed!
|
| |
Album Rating: 3.5
definitely TVotR's best album
|
| |
Album Rating: 4.5 | Sound Off
Well Cocaine you're right.
These arguments people are posing for why this album is bad are asinine.
it's that damn good. OMFG I said it! yeah, hype pays off.
Tho I do think '...Cookie Mountain' is better, but whatever.
|
| |
not that it matters, since you're already staff, but that' was a pretty terrible way to end a review. especially for you, since yours are generally pretty close to perfect
the album is pretty good. it's a little difficult to settle on a particular rating; some of the songs are painfully dull, some of them are ridiculously cool(almost too cool at times, really), and most of them fall into a weird area where their sonic novelty serves to mask whether or not the writing itself is good. a 3 for now but that's likely to change within the next couple of weeks
|
| |
well, it matters in the sense of being a good writer or not. i meant its not going to affect his approval rating since there isn't a vote option on it. it's bad because it just... cuts off. just like that. no summary or synthesis or anything, just a mention of a song and suddenly no more. one doesn't need a degree in advanced English to see the issue, it would mark down even a fifth grader's score on a written exam. it's just bad. the rest of the review's good, as always. but the end of it isn't
|
| |
Album Rating: 4.0
i've heard this IMO return to cookie...was better
|
| |
Album Rating: 4.5
's bad because it just... cuts off. just like that. no summary or synthesis or anything, just a mention of a song and suddenly no more.
but
Dear Science, is not a shallow record. It's fun, sometimes danceable and always engrossing, but if anything the crystal clear production (a first for the band) does as much for the sometimes political sometimes emotional concepts as it does funky grooves and compositional weight. In short, Dear Science, is a multifaceted approach to music. Not only does it effectively blend a myriad of seemingly conflicting sounds, but it does so tastefully and masterfully. Their penchant for sonic experimentation (they love to play with distortion and when I saw them this past July Gerard Smith had wind-chimes hanging off of his bass) has been toned down in favour of highlighting Tunde Adebimpe and Kyp Malone sometimes crooned, sometimes sung, sometimes howled and occasionally rapped vocals. One of the best albums of 2008, Dear Science, is an album you can ramble on about for nearly 600 words before you realize you forgot to mention "Golden Age", arguably the best song on the album. It gets better every time I listen to it and that's a trend that only seems to be continuing.
I'm not sure what the problem is, istaros. I mentioned Golden Age in jest because I really did forget to talk about it earlier. It was a testament to the quality of the other songs. Granted I randomly throw in some stuff about the vocals into the "conclusion" but I think there's a summary in there.
|
| |
it's a short-stop. you made several specific point references throughout the review but by the end of it you just left them all hanging whereas it felt as if they were going to be tied together. it honestly feels like you wrote a much longer review that's somehow had the second half cut out
|
| |
it's not necessary to always have a summary as your very last statement, true; but when it's being followed by other statements they should still refer back to that summary as it is (ideally) what the reader will walk away with remembering most. but that bolded bit followed by a fairly irrelevant divergence into seeing them live and what their voices sound like, and an offhand song mention, creates a conflict of interest in where to place one's attention. it creates an expectation that the review is meant to keep going, not stop. so when it does, it feels sudden
|
| |
Album Rating: 2.5
I mean I didn't want to hate but it's not the best review, but there's a perfectly good dibsing reason for that so it's all good.
|
| |
well shit i completely missed this/had no idea TV on the Radio released this
|
| |
meh give him a break, what is this? his sixth review this week? The review was up to the Cocaine standards, but didn't exceed them.
|
| |
|
|
