Album Rating: 4.0

Loving this, front to back bangers. The track with Sierra goes way too hard.

Album Rating: 1.5

"Music is subjective"

oh gawd

layers of subjectivity

"I like this band" :: this is an opinion it is subjective it is good and fine.

"This band is good" :: this is an opinion that becomes meaningful if you either define what 'good' is (yikes) or to elaborate on what it is that makes the band 'good'. 'good' is a purely subjective category. no problem!

"This band is innovative" :: unlike good, innovative implies equal parts observation as and judgement, making this is an informed opinion that demands some engagement with whatever perceived reality you're drawing it from to hold up.

maybe it'd slide on its own, but calling the majority of the Music Factory In Year X oversaturated without elaborating on to why/who/how this pertains to health/what health have actually done to earn their not-like-the-other-girls cred is so far from a substantive argument that it p much defeats the point of referencing innovation to begin with (particularly as it is immediately sideline throughout the rest of the review in favour of an emphasis on craft)

"This band is good because it is innovative" :: this on its own is a silly conceit routinely trotted out for clout by writers too lazy to illustrate a meaningful two-way relationship between the two (and spoilers: there isn't one)



"Is it a broad statement? Absolutely. Doesn’t make it any less true though"

a lot of things are true: as someone who's written over 300 reviews for this site, i'd have thought you'd have a keener sense for which are and aren't relevant

this is terrible damn what happened to this band

Album Rating: 1.5

also ditto all demon's comments on how this album actually sounds

Now I have to check this album out just to see what's caused all of this discussion

so far the review itself has generated more discussion than the album itself

i aint fuckin listening to health

Album Rating: 2.8

This is a silly amount of hay being made from a throwaway opener for an otherwise good review

(the opener is not the only point of discussion dad, criticisms have been directed at other parts of the review plus its overarching thesis)

Album Rating: 1.5

is a feel-good family-friendly parable of not picking the wrong hill to die on

Album Rating: 4.9

Thanks kungfu

good lord what is happening in here?

I've enjoyed every Health song I've heard but never felt a desire to dig into an entire album. I'm not really familiar with industrial either aside from bands like NIN, Godflesh and Skinny Puppy so I can't make an assessment about how innovative they are in comparison.

I always got the impression that they did pop music with industrial/noise rock instrumentation and I judge them accordingly as an occasional enjoyer of pop.

Album Rating: 1.5

I regret rating this, because now my noise rock slice has disappeared again. What an injustice. This should only affect your weakass-fake-industrial-metal-bullshit slice

Album Rating: 1.5

thought slices were done on net for high ratings and not an inter-genre avg? either way, you will simply have to jam more + better noise rock to shed that fake jazz slice (a well-documented and tragic condition)

Album Rating: 1.5

I was pleased to see jazz again in all honesty, but couldn't possibly be assigning any credit where credit absolutely was not due

And good to know, I always thought having sub-3 ratings actively contributed towards a lower % (clearly getting my info from unreliable sources!)

looool the fake jazz slice is a such a sput classic

Album Rating: 1.5

is it? / what makes it fake exactly?

prob that u have like one jazz 4.5 and the "jazz" artists that give u that slice are just due to sputs terrible tagging system (fiona apple, nara leao, imperial triumphant, talk talk)

would I like this?

White ward #1 jazz