Proof him. PROOF HIM

Album Rating: 3.0 | Sound Off

OK I WILL PROOF YOU!



first off, the question is "is this review well-written?". not "does the reviewer look at the album from the wrong perspective?". Negging somebody for their opinion is incredibly low.



second off, did you read the review? I obviously listen to math rock and I praised their first album, whose riffs are way more intense and more innovative than they are on here. If you read the review, you would realize that the band's attempt at more songstructured writing makes it sound incoherent, due to the clash of the wild, spontaneous guitar riffs and trying to bring in hooks and more clarity.



and third, you are completely in the minority as far as the pop thing goes. every review I've read of it has mentioned its attempt at including a more pop sound and you'll find that the general listeners agree. I think you have a very generic viewpoint of what pop music can be. Indie bands very often incorporate a hook and some sort of pop-based structural touch and this is what becomes indie pop(the vocals on here sound like several different indie pop groups). pop music is something that grabs at you, incorporates a hook to create a sense of familiarity with the song. and the band failed to define themselves on that front.

Album Rating: 4.0

A TYPO. SO FANNY.



wild instrumentals came off as distracting and somewhat nulls the truly unique sound they would have

had if they stripped the vocals. I explained how the vocals would've been nicer if they found their

niche, which I really thought they didn't.



The vocals have found their niche; lo-fi vocals: so to not compete with the instruments. Though,

this maybe mainly cause Nick can't sing well.



Unique sound? Maybe ten years ago. It's refreshing to have a legit math-rock band effectively add

vocals to their repertoire. Rather than, say, Don Cab.

Album Rating: 3.0 | Sound Off

ok but they sort of do compete with the instruments. and even if they didn't, then they would be a waste of time. a drone in the background. it doesn't really help your argument.

and yeah- how in the world do people say this is "classic" before it's even been released?

Album Rating: 3.0 | Sound Off

even if the album literally had no flaws, the rating is very shallow for such a recent release.

Album Rating: 4.0

ok but they sort of do compete with the instruments. and even if they didn't, then they would be a

waste of time. a drone in the background. it doesn't really help your argument.



Using compete wasn't the right word to use; they compliment the instruments more so and take a back

seat to what is essentially still a math-rock band. The best, and easiest example, would be Fang

Island; who employ a very similar vocal approach. There were little to no complaints regarding their

vocals simply because there was none to be had. They're a indie jam band who use catchy lyrics to

compliment their tight musicianship. I'd listen to both Fang Island and Tera Melos is they were

lacking vocals but you can't say the same for a mass majority of indie bands. Vocals in songs like

Aped fit perfectly with the song, and the vocals break-up when the band starts rly shinning and

jamming out. So there really isn't a problem with them. Somethings not wrong with the band;

something wrong with you the listener.



the problem with this isn't really the music itself it's the songwriting like it's so aimless and

there's no concrete feeling of oh ok this serves a purpose it's just noodling away into nothing



Welcome to Math-Rock. But seriously, this is much more concentrated than their math-rock peers and

more baggy than their indie peers. I think that was their aim.

Album Rating: 3.5 | Sound Off

I think I can understand you now. But nothing the less i find this album, where indie rock bands actually sounding all the same, does a nice step aside. And i welcome this new fresh air very much.

Album Rating: 4.0

Ha I just noticed you mentioned Fang Island in your review.



Touche.

i dunt agree with u so the review is bad proof me wrong and i ownt neg

Album Rating: 3.0 | Sound Off

haha. idk I feel like this would be a solid 4 for me if the vocals weren't present.



oh and use this "

Album Rating: 3.5 | Sound Off

"haha. idk I feel like this would be a solid 4 for me if the vocals weren't present.



oh and use this"



Based on this i would rate circle takes the square as the roots undo a 2 instead a 5 dude...

Album Rating: 4.5 | Sound Off

really good review, you make me feel bad about loving this album

Album Rating: 4.0

Anyways I negged you, and at least you know why.

Album Rating: 5.0

@SeaAnemone



1. thanks for the info on writing reviews



2. w/r/t "classic" rating: i actually have had the album awhile now. but when i can listen to an album every day for a week and be even more interested by that time, well i guess i consider it a classic.



believe it or not--i wasn't so thrilled for Patagonian Rats before its release. i had heard only Frozen Zoo and Another Surf. Frozen Zoo is obviously the simplest song they've ever made, which scared me a bit. and Another Surf is basically the same awesome riff over and over and over w/ a whole bunch of noodling on top. so after those two songs, i had pretty much given up on the album. and then i got the leak awhile ago, got my preorder, etc.



fuckin

LOVE

it.



i can't wait to write a review. i hope to have it up in the next few days. and i'll try to iterate well the reasons i love it so. maybe it might change a few minds? doesn't matter, tho.



i actually have a feeling that this album may be pretty important in the future. i can't say i've ever heard a math rock band stay as mechanically adept as they were and at the same time become more accessible. usually there's some sort of trade-off. cf Battles, Maps & Atlases, etc.

Album Rating: 3.5 | Sound Off

mecca i love you

Album Rating: 5.0

also, if anyone was wondering: Patagonian Rats the CD doesn't come with lyrics. :/



i hope they post them online sometime. i know you all wanna hear me singing this out in the car.

is it possible to ban tion and highanddriving for being retarded or is that discrimination

guys, the question is "did you think this review was well written", not "do you agree with this
review"

somethings not wrong with the band;
something wrong with you the listener

see, this is an example of a stupid remark, even though you helpfully took the time to post a long
comment explaining exactly how he was wrong and you are right

Anyways I negged you, and at least you know why

yeah now we know

Album Rating: 4.0

Only thing stupid about that remark was the grammar. You don't get the point I'm trying to relay. No

biggie, I think Eno kinda did.



I don't think it was a well-written review. Sure the grammar, spelling and prose were good, and I

agree with some parts but the major key critiques weren't convincing in the slightest. I could go on

but I've already spewed too much.

Album Rating: 4.5 | Sound Off

I don't see the use in arguing with his rating. The review is very concise and he has contemplated his rating. It's okay to say you don't agree, but there is no use in trying to change someone's opinion about something.