Album Rating: 4.0 | Sound Off

Yeah I get what you mean. I'm not saying that's not possible, I just never rate anything 5 until I've had time because my opinion can change a lot. Still can't understand rating this a 3 though.

Album Rating: 3.0 | Sound Off

tbh I wanted to like this and rate it a 4 and write a happy review. i think the longer I've been here, although my tastes have expanded, i'm harder to please

Album Rating: 4.0 | Sound Off

you think it might grow or is that 3 pretty set in stone? doesn't seem like a grower to me to be honest, but IDK maybe that's just because I started at 4.5.

Album Rating: 3.0 | Sound Off

i could see it growing to a 3.5 or 4, if the vocals were to grow on me a bit. there not like reeaaaly bad, but they don't really hook me into the songs and at times I feel like that's what they were aiming for.

Album Rating: 4.0 | Sound Off

I could see the vocals being annoying, that's what i thought when i first heard skin surf. then i just really liked them on a random listen.

Album Rating: 5.0

@Sea



What with the inclusion of vox, electronics, guitar, drums, and bass, all often particularly closely knit rhythmically, with

beautiful production, I'd definitely call it dense, especially with the more focused songwriting. And absolutely denser

than any earlier material. But that's not even what I meant when I said dense, I meant simply the sophistification of

such a pop album. The way certain books are dense in detail.

I thought you meant dense in atmosphere not in like number of "close-knit" instruments. Idk, that's what I think of when I think dense. Slint is dense. Gospel is dense. by your standards, fun. would be considered pretty dense. whatever, misunderstanding.

Album Rating: 5.0

Yeah this definitely doesn't sound like slint haha

yeah sorry but "dense" "sophisticated" "beautiful production" "focused songwriting" are hardly what I'd describe this as. I mean it's obviously pretty enjoyable, to some more than others, but without sounding like too much of an asshole, you gotta be kidding yourself if you're hearing those things man

Album Rating: 3.0 | Sound Off

idk the production is alright, but its mainly the songwriting front that is severely lacking imo

Album Rating: 3.0 | Sound Off

not even necessarily that in my opinion. I liked their first album a lot. It's just clear they are trying to incorporate a poppier sound and the way they juxtapose the whole indie pop thing with the really wild instrumentals just comes off as really incoherent and lacks definitive purpose to me.

Album Rating: 3.0 | Sound Off

ehh. would've been alright if they kept with the math, even the melodies are alright. i think the vocals just don't find their place.

Album Rating: 5.0

@Sea



"yeah sorry but "dense" "sophisticated" "beautiful production" "focused songwriting" are hardly what

I'd describe this as. I mean it's obviously pretty enjoyable, to some more than others, but without

sounding like too much of an asshole, you gotta be kidding yourself if you're hearing those things

man"





i'm talking from a purely technical and objective standpoint.



it's "dense" in that there are many walls of sound--there are many things going on at once, and

rhythmically, as i said before, it is all very closely knit.



it's "sophisticated" in the complexity of the overall music and songwriting, not necessarily

emotionally i guess, but that's intentional: they simply made a fun pop album, they don't take

themselves too seriously.



it has "beautiful production"--not in terms of atmosphere, i'm not talking about anything subjective

. . . the album is just mixed very well. nothing sounds drowned out, or at least unintentionally.

the drums are loud, guitar is loud, bass is crunchy, electronics fit nicely, etc.



the songwriting may not be the usual, but it is very focused. sure, it doesn't follow the

verse/chorus/verse/chorus thing in any song (even tho there are variations of it everywhere), but

structure is definitely clear, far clearer than it ever was in any earlier TM release (but that's

not a complaint either). and very little is "random" in terms of sections of songs: i could spot,

in earlier sections of many songs, a lot suggestions of riffs used later on, so parts don't just

"pop up" without context.

exactamundo

Album Rating: 5.0

also, there is very little noodling in the album. the only instances of it are in the outro of

Party with Gina, where they play with distortion and feedback, and in Another Surf, which is just a

ridiculous masturbation fest. everything else is pretty airtight.



i didn't really think people were expecting deeeep atmosphere from Tera Melos, but i guess a few

were. i mean there are sections in Patagonian Rats where there are some somber sober tones, but

even those sound tongue-in-cheek. and Tera Melos has never really played "serious" music . . . i

think all their music has been pretty humorous and playful, in the vein of Captain Beefheart and

Frank Zappa

and John Zorn. i guess the pop just brings it out more here. *shrug*

Album Rating: 3.0 | Sound Off

fuuuuck dude



before I get to reading and responding to those posts, you should really learn to condense what you have to say in the future.

mecca's comments are longer than my reviews

Album Rating: 5.0

@chambered



i don't really follow the argument saying it's math for the sake of math. most "math rock" reflects

upon its own technicality by purposely making itself not catchy and/or inaccessible, by constantly

losing the listener. this is full of hooks everywhere, though. it's fun. i think that, if

anything, that DETRACTS from the outward complexity of the album. it makes the music seem more

modest and friendly. and that's also partially the reason i call this album "sophisticated"--it

masks its complexity with accessibility.









(sorry for long posts . . . i split the one above into two, so it's easier to read)

Album Rating: 5.0

an example of what i meant by the suggestiveness in the songwriting:



0:56 to 0:57 in Aped is the same thing that goes on in the song's bridge, from 2:20 to 2:45. and

that bridge itself extends its time signature about three separate times near the end, so that it

then flows perfectly into the mellower outro of the song. again, there isn't anything very "random"

about the songwriting. i guess it might appear so on the surface. but nonlinearity != randomness.

it's just clever and self-reflexive.





P.S. these are the conversations i came here for. this thread isn't half-bad anymore. some actual

discussion. it's all about understanding other people's opinions.

Album Rating: 5.0

i don't know. it flows really well into the similarly mellower nature of Frozen Zoo, which is just

as big a contrast to the rest of the album as the latter half of Tail. think of the mellower parts

of the album as intentional pauses or interludes for the entire album--for the purpose of making the

album more breathable and consumable.



like how the first two tracks are comparably simpler--friendly pushes to get you into the more

Byzantine nature of the album.