Album Rating: 4.0

niiice

Album Rating: 3.0

Pretty crazy. Album is a bit of a mess, imo. Looks real clean compared to New Bermuda, but I don't think the gazey songs are a) great or b) fit well. Idk. This album is pretty okay.

would i dig? love sunbather but new bermuda was a bit too m/ for me

this is their least m/ album, so you might actually dig this a decent amount

edit: Darius beat me (*shakes fist angrily towards sky*)

"Yo, the review is arguing this very premise and if you’d bother engaging with Atomic’s entire review instead of your own asshole, maybe you’d have a discussion."

This review is arguing that we should consider albums as a whole instead of a collection of songs, not isolating particular moments... I think it only applies to certain albums, this not being one of them. I think I was pretty clear in my explanation. Maybe get the stick out of your ass and take your biases towards me and jog on? I made a perfectly valid comment.

Album Rating: 1.0 | Sound Off

Great thread.

least m/ album? you have me v intrigued now...

Album Rating: 2.5

Engaging with your own asshole is vastly under rated.

nice review. interested to check this out. sunbather was great

Album Rating: 2.5 | Sound Off

Why's no one tackling the oliphant in the room - that all the best bits of this sound exactly like Radiohead



Like 'someone better damn call Saul we got a case here and could win some cheddar' similar

the question of *how* we analyse albums is an interesting one, but the way it's rendered here is fraught and infelicitous, and not just because certain users (hint: u could use this object to fly high into the clouds of superciliousness and sanctimony, and also expectorate out the windows on the lowly peasants who dare appear on your trajectory) (plane. i'm talking about plane. remov the stic dude) are derailing it.

we are using a website where you are barred from adding singles, let alone discussing them, and where track-by-tracks are (unfairly?) impugned. the thesis -- that albums are best considered as whole entities -- isn't disputed by anyone. the question becomes: how do we consider them as whole entities?

for me, stripping them to their constituent parts/songs and analysing how they cohere, echo, fuse and divurge can be extremely helpful. how does the album function and flow; how does the tracklisting serve the conceptual purpose; do certain tracks not mesh? these are thematic inquiries worth investigating in trying to elucidate upon the whole. but ultimately there are some albums that i always, always, listen to in one sitting; some i do in multiple; some i select certain songs from to replay again and again. there's no right or wrong way to consume or analyse music; it can form an interesting meta backdrop, but any prescriptive insistence that people are listening to it the "wrong way", as this review implicitly implies, just isn't a tenable argument. people are different and their responses are different and their methods are different. god forbid everyone thinks the same way i do - what would i have to read?

the sky is blue. grass is green. transgender people exist. whole albums should be treated as such on sputnikmusic dot com. this isn't controversial: when you insist that you are doing the latter because you are enlightened in some way others aren't, complications are going to arise.

brb gonna replay the final minute of agoraphobia again and again until i'm ill like a child on Halloween thanks

"but any prescriptive insistence that people are listening to it the "wrong way", as this review implicitly implies, just isn't a tenable argument"

Yep. Well said.

Album Rating: 3.5

I always had problems with Deafheaven, they do best mix of shoegaze and black metal, but always something going wrong, and i after years i still cant get what...



In this time, i think alternative rock solos is strange(?) and superfluous. But still, this is great record, as always.



Thanks for review

*extremely smiling blush emoji*

Accepted. Thank you.

wines i love you

i'll add an "apologies all 'round" cheer, sputnikmusic tends to let me write reactively for good or ill and that was for ill. my bad dudes *cut to bart scrawling on the blackboard "fighting perceived sanctimony with sanctimony isn't conducive to Good Discourse*.

i also note that maybe my issue is that i don't hear the suggested narrative? but i don't know if ur giving the reviewer enough credit or, depending on ur perspective, too much: that first paragraph is a pretty unequivocal line in the sand. i don't think it's fair to call broaching i,t and the can of worms that inevitably go under the electric opener, willful misinterpretation.

also i'm laughing at the idea of The National's "Secret Meeting" but written by me and it's called "Clandestine Rendezvous"

*extremely blushing blush emoji*

Album Rating: 5.0

It's more my personal take on it, but I get that it reads as pretentious, prescriptive, or whatever.

excellently stated wines. I quite enjoy reviews that tackle an album holistically without mentioning individual tracks, it's the dismissal of the contrary approach that's inappropriate here.
at a symphony one applauds once the piece has fully concluded; this piece applauds itself in the first paragraph.