|
| |
|
|
|
Review Summary: "A poor man’s Refused" would be an accurate description. The Letters Organize were a relatively unknown five-piece from Atlanta, Georgia. Dead Rhythm Machine was their only album, and it’s a cryin’ shame, as DRM shows both incredible potential and a wonderful sense of fun. They play a unique brand of Rock ‘n’ Roll influenced hardcore, which is both catchy and fun. Fun is the best adjective to describe this album. As TLO bluster through a baker’s dozen tracks in about half an hour, they never lose their sense of fun.
Their vocalist screams in a higher register not unlike Dennis Lyxzen of Refused. The screams generally enforce whatever the vocalist is trying to get across, and when he’s not screaming, he’s doing a fantastic job of singing. His cleans are absolutely spot-on.
The guitar tone can be angular at times, but at other times, infectious, catchy, and this reviewer’s favorite f-word, fun. The chord progressions are nothing new, but the rock and roll influence comes out in the form of the innumerable licks scattered throughout the album. One of the best guitar licks throughout the album (and it is hard as hell to choose) is in the outro of These Words. The angular, off-kilter riffing is spectacular.
The rhythm section is exactly what you would expect from an album named Dead Rhythm Machine: superb. The bassist is no slacker, bringing both excellent fills and solid backing to the guitars, and the drummer takes the spotlight quite often.
The Letters Organize compare themselves to Refused constantly, and they aren’t too far from the truth.
|
Album Rating: 3.0
shorter than I would like, but whatever. Get this if you don't have it, it's pretty fantastic.
| | |
you could expand on your conclusion
shows both incredible potential and a "wonderful sense of fun."
lol I won't neg
| | |
Length (at least in this case) doesn't matter, but the review didn't really tell me anything about the band.
| | | Album Rating: 3.0
What do you want to know about the band? Isn't knowing about their music good enough?
| | |
I think what he is getting at is that your descriptive skills could use some work (as I have pointed out). It does not necessarily have to be of the band but it certainly must be of the subject (the album).
| | | Album Rating: 3.0
well, I'm writing to get better. If you have some more specific criticism to offer I'd appreciate it. "Describe more" isn't really very helpful.
Also I'm not an english major.
| | |
which is both catchy and fun. Fun is the best adjective to describe this album.
This "beg's the question" which in english means that it does not explain why you are asserting the notion of fun being an appropriate adjective.
Also you over-use "fun" in your first paragraph, look to a thesaurus for alternatives.
Their vocalist screams in a higher register not unlike Dennis Lyxzen of Refused.
*Unlike Dennis Lyxzen of the band Refused, the vocalist of this band scream in a register that is higher.*
-Unfortunately though you used a false comparison because you did not explain how Dennis from Refused's vocals are similar to that of "The Letters Organize".
They play a unique brand of Rock ‘n’ Roll influenced hardcore,
but the rock and roll influence comes out in the form
you said rock'n'roll differently which makes the term inconsistent.
There are other problems as well but the biggest is substance and grammar.
| | |
What I meant, more or less, was that the review came off as it's a fun band, the vocals are fantastic, etc. What would be better is if you did less of a play by play and more reasoning as to what specifically stood out as noteworthy.
Also some background on the band itself wouldn't hurt, as I have no idea who they are. And transitions are nice. Basically there needs to be some more meat and like Butchered said, more consistency.
| | |
Me- There are other problems as well but the biggest is substance
TheOscillat0r- Basically there needs to be some more meat.
Exactly.
| | |
alright here's your criticism.
The intro is okay. Perhaps a little redundant with the word and concept of "fun", but it works.
Then you try to break it down into specific aspects of the album, namely vocals/guitar/rhythm. Breaking it down and trying to dedicate a paragraph to each gives the review a very chunky, abrupt, forced feeling from paragraph 2 on. It might be a better idea to talk about how it all comes together, the atmosphere it creates, etc. You pay no tribute to the lyrics/emotion, you don't point out any particular songs that serve as high/low points for the record, and you generally fail to sell this record to the listener. Of course you need a better conclusion as well. One slipshod sentence drawing a quick and unexplained comparison to another band does not count as a conclusion.
Hope you can take this constructively, I look forward to reading your next review and hope to see some improvement :]
Also, most of the people here that write reviews aren't English majors either. Some of them are, and they tend to be some of the better reviewers, but I'm a Math major (farthest thing from English) and I'd say I do semi-alright in writing reviews. A good general note is to read lots and lots of Staff and other featured reviews, you'll catch on pretty quickly.
| | | Album Rating: 3.0
yeah I was an engineering major
Anyways, thanks for the criticisms. I will probably redo this later.
| | |
Your welcome
| | |
you're*
(couldn't resist, sorry BC)
| | |
Their vocalist screams in a higher register not unlike Dennis Lyxzen of Refused.
*Unlike Dennis Lyxzen of the band Refused, the vocalist of this band scream in a register that is higher.*
Um, no. The first statement is making a comparison, you change it to make it sound like one is different from the other
| | |
you're*
(couldn't resist, sorry BC)
np
Um, no. The first statement is making a comparison, you change it to make it sound like one is different from the other
A comparison is meant to compare, ergo one being different to the other or one being the same to the other or showing similarities. My re-wording just focuses his emphasized connotations.
| | |
A comparison is meant to compare, ergo one being different to the other or one being the same to the other or showing similarities. My re-wording just focuses his emphasized connotations.
No, it didn't, re-read his sentence. He states that the singer in this group sings at a higher register , not unlike the singer from Refused. He is comparing the two. Your "change" states that UNLIKE the singer from refused, the singer in this group sings at a higher register, putting one above the other
| | |
True, good catch.
| | |
album owns. i remember getting this and being totally blown away.
| | |
| |
