What's He Building In There?
What's He Building In There?


3.5
great

Review

by dylanthedesertpea USER (2 Reviews)
January 12th, 2010 | 10 replies


Release Date: 2007 | Tracklist

Review Summary: It's like if Mike Patton was Between the Buried and Me's front man

As if the band's name wasn't enough of a sign, What's He Building In There" Is a very strange band. With a sound in the vein of SiKth and early Between the Buried and Me, it's hard to tag them as anything but progressive metalcore (even though many will argue this genre doesn't exist). However that's about where the similarities stop as What's He Building In There" (WHBIT") Have crafted a sound that is their own.

Similar to bands like BTBAM and the Human Abstract, WHBIT" is very guitar driven. However the guitarists really tried to think outside the box on their debut. The solos on this album are next to none, as most of the guitar work is done in the form of unique/proggy shredding to keep the songs fresh and forward moving. They try to set themselves apart from their metalcore peers by doing this, and it generally works. However, as the album spans for almost an hour and with the little variation things can get a little stale.

But don't let this turn you off as there's much more to WHBIT"'s sound than just the guitars. You could compare this band to The Human Abstract, but actually with good vocals. Along with the guitarists, the vocalist is part of the main driving force for the band. He has a very respectable range and not only that, but he has quite the array of vocal techniques. He has a nice high-end shriek, a mean growl, and a pretty unique singing style. If it doesn't remind you of Mike Patton when he worked with The Dillinger Escape Plan, then you're gay.

One of the larger reasons this album is so unique is the because of the bassist. It's a shame that the bassist is so low in the mix at times, because he is very talented. He has a very funky style that lends a large amount of uniqueness to the album's sound. At times the rest of the band cashes in on this fact and takes the funk/groovyness to “a whole 'nothuh level” (madTV). This is best displayed about 35 seconds into “Windmills” where the band slows the pace for a little bit and they put off a sound that's reminiscent of ska.

However, WHBIT" isn't perfect on their self titled debut. The band doesn't offer too much variation from song to song, which is probably their biggest flaw. Combine that and the fact that the album lasts for almost a whole hour and you've got an album that some people will have a hard time getting all the way through. The production also isn't the greatest as one would expect with a debut. Things are blended together and the rhythm section is often drowned out by the guitars and vocals. There are also many odd underlying noises and effects that would give the album a much richer atmosphere if only the production had made them more apparent.

Overall WHBIT" Has crafted their own funky brand of metalcore with their self titled debut. The guitars are technical and unique, the bass is damn groovy and fresh, and the vocals are diverse and demanding. The production however is a little shoddy which takes away from the band's sound. The guitars are too often blended together and the rhythm section, especially the bassist, is a little too drowned out at times. WHBIT"'s self titled debut certainly isn't without flaws but it's definitely a solid and unique release, and they're definitely a band to look out for in the future.


user ratings (9)
Chart.
3.4
great

Comments:Add a Comment 
TRMshadow
January 12th 2010


4983 Comments


good for a first review, I might check this out.

dylanthedesertpea
January 12th 2010


587 Comments

Album Rating: 3.5

thanks man. it took this was definitely a grower for me.





hehe i tried to make a funny at the end of the 1st paragraph

SeaAnemone
January 12th 2010


21407 Comments


You say "one" A LOT in the first paragraph.

missing a word "to"... will start TO reveal themselves

Try adding a more substantiative sentence at the end of your first para, a little like a thesis.

Also, I know it may be hard- especially if these really ARE that comparable to BTBAM- but try not referencing them so much, it makes it difficult for people who haven't heard them (i.e. me).

Try italicizing the album name, and you may want to mention some specific songs, but you dont HAVE to for it to work... personal preference mostly.

Overall, fairly well done for a first review... my personal advice is to add a liiitttle personal touch maybe- whether it be in the format of the review, a small anecdote, something along those lines maybe.


A first review always warrants a critique, I think.




joshuatree
Emeritus
January 12th 2010


3741 Comments


album name has to be a tom waits reference

dylanthedesertpea
January 12th 2010


587 Comments

Album Rating: 3.5

alright. cool, thanks for the input. and i was almost afraid of putting to much personal opinion into and making it sound fan-boyish or something like that. i'll try to edit this a little more here pretty soon... and it is in fact a tom waits reference

Kronzo
January 12th 2010


1303 Comments


you wrote the same sentence twice in the last paragraph. not a bad review other than that though. Great for a first. I'll pos.

Bitstream
January 13th 2010


296 Comments


Make sure you re-read over everything you write in a neutral voice, to get the flow. Because short, abrupt sentences take away from that kind of feel. So I suggest in the future, use more commas and whatnot. Try to develop longer sentences.

Other than that, good job. You used proper grammar, which is better that 80% of the first reviews on this site.

dylanthedesertpea
January 14th 2010


587 Comments

Album Rating: 3.5

i edited it. i personally think its a bit smoother now. thanks everyone for the help

dylanthedesertpea
July 21st 2010


587 Comments

Album Rating: 3.5

i'm going to totally re-do this here shortly. looking back this review kinda sucks

dylanthedesertpea
August 4th 2010


587 Comments

Album Rating: 3.5

bam. finally done. i'm more satisfied with this one than the last and i think it's more descriptive on the bands actual sound. probably a few grammatical errors here and there which will be fixed later, i just wanted to get this up here before i go seal my deck



You have to be logged in to post a comment. Login | Create a Profile





STAFF & CONTRIBUTORS // SITE FORUM // CONTACT US

Bands: A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z


Site Copyright 2005-2017 Sputnikmusic.com
All Album Reviews Displayed With Permission of Authors | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy