|
| |
|
|
|
Review Summary: Outdated and unexciting, Eat the Elephant is safe to the point of boredom. Ah Maynard...
When I was 14 I thought the man could do no wrong, to me Tool and APC were the peak of musical capability. I mean, that is to be expected. Tool represents an exceptionally fascinating snapshot in music history. They would have been fairly typical grunge, but inter spliced between Adam Jones' fairly predictable (but still good, the man has talent and I have a lot of respect for him) riffing was Danny Carey. He added a sense of depth that almost no band could recreate, and that was what took the grunge/nu metal sound of Tool to a different level. He added an artistic flair, which when coupled with Maynard's lyrics presented a faux depth which people latched onto. It was marketable and palatable, but Danny Carey made it just complex enough for people to praise it as high art.
The difference from Tool and APC was that APC were a rock band, nothing more, nothing less. They didn't have anything to separate them from the flock other than Maynard, so they put him at the forefront. As opposed to Tool, who were driven by Danny Carey's drumming, APC were always about emulating Maynard's voice. That's why Thirteenth Step is such a great album, everything about it is built to enhance the vocal performance, and it works damn well. APC lives and dies on how invested Maynard is.
And that is why this album is a failure, Maynard is simply not very invested. His singing is still technically good mind you, but his voice is what made APC great. A lack of care is felt throughout the entire album, which leaves it to the musicians of APC to carry the album. And this is the real downfall of Eat the Elephant. The music is simply typical early-2000s hard rock, it's dated and boring. Without Maynard giving his all they simply can't distinguish themselves as anything other than a parody of themselves. Nothing new is said, just a repeat of what was told so much better before.
The snapshot that was Tool was a response to the nu-metal era, in a time when knuckleheads ruled the metal scene Tool brought their progressive styling in and took the world by storm. And just like Tool, APC is part of that snapshot, an artistic response to a meathead movement. The problem for APC is that snapshot was of the early 2000s, not the 2010s. Their time is gone, and instead of adapting or changing, Eat the Elephant is a parody. If your album only exists to repeat a dead age, it's almost like it would be better if nothing was said at all.
| other reviews of this album |
Benjamin Kuettel EMERITUS (4)
A Perfect Circle drop their long-awaited fourth album, a cohesive and atmospheric rock record with a...
PostMesmeric (3.5)
Through achievements and missteps, it’s a band striving for progress....
Stubbs92 (4)
While featuring less variation than the band's previous efforts, A Perfect Circle manages to release...
DropTune (4.5)
Elephants never forget and neither do A Perfect Circle....
|
|
Album Rating: 1.5
Hello!
As you can tell this is my first review. This was originally my comment on AMG's review of Eat the Elephant and someone suggested that I post it here. So I edited it into less of a comment response and into more of a legitimate review, any criticism is much appreciated!
| | | Album Rating: 1.0 | Sound Off
two pages of reviews now, most of them fellating the elephant
not this one
| | | Album Rating: 4.5
Congrats on the first review! You picked quite the album to tackle. I think you should write your reviews a little longer. You did about 4 paragraphs that don't really define much, but if you were to go back and expand a bit more, you'd be alright. Once you keep writing reviews you'll start to figure out how to format them. In terms of the review itself, I can't agree with ya.
| | |
great review, missing some commas but good
| | |
pos
| | |
I would suggest taking the time that you spent describing your history with Tool/APC and use some of that to talk more about the album itself. You begin a bit too many sentences with "and" (ideally you should never do that, but we typically let it slide once or twice anyway.) Finally, try expanding your thoughts a little bit more. The sentence "The music is simply typical early-2000s hard rock, it's dated and boring" could use some explanation.
This is great for a first review though! You definitely sound educated on the subject and the band(s) involved. Pos'd, welcome aboard.
| | | Album Rating: 3.5
Ctrl-f "Maynard": 7
Ctrl-f "Billy": 0
| | | Album Rating: 1.0
correct rating
| | | Album Rating: 1.5
Yo shit, thanks for the warm welcome fellas! I really appreciate it!
I absolutely should have focused on describing the music as opposed to describing the history, that's something I'll absolutely work on in my next review. As for the "and" abundance, I hadn't even noticed that but rereading my review I absolutely overused them. Thanks for bringing that to my attention!
@RikRoach7
If Billy had done anything fascinating on this album I would have brought him up. ;)
| | | Album Rating: 4.5
Darius, I think it's yours from the future. What did you do to the timeline? WHAT DID YOU DO?!?
| | | Album Rating: 2.0
justin chancellor added more depth to tool then the drummer imo
| | | Album Rating: 3.5
"If Billy had done anything fascinating on this album I would have brought him up. ;)"
But in your opinion Maynard doesn't do anything fascinating either, so why would you even write the review with that mind-set? To be honest, you don't review this album, you review Maynard lol
| | |
both are a 1
| | | Album Rating: 4.5
>why would you even write the review with that mind-set?
Because people don't understand the goal of the album. The album does have something fascinating to say. Whether or not you want to hear it is up to you. I believe the album is well-written. Is it overbearing at times? Sure. Is it pretentious? Of course -- it's written by Maynard James Keenan. I don't think it's the worst thing ever written though. At least it was an original thought, which is a lot to ask for nowadays.
| | | Album Rating: 2.0
"To be honest, you don't review this album, you review Maynard lol"
Considering how dull the playing and composition is here, that's not surprising to me.
| | | Album Rating: 1.5 | Sound Off
„Because people don't understand the goal of the album. The album does have something fascinating to say. Whether or not you want to hear it is up to you. I believe the album is well-written. Is it overbearing at times? Sure. Is it pretentious? Of course -- it's written by Maynard James Keenan. I don't think it's the worst thing ever written though. At least it was an original thought, which is a lot to ask for nowadays.”
[2]
| | | Album Rating: 1.5
"To be honest, you don't review this album, you review Maynard lol"
Fair point. But when the musical elements are so boring that the only thing that has any character is Maynard, shouldn't Maynard be what I review? Do I think he did anything fascinating? No, but he is the closest thing to fascinating this album has to offer, and even that fails to be engaging.
| | | Album Rating: 2.0
stale production
| | | Album Rating: 4.5
>Do I think he did anything fascinating? No, but he is the closest thing to fascinating this album has to offer, and even that fails to be engaging.
I don't understand what you're trying to say here. If Maynard is the subject of your review, then why review the album at all? An album is the product of what a band of people are trying to accomplish. If you're only going to critique one part of the band, you're ignoring the rest of the effort.
| | | Album Rating: 1.5
"If Maynard is the subject of your review, then why review the album at all?"
Fair enough, but can't I review an album based on a performance? I'm new at this reviewing thing, but a reviewer doesn't owe it to a band to discuss every aspect of their music. Maynard is the only thing distinguishing this album from any other boring shit, so I discussed Maynard. I gave the music a passing thought, because it doesn't feel like anything other than a passing thought. It's lazy and plastic.
It'd be like if someone said St. Anger is an awful album and only talks about Lars. Does that invalidate his opinion because he doesn't acknowledge Rob is a pretty spectacular bass player? Not at all, an album is capable of being made or broken by a single performance, and that's what Maynard did here. He took a mediocre album and threw in a tired performance that brought the album down. I just mainly focused on him because I think he could have saved this album, but instead he just took it from mediocrity to piss-poor.
| | | |
|
| |
