seriously. so many reviews on this site feel rehashed, like they are following a particular (monotonous) formula. This last paragraph was legitimately refreshing to read - like the first breath after a bite into some powerful minty gum. I was smiling as I read it.
Thank you! I hope my reviews don't come across as formulaic.
No, not really. It's difficult to write reviews on a consistent basis. Some writers on this site turn out 3 or 4 at a time, and it's tough to write in a unique rhythm that properly conveys the feeling of an album. You do a pretty good job. The Mogwai review (Hardcore Will Never Die...) especially. Very, very good. Keep up the good work, it keeps me coming back to this site. And Thanks.
That's awesome to hear. One thing that review and this review had in common is that after I wrote them, I didn't know whether to punish them because I thought they were over-the-top. I guess that might be a good feeling to have in a review then. But I agree...when I put up a handful of reviews at a time they do seem to fall into a sort of rhythm.
I'm going to take issue with that last paragraph. Why take a shot at Katy Perry for putting out formulaic pop after spending the entire review praising Foo Fighters for formulaic rock. Although you use different language for both, Foo Fighters have been on autopilot since they broke into the mainstream. These guys have literally been putting out the same brand of single-drive radio rock albums every two years since before most of us even listened to music. Foo Fighters aren't "filling a void," they're playing into it. Take away the guitars and drums and replace them with synthesizers, put Katy Perry in Grohl's place, and I guarantee no one would tell the difference. Take Katy Perry's "Extraterrestrial" and change the instrumentation around, put Dave Grohl in front of the mic, and it could be a Foo Fighters song (given it'd need different lyrics).
I'm not attacking you so much as I'm taking issue with your seemingly random praise of one artist for being mainstream while taking a shot at another for doing the same thing. People want to sing the chorus of "Fireworks" because it's a huge, homerun of a pop chorus, the exact same kind of choruses Dave Grohl has built his career upon.
This album is good for radio rock, it's by no means great as this review implies. Hell it's not even their best work. This websites reviews are start to sound more like record label press releases than actual critical reviews.
Nothing like disagreeing with one review and crediting it to the entire website. I'd like you to find me a press release that's anything like this at all.
I meant it seems like press release due to the constant praise, there is no criticism. And it is a site wide problem, the Thursday review had me laughing with how over top the praise was and I consider myself a huge fan of the band.
There is, but not that much because it's a positive review. I talk about one song that I consider skip-worthy and I point out that the album isn't perfect. If I think an album is good, I'm obviously going to focus on its positives. While I agree that some reviews can be a little over the top, I don't think I've written a review like that. I do write negative reviews. Drew has his own way of expressing how he likes a record, to each their own.
- Groups that still present the masses with a worthwhile substance that can be called rock and roll are usually fairly widely recognized for their services.
- using only analog equipment until post-mastering
- Wasting Light isn't perfect, but its flaws are essential to its being.
These three statements I kind of don't get. Can you elaborate?
The first one...I mean that real rock and roll bands get a good amount of attention these days. Gaslight Anthem is a good example, doing late-night shows, filling up bigger venues, selling well, etc. The second one, they recorded the entire thing using analog equipment until after the record was mastered. And lastly, that's a pretty simple sentence. The missteps on this record are just a part of it that add into how good I think it is.
That's kind of an overstatement. I don't think The Hold Steady get a ton of press in the mainstream, and they're as much of what rock and roll is about as anyone. Rock isn't missing, you just have to find it.
And ah ok. I was going to say. There is nothing post-mastering. Mastering is the final process. And definitely wasn't done analog. Haha. I guess the phrasing just confused me.
The third sentence still seems a bit contradictory. If they're what makes the record good, how are they flaws?
Butch Vig's quote was something like, "...used analog equipment until post-mastering...." not sure what that even really means, post-mastering.
You're missing the point a little. I'm saying that Foo Fighters are successful for the exact same reason Katy Perry is successful; they both put out formulaic, easily digestible music. The only difference is that one uses guitars and the other uses synths. That's why I find the Katy Perry shot a bit ridiculous, since he praises Grohl for doing the same thing he chastises Perry for doing.
It's actually the difference between good and bad music. And don't go off saying that's just my opinion because obviously this entire review is my opinion.
A review is to give your opinion, but in the case of reviewing an album it's also to tell people whether or not to purchase an album or not. It's pretty obvious you don't like Katy Perry's music, but bashing her in a review is pretty useless and distracting to the viewer. Little things like that cause shitstorms which distracts from actual discussion of the album and forces people to call your writing skills into question.
I'm pretty sure my writing skill is evident enough in the review for you to determine for yourself. Ignore the last paragraph if you'd like. And in case you couldn't tell from the entire review that preceded the last paragraph, I thought this record was excellent so my answer is: buy it. If you couldn't manage to take that from the review then why would I care what you think about my conclusion? I mentioned Katy Perry in a second and then it was gone. I could have mentioned anyone else, who cares.
I really just wish the scoring system could be done away with and replaced with a star-scoring system or something, mostly so people would stop complaining about the scores. Just because a magazine gives a record 5 of 5 stats, it doesn't mean it's a perfect album. I see the ratings system on here the same way.
you don't have to be an album reviewer to find it somewhat silly to on one hand give an album a perfect score, only to say that on the other hand, the album is not perfect. guess we just look at scores differently. the reviews on this site are pretty much useless anyways, so i don't even know why i am bothering with this debate. i did enjoy your sharks review though-really enjoying that album.
Well it did only receive a 94. Star ratings have a lot less range. That 94 says a lot about the album when compared to his review. It is a great album with a few flaws that can balance out based on peoples opinion. I don't think any album on this site has ever gotten a 100%. A perfect album is always desired, hunted for, and claimed but their is no such thing. Flaws making the album always give them room to improve. It is a fantastic album and a good review.
If Drew didn't give Kanye a 100%, then it was like a 99% haha. I would give Born to Run a 100% and Deja, Devil and God, and Mean Everything to Nothing would be on the doorstep. The '59 Sound is there for me too. But until something is monumental for me like that, I can't see myself going much higher than a 94%-96% range....even that is pretty huge. Anything above 90 is a lot. But yeah, can't wait till we're on a star system.