Some parts of the review seem a bit confusing to me. Like this:
"Instrumentally, the band aren’t at their most exciting and there’s very little to be taken aback by, however to desire that would be to miss the point of Letters Home. This is a DIY album, a straight up album made for angry tears. Anything different would be doing battle with its predecessor and would leave the band with little room for progression in the future."
The first part of the first sentence is okay, but then in the third sentence you go on to imply that the band have deliberately and consciously chosen to not write an album as good as the one that came before it, as though they're resting on their laurels. Is that badly worded, misinterpreted, or are you saying the band didn't want to write the best album they possibly could?
And I think you could take that second sentence out entirely.
I thought this album was kinda plain, personally. The musicianship feels a lot more deliberate, whereas I preferred the more cathartic outbursts of Empty Days.
I pretty much agree with you, I was working out to it the other day and it didn't reach me the same way any of the other releases did. It's not a bad album but it didn't hit me nearly the same as Travels or Empty Days did at first listen so it's kind of mediocre in my book.