Album: Unbalance
Reviewer: Nate Patrin
Writing Disorders: Jargon Palsy, Detachment Syndrome, Purple Hemorrhage
Most Emo Phrase: “revisiting this album when it’s 15 degrees out and it gets dark before 5 p.m. could do it some good”
Most Obscure Word: nerviest
Nate, your writing is so horribly postmodern, it makes music sound sterile. Yes, music, that most basic form of human expression that has vibrantly defined human culture for millennia. You manage to write about it like a scientist fills in an insect diagram in an encyclopedia. Here are a few examples:
“scene-hopping rhythmic polyglot”
“the centrality of anonymity to dubstep has been a bit overstated”
“it was an aesthetic he was able to draw some intriguing cross-pollinations from”
This just doesn’t sound like something a music lover would write. Do you know what this reminds me of instead? It reminds me of people who reduce love down to its chemical components because they reject that it’s anything but strictly biological. And your writing style makes music seem like nothing more than a bunch of people hammering on keys and plucking strings at regular intervals.
Actually, I thought it was interesting that you had the gall to mention my very same observation…about the album you’re reviewing.
“2562′s latest is missing a bit in the area of soulfulness, or much of a human touch at all”
Now I personally think your style of criticism is a plague on art, but I’m certain that many music critics believe what they’re writing is a form of art itself. Otherwise, they wouldn’t write this kind of stuff with such flourish:
“keyboards hacked up into skipping-CD stutters”
Look, Nate, I’m not bashing your knowledge about music. You seem to know a lot of intricate details about bands and styles. I say “seem” because I don’t have the time to cross-reference every little claim you make (and you make a lot of them). Hell, for all I know, 2562 might owe nothing to Orbital and may actually be a statement against the latest sounds out of South London. But since knowing the truth wouldn’t add anything to the actual listening experience, I’m not too concerned.
From all angles, you seem to know what you’re talking about, but that doesn’t excuse your egregious writing. How much would it kill you to say “I liked this track?” Or how about “I thought this track sounded like such and such?” Are you still clinging to the 7th grade English rule that says you can’t use “I” in an opinion piece? You’ve taken that rule to the extreme, to the point of being so coldly neutral that it makes me wonder why you care enough about music to write such longwinded pieces.
At the same time, your detachment is at odds with your jargon-packed style of writing. Instead of being a musical coroner who cuts to the chase in the fewest words possible, you cram your review full of complex metaphors so cumbersome that they end up needing their own explanations. Here are a few examples:
“jump-cut vibes and mosquito Moogs”
“floating dead-satellite gristle to densely stammering percussion”
“a frenetic trap/kick/clap Benihana act”
Nate, this is HARD TO READ. But that’s not the worst of it. It’s not like all this challenging, ultra-technical veneer reveals something worthwhile underneath. It’s a REVIEW OF SOMEONE ELSE’S WORK. The ultimate goal of that dubious exercise is to tell us whether or not it would be worth our time to listen to that artist’s work.
And that’s really what annoys me to no end. If you’re not writing a review to clearly persuade or dissuade a reader from an artist or album, then why are you writing it? Why do you write such jargon? What drives you, Nate Patrin?
Certainly not the music.
Ben Ratliff's Review of Scream by Chris Cornell
Jayson Greene's Review of "Thug Motivation 103" by Young Jeezy
Paul Thompson's Review of "Spills Out" by Pterodactyl
Gabe Vodicka's Review of "Hurley" by Weezer
Rudy Klapper's Review of "Teenage Dream" by Katy Perry
William Grant's Review of "The Illusion of Safety" by The Hoosiers