Album: The Illusion of Safety

Reviewer: William Grant

Drowned in Sound, 2010

Writing Disorders: Scorn Disease, Jargon Palsy








Stuffiest Phrase: “an ironic stab at the vacuous nature of that which it fit into”

Spoon uppa Ass: “I by no means profess to be any sort of modern pop obsessive”




William Grant, if you’re a girl, I apologize. Jess Harvell ruined my boner when she ended up being a dude, so I’m taking names with a grain of salt these days. I can take a better stab at what’s in your pants with a picture, but more on that later. Don’t soil your ovaries if I got your gender wrong, he-man. Now let’s focus on your review.

I didn’t like it. Almost as much as you didn’t like this Hoosiers album. I’d still have beef with you giving bands the rusty trombone even if you weren’t a bad writer.  But you are a bad writer, Will, so let’s run with that:

So, with that in mind, what can be said about The Illusion Of Safety is that if you have any inclination towards the beautifully intricate synthesized pop of the Eighties, and hence a lot of modern accessible Shiny Songs, then the opening double gambit will, remarkably, make you quite happy.

So…after all that cotton, you’re saying folks who like ‘80s synth pop will like two songs on this album? I’m guessing none of your teachers ever graded for editing. Try rereading your stuff every once in a while without a hand down your waistband and you might catch the declutter bug.

You write like most other music lice in their twenties, but a couple times you broke free of the pack. That’s no compliment. Nothing blue balls my brain worse than the word “esque,” and you really took it to a whole new level of pussy footing:

Lead single ‘Choices’ has an almost Hot Chip-esque synth line

Ugh. Dude, consider what you wrote there.  Almost-esque.  You’re saying this lead single was hardly almost like something.  That’s like saying Claire Danes’ peaches are almost Heather Graham-esque.  I mean, they ARE breasts, but not quite. Consider something in the future, kid. If you’re gonna compare, try standing on a leg stronger than a used tampon.

I don’t reckon your listening rivaled the time spent making the album, but you rained down static all the same. After mentioning the first two songs, you had this to say:

Unfortunately, despite their gallant strides, the rest of the album is a chore.

So let me get this straight, Will. You’ll burn time dissecting a synth line down two levels, but 5/6 of an album of music is just a chore? Like emptying the trash or cleaning the fish tank? Thank god you explained all the lazy with a whole new paragraph. It was even 11 words longer than your opening anecdote about serving cider to men! Phew. For a minute I thought you were being lazy.

Well shit. Let’s back up the smack with some staggering William Grant prose:

as well as a a serious not to the idea of the ‘hook’.

Hold on a second while I pen a quick note. Dear Drowned in Sound editors – when one of your minions writes himself into a seizure, it’s your job to clean up the mess. Two typos in the span of three words? Put that on a resume.

Okay. Sorry about that, Will. For the love of Christ, edit your own shit, dude.

I’d wrap this up so you can go find another hobby, but I’m not going to let you off so easy. I promised more about that picture of you after all. I peed myself giddy at this new evidence suggesting Drowned in Sound writers shop at the same creepy milkman store:





Will, take a knee. Do you understand what you look like in those things?  You look like a sex offender.  I’m sure you’re just expressing yourself or something, but I don’t reckon rapist glasses are pushing you almost-esque toward a straight girl or gay man’s favor.* Men need to bang, and those things aren’t helping.

Baby steps though. Keep niggling musicians for not pleasing your ear. Can’t be making drastic change right out of the gate. I’ll be checking in.




* Or whatever combos they have these days under the T and Q.

Album: Isis/Melvins Split

Reviewer: Jess Harvell

Pitchfork, 2010

Writing Disorders: Infectious Punctuation, Idea Fever, Scorn Disease








Use a Thesaurus: “a bit of a dull”

Don’t Ask Don’t Tell: “I don’t mean that in a disparaging way at all”

HA: “climaxes are so restrained you can almost miss them,” “tight but heavy”




Jess, we both have our shortfalls. I write like a dick and you write like a bitch. Apples and oranges. Bands seem to like me though. Maybe because I don’t tee off like this:

It’s probably asking too much of two songs…Nonetheless, it’s a bit of a dull adieu.

Glad you went ahead and asked too much anyway, since the world could always use more people who ask too much.  By the way, what’s a real dull adieu?

Jess, this is the third time you’ve been heckled here, and it’s not just a lurid sexual fetish.  I haven’t muscled my way to your level of unpaid gigs, but I don’t think writing’s your strong suit.

(Admittedly with a few stylistic changeups along the way.)

What is that?  An advertising disclaimer?  Two questions are jostling to the fore here, Jess. Why the parentheses and why the period?  Am I supposed to imagine you whispering racy secrets about “stylistic changeups” in my ear? Good, because I am.

Tell you what — let’s put your last bit behind the one from the Sentence Protection Program so they can hump. I want to see why the catcher doesn’t want an independent clause in the chute:

Then Isis… kept going. (Admittedly with a few stylistic changeups along the way.)

Jess, there’s a reason no 50-foot spaghetti gun popped up in Doom.  Using something like that to kill an imp would be ridiculous, just like penning a whole new sentence in parentheses when a comma would have worked wonders.  (Readers, she did this again. She clamped the same curvy chastity belt on a 40-word sentence down the line. Read this quietly though, maybe in a Clive Owen voice. I don’t want her to hear.)

You know what I think your problem is, Harvell?  You write like you’re still in high school. Not just the emotalics and the crummy punctuation either. I’m talking English class on puberty. You know…why say a story includes something when you can say it’s PLAGUED by it?

The same problem plagues “Way Through Woven Branches” and “The Pliable Foe” here.

…

Two more Isis songs are wheeled into the ER…

Nurse: They keep coming in.  What’s wrong with these PEOPLE?

Doctor: I don’t know, Emma, I don’t KNOW.  But I suspect the music is too static to achieve any sort of real grandeur!

…

I hear the cure for the plague is recording something better. Oh, but that would take work and creativity. My bad.

I don’t want to be here all morning, Jess, so let’s take a quick look at those emotalics:

surprisingly nimble

didn’t plan

finally let loose

adieu

Am I supposed to shout that stuff in my head or are they breath markers to remind me not to pass out from boredom? Sure glad I gulped some air before I was told that I could “only hope they’ll explore it for a little longer.” Wasn’t a total loss though. Try reading “surprisingly nimble” without picturing the Melvins prancing like leprechauns. Hardee’s har har, $2.99.

Jess, let me know when senior year’s over.  I’ll clap you through graduation from times when girls pick on girls, and those girls pick on music.

Album: As Good as Gone

Reviewer: Jared Bier

Tiny Mix Tapes, 2010

Writing Disorders: Jargon Palsy, Ambiguity Sickness








Irony: “for the sake of convenience”

Rise of the Machines: “the album — a distinctively aggregate entity”




Jared, back when I was a music louse, I used to write reviews like yours here — maybe not as hard to read, but just as vague and pointless. Judging from the vapid copy, I’m guessing you weren’t too thrilled about reviewing this Nudge album. Maybe you plucked it off a thin list surrounded by screamo albums. Maybe your editor cleared the backlog onto you. Maybe you burned the week procrastinating. I don’t know. If it’s any consolation, I reckon most critics would have forced the same four paragraphs of airy jargon too. It’s easier than admitting you have nothing to say.

This whole review could have been about three sentences long, but you padded it fluffy enough to nap.  I nearly did after reading stuff like this:

“With some genealogical backtracking, one could probably put together a rather convincing argument suggesting common antecedents and, thus, the common qualities shared by these aforementioned genres, but the album skitters about too often to reveal the connections.”

Jared, I’m gonna let the lard speak for itself because that ridiculous sentence got me thinking of something else. Sometimes I wonder what critics would sound like if they actually sat down with a band to criticize them mouth to ear. I reckon you’d probably just clutch your knees and mumble praise, but based on your writing, anything’s possible:

Jared: Hi guys, this was a solid 50% effort, but next time you might want to skitter less. I think it would help weirdos like me better ascertain connections between common antecedents after a good genealogical backtracking.

I really hope Matt LeMay is the only outcast in a world where critics confine their jargon to the internet. If you really blow stuff like that past your lips in conversation, I’d recommend drugs.

It probably wouldn’t hurt. You’re not the clearest cat in the alley, Jared, and it’s your own fault. Whatever miniscule points you make get buried under all the clutter heaped on top. Read this:

“Nudge’s isn’t by any means a brand that thwarts all stylistic categorization”

Now read this alternative:

“Nudge’s style doesn’t thwart categorization.”

Ahhhh…Allegra.  Want another example? Good, because I’m giving it:

“And for every such triumph, Nudge roll around to throw a monkey wrench into the whole business of tidying up”

Jared, I’m assuming the most important part of that sentence is the monkey wrench throw.  So why did you need to say Nudge rolled around to throw it?  Is it imperative to specify they didn’t sneak up, bellyflop in, or shuffle over? When you’re writing about a band with a common verb for a name, it’s maybe not a good idea to follow it with two verbs.

It’s disappointing to see you on RipFork again for mostly the same reasons — jargon, tedium, ambiguity.  Your reviews make listening to music sound like scrubbing limescale, but for what? What’s the payoff? After clogging a short review with all that piffle, you concluded As Good As Gone “lacks…unity.”  Whoa, call the fire department to douse those flames. Insight alert.

Let’s wrap things up, Jared. I’d like to spit out your cotton ball so I can go earn money. I think one of your criticisms aimed at the band can help illustrate a cure for your own bad writing:

“would have benefited from a few more pieces serving to fill in the gaps.”

Considering the gaps in this review, you might want to look in the mirror, kid.

Album: Nightmare

Reviewer: Jeff Weiss

Los Angeles Times, 2010

Writing Disorders: Ambiguity Sickness, Detachment Syndrome, Scorn Disease








Stuffiest Phrase: “your inclination to the aesthetic”

Sexy: “almost pornographic”




Jeff, ripping this dumb review is a moot point considering the 186 comments it’s already received, but I couldn’t resist. Few critics go anywhere near metal, and I personally think it runs deeper than distaste. After all, metalheads are passionate fans, and they’re not afraid to call bullshit on haters, especially when haters spec before they check.

About the only good thing I noticed was the brevity, so there’s plenty to probe here, Jeff. But before we get you lubed up, I want to start with a visual. I think it’ll help ease the entry. These are the five albums you reviewed over the last month and a half:





Three out of five are hip hop releases. That tells me you like hip hop. Not metal. Scanning through your blog posts I’m not seeing many tattooed men with Schecter guitars either. Feel free to upload your Lamb of God remixes, but based on what’s in front of me, I’m gonna say you’re not really into the whole metal thing.

And that brings me to my most pressing question: why did you review this album?

“Whether you appreciate the veteran hard rock/metal hybrid depends on your tolerance for spiraling guitars, avalanche drums and satanic screams.”

Jeff, it’s not like the album’s style is out of left field. It’s clear you’re not much for the basic blueprint, so why’d you review something built on it? To warn metal haters to avoid an album called “Nightmare” with a winged reaper hovering over a terrified child? Something tells me your average Drake fan isn’t gonna go buy that on a whim. If you were ASSIGNED this album, that doesn’t help your case much either. Hammering something you had no chance of liking for a major newspaper is a disservice to music even if it’s music you’d rather do without.

If the style doesn’t melt your butter, that’s cool. But don’t diss the audience like it’s a herd of pubescent sheep that don’t know no better. Ahem:

“With imagery haunted by death and lyrical allusions to alienation and angst, Avenged Sevenfold’s fifth full-length is almost impossible to appreciate unless you fit the prime demographic: tormented teenage boys.”

Dude, unless you’re a mix of every man and woman on earth under 13 or over 19, I don’t think you can make that kind of assertion. How do you know elderly transgendered folks or college-bound girls wouldn’t bang their heads to this stuff? In lieu of a new census poll, you might try sticking with your own dismal assessment without projecting it onto others.

The Linkin Park reference alone speaks volumes about your metal know-how, but you make a full run of dubious points in this review. Here’s one from your opening paragraph:

“The major labels may continue to wither, but they won’t go out without a bang. After all, there’s no other way to explain the recent promotional tie-in between the new Avenged Sevenfold track “Welcome to the Family,” and its ideological brethren, the ultra-violent video game, “Call of Duty: Black Ops.”

Jeff, you JUST explained it another way. Seems like “ideological brethren” would be paired in a promotion because of marketing 101, not a last ditch industry effort to go out with a bang. Besides, I don’t think I’m alone saying that when I gear up for simulated war, I ain’t listening to Belle and Sebastian.

There’s plenty not to like about your review, Jeff, but there was one bit that really bit my bird:

“The sincerity is palpable even if the style seems synthetic, particularly on “So Far Away,” which presumably addresses the untimely death last year of their drummer, James “The Rev” Sullivan.”

First off — seems like you should get a firmer handle on whether something’s a tribute to a dead man before you start slagging the style. You’re essentially saying the band could have done a better job honoring their fallen comrade, IF indeed that’s what they’re doing. Wow. Do you also do funerals, Jeff? Music criticism sure is something.

Try reading those comments. You might learn something.

Album: /\/\/\Y/\

Reviewer: Jonathan Dean

Tiny Mix Tapes, 2010

Writing Disorders: Idea Fever, Jargon Palsy, Toxic Tedium








Review Length: 1,184 words

Irony: “attempting to mask its own vacuity by trading on the readymades of authenticity”




Being an editor for Tiny Mix Tapes must be the easiest job in the world. I’d been suspicious all along, but this latest glob of gristle really drove it home. Y’all work weekends doing nothing or is it strictly 9-5? I’d be amazed if you clowns even check the band name before publishing a review. I guess it all looks the same on a résumé.

Even though a fourth grader could have edited this stinker better than “Jay” in the editing department, you’re the one who wrote it, Jon. Blame’s on your shoulders. How much longer did you spend writing this junk than listening to the album? I don’t get the impression you burned many of those hard hours editing, focusing arguments, or choosing words judiciously. When you write for a zine with D-Team quality assurance, responsibility begins with you. You really dropped the ball.

Jon, bear in mind Tiny Mix Tapes does nothing to jazz up text. No pictures, barely any links – just paragraph after boring paragraph of word junk. You were already one of the most long-winded critics I’d encountered when I first featured you, and you didn’t take your foot off the pedal this time. When the body of your review leaves sidebar elements in the dust, it’s usually a good indication you should wind things down.

So many sentences were ripe for picking, but here’s a slice off your first paragraph to start:

“Because of her willful and calculated aestheticization of the subaltern — third-world poverty, radical politics, terrorism, and guerilla warfare — her critics have consistently sought to derive a coherent politics from M.I.A.’s postmodern dance pop.”

I’ve got a lot here, Jon, so I’ll break it down piecemeal. I want you to start by thinking of the words “willful” and “calculated.”  Something calculated is willful by definition, wouldn’t you say? You could have plucked two feathers off this fat chicken by omitting the redundant one. A few hundred more and you might have had a hot meal instead of a feathery bowel movement. Next!

“derive a coherent politics”

I’m sure folks will rush to your defense on this one, but I’ve never heard a dude say he’s going to run for office because of a politics. That sounds weird. I just figured it was a typo until I caught “an ethics” en route to “a politics” once again in the last paragraph. Maybe I just don’t have a chops for pairing plural nouns with singular indefinite articles, but I still think it’s needlessly confusing. Next!

“aestheticization of the subaltern”

Jon, if that’s even a word, it shouldn’t be. Forget about belting it three times fast – try saying “aestheticization” once out loud. Just once…try it. Since you used some form of the word “aesthetic” six times in this review, you really could have left that clunker home. Instead, you dropped the same deuce in your closing paragraph with two other silly words ending in –ation.

“deterritorializations”

“valorization”

Jon, has it ever crossed your mind that maybe music (or writing) isn’t best served by such retarded shop talk? If you’re going to make up words to explain how a girl didn’t lick your balls the right way, try keeping them under 21 letters.

I know, I know. Brevity’s not your thing. I mean, how could it be? A dude who carped on this album for “lurid didacticism” and “telling rather than showing” couldn’t possibly sink to such an uncouth level of understanding. Well bravo, Jon. In the salmon run to bash this album in the most roundabout way, you definitely edged ahead of your peers. It never ceases to amaze me when I see music critics ream artists for sub-par writing…with sub-par writing. Here’s one of my favorite bits:

“The Message” emphasizes the hyper-stimulation and over-connectedness of post-smartphone reality in a particularly clumsy, ham-fisted way”

Oh, but writing four hyphenated compounds in 20 words is graceful, Jon? And aren’t we still IN the smartphone reality? No one calls the invasion of Poland a “postwar” event or Full House a “post-television” show. That’s dumb.

I could bury your essay in red ink all night long, but I think the worst part is the way you constructed it. I feel like a broken record bitching about music lice never using the word “I,” but this time it just got completely out of hand. Way I see it, the only thing worse than writing absolute statements in the 3rd person about an album is making your narrator unsure of himself:

“it cannot help but seem”

“it seems an irresistible temptation”

“seemingly formulated to frustrate”

“seems to fall apart by design”

“seems paradoxically to emerge”

Jon, dropping “seems” that much in an album review written like a definitive treatise just gives the impression you don’t know what the hell you’re talking about. And isn’t that the whole point of omitting yourself from your own opinion? To sound like you know what you’re talking about? Like a journalist? Well, kudos to you for giving the media an even worse reputation. But hey, at least it’s not truffle fries.