his reviews are much clearer than a vast majority of the written ones I've read around the net. (definitely better than that pretentious verbose-spewing pitchork, nme or rolling stone are doing these days)
|
| |
Album Rating: 4.0
"He goes with his gut"
You bet he does.
|
| |
Album Rating: 4.0
lmao thesaurus-rex reviewers are the worst.
|
| |
then again, imagine having to read the things he's saying.
"...and I was going into this expecting something brrrrrrr vile like, y'know, like vivid."
|
| |
Album Rating: 4.0
IDK About You is so fun
|
| |
Album Rating: 3.5
I think he articulates why he likes something pretty well, that puts him ahead of 70% of people out there. You can over analyse stuff and that’s really the enemy, the surefire end of a YouTube reviewer anyway
|
| |
I swear, half of the reviewers out there just want to sound smart and never tell you anything about the music. I found a hobby of copying and saving passages of Pitchfork reviews and then reading them some time later and trying to figure out what the hell is going on...
|
| |
Album Rating: 3.5
Seeing Pitchfork & NME in the same breath seems nonsensical unless there’s been a drastic shift in their style recently, probably the NME based on that description.
|
| |
Album Rating: 4.0
"I swear, half of the reviewers out there just want to sound smart and never tell you anything about the music."
Sounds like Doof's Colors review honestly...
|
| |
Album Rating: 4.0
I don't expect pretentious Proust-like ramblings in a music review, clarity's a virtue these days, but putting 4-5 adjectives or labels on 'the sound' of an album, then repeating those throughout a video with a look of boredom and ambivalence, rating with a 'meh' is both pretentious and pretty offensive to the thought and craft artists put into their work. (if it's bad, you know, dig into it properly). All I'm saying is I expect a certain level of commitment in 'reviewing music', 'cause really, melonhead is only the tip of the iceberg on this matter among many writers, including staffers at Pitchfork and whatever else.
..
But hey, this music's cool. Still digging this.
|
| |
Album Rating: 4.0
I'd much rather you use five adjectives with purpose than twenty to just recycle what you've already said without adding anything substantive.
|
| |
Album Rating: 4.0
Adjective use should be broken down as follows:
Does this clarify or obscure what I'm trying to convey? If the former, use the new word. If the latter, take it out.
|
| |
Album Rating: 3.5
‘Sounds like Doof’s Colors’ review’
Ars, the review really isn’t that complex/flowery/verbose - it’s one of the most basic unashamedly ‘gut level’ reaction reviews on the site :/
Criticise it for being wrong all you like, I really wouldn’t use it as evidence I’m trying to come across as an intellectual. Out of 91 reviews it’s probably the one of mine that least fits that criticism
|
| |
one of my goals is to use words/expressions/sentences that 'pop' but it can run the risk of sounding too inflated even if the underlying ~point~ is honest. I struggle with tone in that regard. butcher is a great reviewer in that sense: really gets to the meat and potatoes but uses great wordplay too
|
| |
Album Rating: 3.5
It also states exactly what the album sounds like - MGMT mixed with 2017 chart pop. I rarely go to such lengths to make sure the reader knows EXACTLY what it sounds like, but in this case I had to. The album was that transparent/cynical - fight fire with fire.
|
| |
Album Rating: 4.0
Except that 23 review.
|
| |
Reviewing is a bitch
|
| |
Stop talking about fantano hes shit
|
| |
he's a decent dude tbh
|
| |
Album Rating: 4.0
Decent, but fat.
|
| |
|
|
