|
| |
|
|
|
Review Summary: There is no reason to listen to Powerman 5000 in 2014, especially the Powerman 5000 of 2014 Powerman 5000 are as far removed from their days of popularity as a band can possibly be. The mere mention of a new album by the band is bound to illicit reactions along the lines of “wow, didn’t realize they were still around.” Despite being a good 12 years since Spider and company have had any semblance of relevancy, they endure, for better or worse. Every founding member save for Rob Zombie’s kid brother is long gone, yet they still sound like the same band from the late 90s. That, however, is not a positive, as the sound that they employ has been long played out. Powerman 5000 is a band that is a dinosaur in the current music landscape, desperately holding onto the few devoted fans they have left by rehashing the same riffs and ideas they first came up with over 15 years ago.
There is nothing egregiously terrible at work here, but everything on display was done more effectively on long forgotten albums. Spider’s vocals are almost exactly the same, and his lyrics are not nearly as intelligent as he seems to think they are. The band backing him, clearly hired guns at this point, aren’t doing anything remotely interesting, as if they are scared of taking focus away from their frontman. Builders Of The Future succeeds at one thing, and that is reminding the listener of other albums, ones that they will immediately play after this, because at least those albums have nostalgia on their side. Unless being bombarded by mediocrity for over 30 minutes sounds like fun, avoid this generic-in-1998 mess of an album.
|
Album Rating: 1.5
A waste of time for everyone remotely involved in the making of this album
| | | Album Rating: 1.5
hi josh
| | | Album Rating: 1.5
are you ready to go?
cause i'm ready to go
| | | Album Rating: 1.5
hey man
You know how you look back on life at those times when you wasted your life and wished you had that time back? This is one of those times.
| | |
lol this band still exists? honestly amazed right now
| | |
Good review. What happened to the other review of this that was featured?
| | | Album Rating: 4.0
How is this a good review? This happened to be the first "review" I've read on this website and it just blows. Basically I'm doing the same thing the "reviewer" did right now. Just shitting on his work (written in a minute or so) without any real arguments.
| | | Album Rating: 4.0
Now you should be ready to go. This review, the ass-kissing process that will follow the author and the fact that the first review got deleted is just stupid.
| | |
So you're telling me, you haven't read a review on this site, despite joining the site for two months & having already made 436 comments (not to mention how heavily reviews are publicised on this site)? How convenient that the first review that you do read, is one that the reviewer gave an unfavourable review of an album that you enjoy then you proceed to act like you had inserted a buttplug three sizes too big.
That being said, "what happened to the other review of this that was featured?" [2]
| | | Album Rating: 4.0
I don't read any reviews as it's a waste of time. This REVIEW attracted me with its shiny rating & short content. I wouldn't probably read the longer 'i'm going to shit on this band' review of this album (despite the fact that I enjoyed the record). There were just two paragraphs of cheap insults with some minor arguments (like he didn't want to risk to get away with insults only). And your "like you had inserted a buttplug three sizes too big" line is weak as well. You either go edgy or funny with an insult or you keep your mouth shut.
| | |
Think I saw a post on the For the Meds about the other review.
Edit: Yeah, page 211, the author wanted it gone
| | | Album Rating: 4.0
the ass-kissing process that will follow [2]
| | |
Shit band is shit.
| | |
re: the guy who's saying "REVIEW SUX LOL:" it's a fine review. sometimes it's fair that the review doesn't say all that much because the album doesn't say all that much either and the review reflects the album quite well here. the points Fountain makes in this review are: a. the album has no reason to exist, as a'. Powerman 5000 are "dinosaurs" and no longer even remotely close to relevant. b. the music is straight-up boring and soulless - guitars are boring, lyrics are boring, everything is boring.
and tbh that's just about all that needs to be said about this album - I can understand exactly where the reviewer is coming from because it shouldn't actually take all that much space to argue that P5000 aren't relevant any more and this review was about as long as anything I'd be willing/able to read about this band. and re: "no real arguments:" it's hard to find exact, objective data that supports your claims in music reviews. no one really wants to read an extended summary of a survey whose results stated that only 35.23% of Americans care about Powerman 5000 in 2014. the only real criticism I have about this review is that it kind of feels like it was written for the sake of being written - although it's a fine review, what keeps it from being a fabulous review is that it really doesn't say all that much that's new. and obviously that's the fault of the album first and foremost and it's good that this has a review on the site now but by nature this won't be as good as, say, Fountain's Lord Mantis review (the last one he wrote before this). but honestly that's fine, and this is a solid contribution to the site.
finally re: inflammatory language in the comments: saying "this review r00lz" or "this review sux" and then attacking a vocal opponent by using kind of meaningless and immature yet incendiary language like "ass-kissing" and "buttplug" probably won't help you win arguments js
| | |
NASCAR Thunder 2004
| | |
Never heard of these guys before How to Be a Human
| | |
Whatever happened to the previous review and why is this featured now
The previous one was in a completely different tone to this one. Why does this record merit two featured reviews? :P
| | | Album Rating: 4.0
Sputnik FAQ entry: If you decide to form a band and release an album, you have to ask for Brostep's permission. Only after he finds you relevant you are allowed to make an album. And make sure you get your lyrics and guitars right.
This is is an awful review. Just awful. Let's leave the music alone. This review is not funny, it's not creative, it's not interesting, it lacks basic argumentation (quotations of the "boring" lyrics, examples of "bands that have already done P5000 music better". And I wouldn't even start this, if he pointed out all the cons properly). This is a contribution to the Progressive Avant-Garde Sludge Post-Surf Ambient Grindcore side of sputnik in which users talk about how bad nu-metal is and all of that stuff. Maybe there is no reason to care about P5000, but there is no reason to care about this review as well. Fountain, you failed this time and I can't send you any boxes of chocolate from Russia with love. I'll send them to Brostep, because he rules music industry.
| | |
Sputnik FAQ entry: If you decide to form a band and release an album, you have to ask for Brostep's permission. Only after he finds you relevant you are allowed to make an album. And make sure you get your lyrics and guitars right.
lol where did you get that? it has virtually no bearing on what I said in my comment
about the "argumentation" side of things: if you read the review, you may come across lines such as "desperately holding onto the few devoted fans they have left by rehashing the same riffs and ideas they first came up with over 15 years ago" and "everything on display was done more effectively on long forgotten albums." this is what we call supporting a claim with evidence. quoting lyrics in a review is almost universally a bad idea because a review should really be your own content without having to rely on a chorus from Spyder One to fill up a half-paragraph - and given how short the review is, packing on an extended lyric wouldn't be great. and one of the main points of the review is that a "band that has done P5000 music better" is P5000 itself fifteen years ago, so I'm not totally sure why you need more name-dropping.
plus, the review pretty clearly isn't trying to be funny, it doesn't need to be super-creative because the material it's based off isn't creative at all and it's supposed to be an accurate representation of the author's opinions of the album, and though "interesting" is clearly a subjective claim I found it a pretty easy read. I'd love to hear where exactly you're coming from with your points (no sarcasm intended) and if you have some arguments you'd like to make beyond "it's not INTERESTING!" then lay them on me so we can actually have a mature discussion instead of you saying I "rule music industry"
| | |
also re: Turnip, the author of the previous review asked that it be deleted in the meds thread
| | | |
|
| |
