The Mars Volta
Octahedron
(Warner Brothers)
Buy it from Insound
I, along with anyone else raised on bare bones punk rock, I suspect, fall into the second group of fans who wish that Cedric Bixler-Zavala and Omar Rodriquez-Lopez would hurl themselves off a cliff (or wish, at least, that they had stopped with At The Drive-In).
That being said, each Mars Volta album has always been able to spark some interest, generate some small good will. Despite all the dissonance, the gibberish, the swirling, meaningless clouds of noise for noise's sake, the endless bullshit of it all, each album has always had some redeeming quality. Be it fragmented pockets of actual songwriting (Ciatraz ESP, Drunkship of Lanterns off Deloused in the Comatorium), snippets of interesting guitar work (a number of songs off Frances the Mute) or the band just cutting through their progressive title and simply kicking some ass (Goliath off last year's The Bedlam in Goliath), TMV have always been at least marginally interesting, at least to the point that an album would warrant a handful of listens.
And then there was Octahedron, the band's latest album.
It's hard to pin down exactly what is so repulsive about this record. I mean, it sounds fine, which is to say it sounds like every other Mars Volta record: hyper active drums, ethereal guitars, bad high school poetry style lyrics delivered in a goofy falsetto, massive breakdowns of meaningless sound.
What's lacking here is any kind of interest. Octahedron sounds like a band going through the motions, making music out of obligation and not inspiration. Every note, every movement, every single element of every single song comes off as lazy and uninspired. It is as if the band said “Fuck it, this is good enough,” and released the first thing that came to mind. If the guys themselves can't even muster up some excitement, what are we listeners supposed to do?
It's as if the band can't even muster the energy to try and write new songs. Album opener Since We've Been Wrong sounds like a second-rate The Widow. Teflon plays like any track off Amputechture. Some bands write the same song over and over again because its all they know, but TMV have proved themselves talented enough to progress, even within their own brand of shitty “progressive rock.” This is not some pop-punk band using the only three chords they know. This band can do better, has done better. This is laziness.
Maybe I am being closed minded. I've already admitted that I don't like the band. Its possible that I am just totally missing the point, and Octahedron is a masterwork of rock so far above my head all I can do is bad mouth it. Still, every other Mars Volta album has jumped out at me at least once. This album passes by without a single interesting note, without one thing to engage a casual listener, devoid of anything worth going back to.
In a recent interview, Bixler-Zavala and Rodriquez-Lopez talk about a possible At The Drive-In reunion, calling such a thing unlikely given the amount of material they still want to make as The Mars Volta. Octahedron makes that claim extremely hard to believe. This is kind of album bands put out before a break up.
Comments (33)
Wake up
I have to agree with you that this album isn't their greatest, but these guys are way better than all the other horseshit out there. This album doesn't deserve a 1 rating. Open your eyes a little bit.
Retard
Wow, your review is completely retarded. Why even waste your time? How do you even get your reviews on the metacritic site? Sheesh...you obviously judged this album before you even heard it. This album is very good. Definitely the mars voltas most focused and refined album. The arrangements are not self indulgent or hyper fast. It's more smooth and polished than their other records, but it still has a ton of style. There is a unique tone to this album, a more subtle but stylized tone. The melodies are strong and the musicianship is solid. I didn't really like their last 2 records but this one is definitely better.
Tard
Wow, your review is completely retarded. Why even waste your time? How do you even get your reviews on the metacritic site? Sheesh...you obviously judged this album before you even heard it. This album is very good. Definitely the mars voltas most focused and refined album. The arrangements are not self indulgent or hyper fast. It's more smooth and polished than their other records, but it still has a ton of style. There is a unique tone to this album, a more subtle but stylized tone. The melodies are strong and the musicianship is solid. I didn't really like their last 2 records but this one is definitely better.
STFU
Wow, your review is completely retarded. Why even waste your time? How do you even get your reviews on the metacritic site? Sheesh...you obviously judged this album before you even heard it. This album is very good. Definitely the mars voltas most focused and refined album. The arrangements are not self indulgent or hyper fast. It's more smooth and polished than their other records, but it still has a ton of style. There is a unique tone to this album, a more subtle but stylized tone. The melodies are strong and the musicianship is solid. I didn't really like their last 2 records but this one is definitely better.
Retard, Tard, STFU...
Coming from the guy that posted the same comments twelve times.
I couldn't have said it better...
I deleted 9 of those twelve identical comments, just in case anyone's wondering what Sean is referring to.
I was expecting a shit-storm over this review. As Nate says, The Mars Volta are a very divisive band. I like a lot of prog, but I happen to believe they've redefined the meaning of self-indulgence over the course of their career; I also know plenty of people - writers on our staff included - who rate them very highly ("Bedlam in Goliath" even topped one of our staff writers' end of year lists last year) - but like Nate, I don't think I'll ever be able to derive any pleasure from listening to "Octahedron". As boring as some of the music is, it's the lyrics that really get to me...
From one No Ripcord writer to another...
I'll try to remain civil, and more rational than the idiot who spammed the comment box, but I felt I had to speak up about this.
Obviously the first question, and I'm sure you were probably expecting this, was why did you even pick to review this album? Did you have to unload on something? You make hints in this review that you try to like the Mars Volta and that they tend to sometimes sprinkle their music with things you actually like, but I'm afraid I don't buy it. I think you just all-out hate them and are trying to sound objective about it. It's fine, I know reviews are supposed to be objective and sometimes it's hard to put personal opinion aside, but here I think the compliments were just simple sweetener (and I may be very wrong about that).
The other thing this provoked in me was the idea that the Mars Volta are "pretentious". There has been a shift, at least to me, in the music industry, and a lot of it has been caused by the holier-than-thou hipster-speak of trendsetting publications like Pitchfork Media, for example, who don't even have to bother reviewing the Mars Volta or Tool anymore because they just hate philosophically what those bands do. If the Mars Volta are pretentious or self-indulgent because their focus is solely on technical wizardry (i.e. "wanking", "masturbatory", "shit smells better than everyone else's" are phrases I hear come up again and again), than isn't the current trend of indie music that tries SO HARD to avoid those pitfalls just as pretentious? For example, if you want to accuse the Mars Volta for making music only for self-complimentary reasons, shouldn't the lowest of lo-fi get the same treatment? Personally, I find, say, Kimya Dawson's dimwitted acoustic folk to be just as, if not more, "pretentious" than the Mars Volta, but since it isn't all elaborate time signatures and instrumental prowess, somehow it's okay!
If hipsters (and I'm not calling you a hipster, this is just something your article provoked in me) hate Mars Volta for all these wrong reasons, maybe my rebelling against this philosophy is the same thing as me loving them for all the wrong reasons, too. I don't know. But I just think that labeling a band pretentious has become an easy way out, a worn-out tag, and it is, to be quite honest, pretty pretentious. It's saying something about the band personally that may just not be true. And really...we are critiquing rock stars here. They get up on stage and flaunt and dance and sing. They ALL, to some extent, love themselves.
Anyway, that's my little defense for an oft-lambasted band. And as for the lyrics, yea they are complete drivel. But did anyone really care about what Robert Plant was singing about for a whole decade?
Reply to Andy...
I was expecting one of the pro-Mars Volta staff to chip in with an opinion, and I enjoyed reading your comments. It's nice to see the comments section being used for interesting debate, and I think it helps illustrate how we each hold different opinions here and there is no effort made to stick to a party line (as is evident with some publications). I didn't specifically look for a negative Mars Volta review, and if Andy had shouted first, we could very well be having a different discussion here.
Nevertheless, I feel Nate made a fair and reasonable choice to review this record, and I really doubt he did it purely to "unload" on a band he hated. I get the sense that he's listened to the Mars Volta, and tried to find something of worth (to him) in their music. I know I've done the same, having been baffled by the array of glowing reviews for their albums. The examples Nate cited overlap reasonably closely with the material I've most enjoyed from this band, and I sense we probably hold fairly similar views.
It reminds me of my article on Coldplay, which was also greeted with similar scepticism from their fanbase. People questioned why I'd bothered to write it, as I "clearly hated the band". Now I don't hate Coldplay, but I strongly believe that they are a mediocre and uninspiring band; as they're one of the biggest bands in the world, I thought those feelings were worth exploring. I think Nate's doing a similar thing here, and I don't think a review is an inappropriate place to do that. It's one person's opinion, after all.
Regarding your comments about pretentiousness, you're absolutely right - one could label many projects "pretentious" for a variety of reasons. The Mars Volta are tagged as pretentious a hell of a lot, which is perhaps unfair. Are they any more "pretentious" than, say, a band like Battles? I'm not too bothered about that...to me their music is just overly technical and, dare I say it, dull.
I love your example with
I love your example with Battles, I wish I used that instead of Kimya Dawson. Battles is exactly what I mean - it got huge praise by the media, yet to me it encapsulates all the same technical flair, bombast, and complicated musical structure of the Mars Volta, albeit in different styles. Yet, one is "cool" and one is simply "cool to bash". Tool is another band I wish to defend, and it also gets placed in the same "pretentious" category as the Mars Volta.
One thing that may explain my love for the MV. When I first listened to De-Loused in the Comatorium, I was in high school and had not yet tried out Rush or Emerson Lake and Palmer or Yes' more proggy outings. So I guess it sounded remarkably new to me...that eye-opening, jaw-dropping feeling a lot of people got when they first heard 2112, that's what I felt with De-Loused. So maybe I'm a fan based on mere circumstance, since it was really the first prog I tried out and so it was all new to me. But now I've gone through Rush and King Crimson and the like, and I STILL like the MV just as much as I did then. I'll be the first to admit that I'm a huge fan of a lot of indie/lo-fi (Pavement are one of my three all-time favorite bands), and I find it astounding how it seems these two worlds cannot coexist for so many people.
When I was a lot younger, I used to bash punk rockers for refusing/not caring enough to learn their instruments well enough to sound coherent. Now I know I'm wrong, and I think the same mentality really hurts prog music more than it deserves (of course, bands like Dragonforce don't really help the matter, either). I think bands in the 21st Century that flaunt their virtuoso abilities have a lot of guts, because they know exactly how a lot of music fans will pass judgment on them. The MV know there are a lot of people that think like Nate does - they still perform not because they think there are more people that need convincing that they are amazing musicians, but because they love what they do, they do it well, and they want to keep doing it.
octahedron could have been so much more
Volta said in interviews that they wanted to create a new album that would disappoint the old fans and create new fans by going in a new direction. However, to do that requires a 'statement'. Like it or not, their three major releases: De-Loused, Frances, Bedlam, are statements.
If they wanted to create a mellow album, they could have made one that was so beautiful and passionate, but instead it is like they got 30 % there and decided it was good enough.
If they wanted to create a mellow album, they should have gone deeper and taken more time. They should have applied the effort and scope that they applied to their loud records and put it quiet and mellow instead of putting out something so half-assed.
.
The review is absolute shit, plain and simple, and I need not explain why.
Mars Volta=Them; Hip Lo-Fi Indie=Us
There is no possible objective reason for giving this album only one star out of ten. The real reason is that The Mars Volta have become "the other" in an indie scene perpetually striving to find an identity for itself. They're "the other" because they are maximalist at a time when minimalism/"lo-fi" is in. It also just so happens that they're all black and Mexican at a time when preppy white boys rule the scene.
The author of this review is listening to this album through a screen of rhetorical bullshit that he is probably unaware of. "Octahedron sounds like a band going through the motions, making music out of obligation and not inspiration. Every note, every movement, every single element of every single song comes off as lazy and uninspired." That's what music sounds like only when you have an agenda, unconscious or otherwise, against it.
The New York Times, The Boston Globe, and Allmusic.com gave this album great reviews. There's real beauty in this music, but trendy hipsters with agendas are blind to it.
Also, it's ridiculous to praise Mars Volta songs like "Cicatriz" and "Drunkship" as "fragmented pockets of actual songwriting" but reject most of their other songs. "Drunkship" is just as difficult, if not more so, than anything on Goliath.
About the lyrics - Song lyrics aren't the best vehicle for communicating meaning with words. Dylan was pretty good at it, but most artists only manage to paint an abstract picture. Bixler-Zavala shoots for that and does it well.
This review is bullshit. The
This review is bullshit. The critic (a.k.a TMV hating douchebag) was probably biased from the beginning. That's no way to be a critic. I think Octahedron is amazing (I proudly bought it the first day it came out) and will continue to listen to The Mars Volta no matter how many mutations or changes they undergo.
Score
The tone and impression of the article absolutely do not match the given score of "1/10".
Seriously, what is going on here? Did you arbitrarily pick a low number? Do you seriously believe that the album deserves the lowest score possible?
It is apparent that the
It is apparent that the reviewer did not do his homework when reviewing this album, and therefore has created a review that makes little sense. IF he had read even one, single, simple interview (like every other publication I've read regarding this album) he would not this album was designed to be simple, bare bones, and "acoustic" (by The Mars Volta standards). IF the reviewer had known that he would have been able to take this into account and not have criticized the album for not being as "daring" as the other 4 TMV LPs.
With this in mind it already shows Nate had no interest in giving this album a fair review, I don't mind when people who dislike a band give their opinion as well as it creates a pleasant contrast especially when music can be so subjective, but he decided to spearhead this review and it is riddled with his 2 cents rather than an objective piece. I'd had to agree with someone who said it first that Nate just sounds like he got his chance to complain about a band he dislikes, and for what? So he could throw a 1/10 on the album, and for what? So he could feel triumphant at the end of the day that he sure showed them? I am not sure, but it just felt so Pitchforkesque, to lash out on a band he had no interest in.
What makes it worse is that it appears he had hardly listened to the album. From the review it seems he heard Since We've been Wrong, Teflon, and Cotopaxi. I get this from his description of the music "hyper active drums, ethereal guitars, bad high school poetry style lyrics delivered in a goofy falsetto, massive breakdowns of meaningless sound". This album features nearly none of this, except what is obviously an opinionated feeling of Cedric's lyrics, which in itself boggles me as it seems Nate is an At the Drive-in fan and it isn't like his lyrics have changed styles since those days, so way to show your colors! The music itself is very restricted and laid back even Thomas Pridgen, the drummer, who is notorious for going absolutely postal, which has even upset the fans of original drummer Jon Theodore have praised him for being much more reserved this time. The ONLY track I can say that any of his TMV stereotypes fall into is Cotopaxi which again supports my theory of him only hearing a few highlights. Teflon does not sound anything like the songs of Amputechture, and the comment alone confuses me to the point of stupidity, again it just sounds like an agenda.
I won't get into the whole matter of the stigmas and and trends of lo-fi self absorbed acoustic wankery (which is what I call pretentious music, who really needs 100 different people telling the same mellow dramatic story sung in the same boring manner.), but if there is an ever evident air of this being projected it is in this review. Progressive rock should not be condemned for its technicality nor it's bombastic long songs with changing time signatures, why this has become a cool trend I do not know and it is irritating. I'm sure in 5-10 years time the tides will shift again, but for now why Prog rock is being slammed for little to no logical reason will puzzle me. So many great progressive bands paved the way for some of the modern greats. Yes, Rush, Soft Machine, Magma, Camel, etc were all necessary for the birthing of other great genres such as Math Rock and even post-rock and post-hardcore.
I wouldn't mind Nate's review if he was educated on the manner, or at least didn't come off as having a massive chip on his shoulder, which is what I can't help but feel here. I really enjoy TMV, and I respect when people don't for some the music is just too much, and yes I can see that 100% it is generally very intense and does not give itself to being easy listening, but it should not be shunned for that. No, it should be praised for raising the bar on what will be played on the radio, and cranked in concert halls. It is arguable if they have pushed the envelope musically (I say yes!), but it is undeniable that they have raised the bar for the general palette of the average music fan. They have created a standard for generic pop rock to follow, maybe not as insane, but certainly not has boring as 3-string repeats.
Wellllll
The problem with having to take extreme positions so that you have a real, strong opinion, makes being a critic very difficult. There's the simple fact that you're forced to review the band, so already you're irritated by having to sit through something you don't like. On top of that, you need to illustrate a journalistic bend that takes a narrative, a very common one from Mars Volta detractors, and try to make a cogent argument about why the album is bad.
Unfortunately, this is what makes your review fairly awful. You don't really do your homework, nor does it seem you care to. And when you do, it seems somewhat suspect as to your ability to process it. Ending the review by drawing the narrative of an ATDI reunion being near, so that a bad album exists as Cedric and Omar have stopped caring about TMV, is just terrible speculation. That's not the way this band has ever worked, and if you've followed the press since the albums you've name dropped, you'd figure that they really do have no interest in an ATDI reunion for the foreseeable future (read, five years). So by capping your review with that, you're being pointless inflammatory probably for the fact that the ten dollars you're being paid for the interview is an insufficient sum provided the 50 minutes you had to spend listening to the album.
This short amount of time is illustrated by the fact that you show no real knowledge of the actual sound of the album. Rare is the "hyper-active" drumming (Being fairly sedate on Since We've Been Wrong, and really only present in Cotopaxi and Luciforms) and although the album has been billed in interviews as "acoustically inspired," you really seem to miss any sense of grasping the overall aesthetic of the album, even in a simple meaning of being able to relate it to your gripes. In regards to the drumming, when it does take off, it seems rather tasteful and for people who have detracted the group for their previous album's very fluid and complex drumming, it would seem that even at this rate you'd appreciate the unbelievable toning down of the drums, or even lack thereof, throughout the album.
So, as it stands, reissuing through your magazine's catalogue your regular list of gripes does not exactly translate towards any kind of informative or even critical review. Instead, it looks like based on your criticisms of the band and the album that you simply tried to write the review for Pitchfork, but it got rejected and published in No Ripcord. And being hyperbolically tongue in cheek by suggesting that the album may be too far above your head does little to save you from writing what is tantamount to a hit piece with little substance and no concrete analytical framework as to why the album is bad, beyond "I've always basically hated this band and having to review it from the confines of my scholarly music review job makes my day aesthetically unbearable." So before you accuse a band of having a "mindless devotion" to the group, it would be prudent to actually look further in depth at an album beyond just reiterating your aesthetic differences over a band's sound. Or you know, just remember that if you don't like something you really never have to hear it again.
Maybe you should write the reviews for this "Critic".
Well said.
Maybe you should write the reviews for this "Critic".
Well said.
LOL.
This is a horrible review.
SUPER RETARDS!!!!
So, basically if I sent you a cd of myself singing "fuck you idiots" over and over for 45 minutes you would have given me the same score as this album or maybe a 2? Great work guys. Talk about pretentiousness. Your reviews are the epitome of pretentiousness. You guys obviously don't know shit about music. Haters. Hey Nate, that new Eminem album is a 5? Holy fuck you!! RETARD!!!
I think you'd probably get a
I think you'd probably get a zero for that.
Unless you used the word "retard" frequently, in which case we'd probably feel sorry for you and give you 1/10.
octahedron
At the age of 25, you have no idea what "bare bones punk rock"was really about. In addition this is not relevant to any "review" of Octahedron. You lack any objectivity in this article and display an immature writing style. Obviously this article was written for a specific audience and displays quite a few factual mistakes. Harvard Extension offers classes in journalism at night. Perhaps you should improve your skills before exposing yourself on the internet.
the replies on this thread...
are hilarious.
noise for noise's sake?
I have no patience for "music fans" who have no patience for music. The best and most exciting rock music is the stuff that takes more than one listen to absorb. What sounds like noise initially is actually painstakingly detailed and layered arrangements that will overwhelm and confuse a listener until they devote the time to let it sink in. And the result is the reward. The payoff is that The Mars Volta is a ROCK band. Call them "progressive" if you will; they do have long songs and extended, conceptual suites in their albums. But the bottom line is that they can jam, they can sound beautiful, or they can just kick major ass. Some people like music that's short, simple, catchy, and easy. I love music that challenges and reveals something new each time that was once buried in sound. Some people don't. To each their own. But let me just say a couple more things. 1) There's no way you listened to the new album if you think it sounds like all their other ones. The songs are shorter, softer, subtler, and 100 times more accessible. It may still be electric, but it might have well been their acoustic album. B) Don't call lyrics shitty poetry unless you know what the fuck the singer's singing about. And you don't. Nobody knows what the fuck Cedric Bixler's singing about......ever. Whatever significance such poetry has is all that matters.
IMMPOSSIBLE to review 1 out of 10
There's no way this album could receive such a low-rating, but then I see this is an indie-site and am well-aware of how fast an artist passes through these folks. I suggest the "critic" in this article" give the album a few more listens before he passes judgement . We are in a time right now where radio pop and the indie band/flavor of the week is 'In." The Mars Volta have yet to disappoint it's base, hence why they are still touring/creating albums for 6 years. In conclusion, I would like to ask the "critic" to stop being an asshole and shitting on this band, because we all know damn well you would love it if you understood it...
So, Nate's band must be awesome!
Hey Nate, after reading your review I can only conclude that you play in a band much much better than The Mars Volta. Why don't you share some songs with us? as it must be the best band ever.
Ive never visited this site
Ive never visited this site before and after reading that "review" by some neurotic hack with a chip on his shoulder I wont be returning. TIP: Hire revieweres who know how to review music.
retarded?
what's with using the word retarded? so 7th grade.
Ehhh I don't like or hate
Ehhh I don't like or hate this band. I just have no interest. Good review? I guess.
Bitter
Sorry this review is hopeless and it’s embarrassing that the other “Noripcord” contributors are trying to defend it. This was reviewed with definite pre-conceptions about the band or “shitty” progressive rock band as was stated, which is a clear pre-determined belief. Sorry this is terrible.
Hmm...
I think you have misinterpreted the comments above. I defended Nate's right to an opinion and said I happened to have broadly similar feelings on the band (I find them dull, save for a few songs); meanwhile another contributor Andy Pareti said he disagreed with the review and outlined his case eloquently, which I welcomed. Elsewhere a few people made a few comments in direct response to other posters.
I don't think there's anything embarrassing about discussing our differing opinions-- the embarrassing thing is when people show up from various external sites to post childish comments like "you're a retard". Your comment obviously isn't of that nature, and you are welcome to your opinion on the review.
Although Octahedron is
Although Octahedron is easiely mars voltas worst in my opinion, this review comes off to me as if the critic listened to the album drunk off his ass. he describes it as "like every other Mars Volta record: hyper active drums, ethereal guitars, bad high school poetry style lyrics delivered in a goofy falsetto, massive breakdowns of meaningless sound.". Not only does this album not sound like any of their previous work, the drum work is inanely simple (excluding cotopaxi) compaired to pretty much any modern rock band, excluding cotopaxi, once again, this is not a mars volta repititiion, as all of their previous albums had highly technical jazzy drumming. The guitar work on this album, is not ethereal (light? i assume you were aiming for.), its pretty much the only focused insturment on the album [the bass work, but a speed shred metal bassist, isnt really the focus of any of the songs, nor the drums.], with the vocal work being the ultimate highlight of the album. as for the lyrics, they lack poetic form, to me, it seems like free form excluding with twilight as my guide. The main problem i have with this album, is that its different to the point where it could have been released by another band, and not be compared to mars volta. your entire review references them, writing the same songs over and over, and repeating themselves.............. Seriously, did you even listen to the album?.
Your opinion of the album is
Your opinion of the album is perfectly legitimate. I disagree with you (somewhat -- it's not my favorite MV album), but that's really not the point. My only problem with this (and so many similar) reviews is that nothing specific is ever cited. Reading this entire review, what am I to take away as the author's main points of contention with the album? The closest thing to being topical:
- It has high school poetry lyrics.
- It is sung in a goofy falsetto.
- There are hyperactive drums.
- There are massive breakdowns.
- The massive breakdowns are meaningless.
Ignoring the fact that Thomas Prigeon is about as hyperactive as Stew Copeland on this album, these aren't exactly deep analyses. Saying "I don't like the lyrics" or "I hate their breakdowns" would carry the same weight and not sound like dressed up personal taste responses. The rest of the "review". And while I'm pretty sure breakdowns can suck ass, I don't think ever remember thinking "Man, that breakdown was meaningful as fuck!" If you don't like it, just say you don't like it.
Moving along, the rest of the observations are confusing and often contradictory. Let's see:
- It sounds fine.
- It sounds like a band going through the motions.
- It sounds like every other Mars Volta album.
- It is 100% boring and uninspired.
- It is unexciting.
- Since We've Been Wrong sounds like The Widow.
- Teflon sounds like every song on Amputechture. (Personal favorite.)
How can it sound both fine and yet be completely boring and uninspired? That's not a question from me. That's a general question. Tell us WHY it's boring an uninspired. The closest you come is saying that some songs sound like songs from other albums, which you previously say are better than this one. And since Teflon sounds like everything on Amputechture and you like at least one song from Amputechture -- well, you know where I'm going here.
As always, the review also contains the obligatory backhanded compliments. I'll paraphrase because they all pretty much say the same thing: "The Mars Volta are so talented and could do so much better but they are horrible and cannot do anything right and I hate them." Something like that. We also have the usual "Maybe MV are brilliant and I just don't "get it". No, you just don't like them. No amount of album releases will change this.
Anyway, it can't all be negativity, mm? I agree that this is the most subdued, least technical work the band has released. I find a couple of the songs too dull for my taste. I have loved and continue to love MOST of Cedric's lyrical work (notable exceptions: "Feeding on the carcas of your mother" and "wet your bed so sleep in it"). I think it's too bad people continue to try to view his writing as some sort of logical, coherent story when it seems to me they are purposely stream-of-conciousness, obtuse and often unintelligible. What I find exciting and visceral, some people find "high school", but I can't recall ever seeing a high school poem that goes "when Sanskrit broke my mother's tongue, scarabs filled the pillow". Then again, I don't hang out with high schoolers much in my 30s. Ah well.
Well, this went on far too long. I'd give this album 6.5/10.