Currently writing a review for a classic among Sup Forumstants, can you guess which album is it?

...

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=sqYV-GLnxQU
twitter.com/AnonBabble

i can guess its ok computer from the year of release and number of tracks but not from any of the absolute meaningless wank you wrote about it

Oasis - Be Here Now

You're right about the album.

>absolute meaningless wank
I think it's somewhat straightforward and concise if you could name the album just like that. Also, that's actually the "concept" (if there is any) of OKC.

This is the resume/intro at the top, it should hook you in. The actual review will be much more objective and direct.

i could only name the album because you told me it's Sup Forumscore and from 1997 with 12 tracks

Too pitchfork, then?

>It takes a fleshly statement for a mere piece of music to be this divisive
Is English your first language?

Nope. Something wrong with the text?

reviewers try too hard to be poetic in their reviews and don't try hard enough to make a thoughtful statement about the music and it's value and contents.

those modifiers make you come off as a fourteen year old trying to sound mature, they are only obscuring what your are trying to say.

get rid of all the pretentious flourishes, they don't suit you

I often find myself reading through my drafts and feeling a bit bland, that's why I try to add some colour to it. I'll tone it down.

>Radiohead
>absolute meaningless wank you wrote about it

what did you expect from a Radiohead fan?

>My favorite Pink Floyd album has always been Wish You Were Here, and you know why? It has soul, that's why--it's Roger Waters's lament for Syd, not my idea of a tragic hero but as long as he's Roger's that doesn't matter. Radiohead wouldn't know a tragic hero if they were cramming for their A levels, and their idea of soul is Bono, who they imitate further at the risk of looking even more ridiculous than they already do. So instead they pickle Thom Yorke's vocals in enough electronic marginal distinction to feed a coal town for a month. Their art-rock has much better sound effects than the Floyd snoozefest Dark Side of the Moon. But it's less sweeping and just as arid. B-
Fixed it for you

i mean i haven't seen the full review but from that snippet your writing style looks really shit and clumsy

I just read that shit.

Actually going through RYM's top chart, ripping Starostin off.

What would you improve, specifically?

i have a few gripes i'm having trouble putting into words but maybe i'll get back to you in a bit for those once i figure out how to say it, but one big problem is the incredibly awkward phrasing (e.g. "it takes a fleshly statement") and subtle misuse of proverbs and phrasing (e.g. "nor is it a cry for attention of any breed"). also you haven't really used big words but it still feels kinda thesaurus-core at some points (e.g. "a stopming of..")

Buy "The Elements of Style" and read it before you do anything else. The whole snippet is the verbal equivalent of erecting a chandelier in a condemned crack house; you're dressing up a statement that is bordering on incoherent.

Sure, take your time.

I just skimmed through it an hour ago. I'll look into it now.

honestly the more i reread this the more nauseating it becomes. half of it is just hyperbolic cliches

here is how i would rewrite it, each sentence retaining its meaning:

> This album has been around for decades, so my thoughts won't add much to what's already been said.
> The album was divisive in its time in spite of not having much political content. (seems to contradict the next sentence???)
> The album attacks consumerist and meritocratic ideals from capitalism (examples??? show us, don't tell us. if you dont support your claims we'll just think you listened to fitter happier one too many times and projected that song onto the whole album)
> This album was the most significant release of 1997 and has 12 tracks. (wtf does this sentence even mean?)

dont waste my time trying to impress me with your vocabulary and syllogisms ('calendric'?? unless you explain to us why 12 tracks 12 months is it just seems like youre trying to seem deep and use a vocab word you found on dictionary.com word of the day).

i envision you as this guy youtube.com/watch?v=sqYV-GLnxQU

this is why i hate saying i like radiohead songs

also, literally everybody in the 90s was trying to take down the man

gen x, skaters, acab, graffiti, fuck the system, etc

what you have said is true of any alt rock album in the 90s

you havent at all captured how (if) this album was unique in its era

That's my main problem. I'm not actually trying to sound smart or drown you with hyperboles.

Then keep it simple: One of the most critically acclaimed albums of all times, why should you go back and write a review of it?

Actually, why the fuck would I write about it?

The only reason critics go back to older albums is either for personal reasons (e.g. when they're writing their memoirs), or when they're writing on the history of music. I say write about contemporary albums to hone your craft, and then go back to albums of the past.

Thanks for the advice.