[kid cue]

errgh i was feeling the short version of yr post, but this...!

Originally Posted by holden

If i can quote him freely, tell me how this is constructive:
"In retrospect, though, Dubnobass begins to look something like an accident: a band-in-transition nailing the sweet spot purely by chance." - but that's all he has to say on this. Purely his opinion, unsupported.

Sherburne justifies his idea that Dubno was a fluke by talking about why he doesn't think the next two albums are as good. and, he clearly goes on in that same paragraph to describe what was good about Dubno (elaborating on the already lucid descriptions in the preceding paragraph) and lacking in STITI:

"Second Toughest feels more like a cut-and-paste job, a collage of pieces that don't really have anything to do with one another. "Confusion the Waitress" is the only track that retains the restraint of the earlier album" - but he just praised Dubno for being better than the sum of its parts and drawing on various genres. And since when is the mark of a successful album whether the songs relate with one another? To me, STITI sounds very restrained and taught, but i'd have to give you a lot of words on why to explain. Sherburne doesn't, so i let his statement drop.

i also would've liked to hear more about why he thinks STITI grasps at straws. this is the weakest part of the article IMO. still, your criticism doesn't read him correctly: he was saying that the individual tracks on Dubno each add up to more than their multiple influences, not that the album itself is more than its individual tracks. and, praising Dubno for drawing on various genres doesn't mean that he can't criticize STITI for doing the same, less successfully. he's saying that the tracks seem to jump around, to more extremes, and also don't sound unified as an album, implying that UW were trying to incorporate lots of different influences for the sake of doing so--or that they simply took on more than they could handle.

"...the album's big singles — "Push Upstairs," "King of Snake," "Moaner" — clang uncomfortably, exercises in strident excess" - what's unconfortable? The drumm pattern? The lyrics? The melody? What's excessive?

this is probably his minimal bias speaking, but i thought these comments made enough sense in the article, given that they follow his comments on how atmosphere and restraint were key successes on the past LPs. and i don't see why he has to go into detail on what specific instruments he doesn't like: it's perfectly feasible to take these statements at face value, given that he's spent the last two paragraphs talking about what he DOES like about UW's music.

i maintain that if this were some other band, people wouldn't feel the need to hold up every last sentence to this level of dissection. it's easy enough to see the broad curve of his argument, and IMO there are enough justifications for it. i think the most viable criticism that's been brought up is that he doesn't talk about any of the recent work (although i feel like the the remixes and online releases would only reinforce his closing statements.)

"Reduced to facilitating the indefinite buildup of adrenaline and the unbridled release of serotonin, the group ends up flailing in its very pursuit of transcendence"

- unless he was in Underworld, this statement has no weight because he cannot possibly know what their intent or situation was.

NO criticism can presume to "know" what any artist's intent was. the point of ALL criticism is to present arguments, ways of thinking, about the work in front of us, from a single perspective, that other people can agree or disagree with. is that not the nature of how audiences interpret art? the rest of the article leads naturally to the conclusions you quoted. and the preceding sentence ("Listening, it's easy to envision Underworld as a casualty of its own success: a main-stage act grown accustomed to playing enormous, amphetamine-fueled festival crowds, where altitude becomes not a luxury but an imperative.") makes it rather clear that this is conjecture--which the reader can either choose to buy or ignore.

"At Underworld's worst, it seems to be aping the noxious monotony of the burgeoning progressive house scene — piled-up snare rolls and endless ascents, the music in lockstep with the crowd's drug experience

" -- blahhhh. Sez him, obviously not into that scene! Even playing Born Slippy to a festival audience off their ass on whatever, UW has never constructed a song like he claims.

you don't think UW live performances use piled-up snare rolls and endless ascents? are you kidding??

Now, in fairness, when discussing AHDO, at least he mentions musical elements:
"The swirling keyboards, conga and standup bass of "Twist" shows that Hyde and Smith still remember how to create a space of sonic possibility, as overdriven guitar and increasingly frantic Latin percussion turn a somber meditation into a smoldering workout. "Trim" is a fetching little fusion of blues guitar and 808"
but even there, it's couched in broad terms, comparisons, name dropping and buzz adjectives that so often pass as being well educated and "getting it" in music reviews.

it's written broadly for a general audience, not the UW connoisseur. and again, i highly doubt this author is trying to prove that he knows a lot. these don't seem any different from music writing at large: there are only so many different ways to say you like a piece of music.