Pages

Showing posts with label ShockOne. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ShockOne. Show all posts

Monday, April 29, 2013

Album Review: ShockOne - Universus

Album Rating: B
ShockOne's Universus LP has toxic amounts of brostep - but is it a bad thing? That's not a particularly easy-to-answer question, by the way. While some people in the quote-unquote "serious" electronic community refuse to believe the burgeoning EDM market has any real value, a fair number of people truly enjoy the heavy wobbles and club beats which make up the majority of the tunes within the realm. And, to be perfectly honest, the arguments on both sides of the coin have their merits and flaws. Sure, the "real" type of electronic music - Burial-style garage, deep and dark techno, and the woozy electronica and trip-hop of Flying Lotus et al. has more "critical weight" behind it, but who's to blame a guy if he just wants to headbang and have some fun with some super-wobbly brostep? And, on the flipside, one can only listen to the same wobble used in every song for so long until it all starts to blend together. After all, there's no "perfect" genre of electronic music - nothing which will please everyone with no detractors.

Friday, October 12, 2012

Jukebox: ShockOne - Chaos Theory

Brostep is one of the most polarizing types of music out there today. Love it or hate it, it evokes strong feelings in almost anyone - there's not much room for neutrality. And, now that everyone and their dog is producing electronic music, a ton of terrible stuff is out there just waiting to taint someone's opinion on the "bro" phenomenon. I won't get into my whole spiel about the merits and faults of brostep, nor will I talk about whether or not its effect on "real" electronic music is beneficial or not. Suffice to say that when something wobbly is well-made and produced with care, I consider it a good song. It's not really fair to view something poorly simply because of its genre; it's best to think instead about if it succeeds within the limitations (or lack thereof) of that style.