H_P Butthurt wrote:
Coming from the great land of China, Ghost Bath have unleashed their third full-length album “Moonlover” very promptly after releasing last year’s “Funeral”.
Sentence implies there is a relation between their country of origin and the promptness of their release. "Ghost Bath have" is not wrong, but is distinctly British grammar, which is unusual to come across in a review from an American reviewer.
Although this follow-up album didn’t leave their fans barely any time to let the album “Funeral” sink in, “Moonlover” improves and evolves beyond the music of their last album.
Due to use of "Although", sentence implies there is a relationship between fans having little time to let Funeral sink in and Moonlover being an improvement and evolution of the music. I suspect such is not the case. "Didn't leave their fans barely any time" says the opposite of what you meant due to the double negative. Should be "didn't leave their fans much time" or "left their fans barely any time".
And they breach through these obstacles marvelously on their album’s monumental single “Golden Number”.
You have not made clear which obstacles you mean. Either detail them before this point or move the sentence to a paragraph where you have detailed this. Sentence starts with "and", which is not recommended. Marvelously is not wrong, but is American English, which clashes with the British grammar you used above.
I don’t know about any of you out there reading this, but “Golden Number” gives me chills. It’s so good.
Could be simply shortened to "Golden Number is so good it gives me chills" or the likes, though current form isn't wrong, necessarily.
This kind of music is unprecedented in its extraordinary way to keep improving itself over and over again.
"unprecedented [in ...] to keep improving" reads awkward at best. Should be "of improving", no keep, no to. Unprecedented makes extraordinary redundant. "Keep improving" makes "over and over again" redundant. (Multiple times, even, since "again" is redundant to "over and over", which is somewhat redundant in itself). If I want to nitpick, you're also saying that the music improves itself, which it can't since it's not sentient--but as I said, that's nitpicking.
Imagine a blacksmith folding metal, overlapping itself and then being forged together and repeating this process to a razor-thin purification.
You're saying the blacksmith overlaps itself. Also suspect you meant "perfection". In either case, the "a" before razor-thin shouldn't be there. (Now, were you to replace purification with something like "edge", it would be necessary to keep "a"). Whole sentence should probably be rewritten, though. This one is clumsy, meanders on and is grammatically lacking.
Akin to the blacksmith, Ghost Bath does this with post-black metal.
So Ghost Bath folds in on itself? Should be fixed if you fix the above sentence, though. "Akin to the blacksmith" can be skipped, by the way, because it comes directly after the simile and thus "this" is a pretty clear reference.
To truly discover this purity in music, you don’t need to know any spoken language known on Earth.
"The purity in this music" makes more sense, unless you're speaking about a general concept that this album is, to you, merely an example of. If that's the case, "this kind of purity in music". "Any Earthly language" would suffice. "Any language on Earth" if you'd like to keep the word-order.
Its magnificence cannot be expressed with words but merely primal, painful screams softly touching upon the immense beauty of the music like thunder belching from the inside of a mountain. And that mountain is haunted with millions of lonely spirits.
That sentence runs on but goes nowhere. Also, in words rather than with. How do primal painful screams softly touch upon anything? The "thunder belching from the inside of a mountain" simile doesn't exactly illustrate your point, either. Especially since thunder doesn't come from mountains' insides, nor does it belch. Haunted by, not haunted with. Sentence starts with and, again.
I think that it would be important to note the distinct similarities with this album and “Sunbather” from Bay Area-based shoegaze-and-black metal successors Deafheaven.
"I think that it would be" is unnecessarily wordy and thus reads slightly awkward. You use both "I think" and "would" to 'soften' the statement. "I think it is important", or "It would be important" or "I believe it important" all would suffice. Since you're comparing two albums in an 'x and y' structure, similarities between, not with. I'm pretty sure Deafheaven doesn't need the location AND genre mentioned, because there aren't exactly several bands with the same name to be confused here.
It’s one thing to sound similar in style and form with Ghost Bath musically but even titles like “Moonlover”, “Happyhouse”, “Beneath the Shade Tree” which mimic Deafheaven titles like “Sunbather”, “Dream House”, & “The Pecan Tree”, perhaps Ghost Bath is trying to outdo their predecessors.
If you open up with "It's one thing to x", then at some point it should be followed by something along the lines of "but it's another to y". Furthermore, in the first half of the sentence you seem to be comparing Deafheaven to Ghost Bath, but in the second half you're comparing Ghost Bath to Deafheaven. If you're establishing who mimics who, it's important to keep the order right.
Mind, this whole sentence is an absolute mess. Grammar is off, the sentence runs on, the last part should not even be part of this sentence, there are redundancies, unnecessary verbiage, you open a comparison and don't close it...
Not only does Ghost Bath sound like Deafheaven in musical style and form, even the song-titles are similar. "Moonlover", "Happyhouse" and "Beneath the Shade Tree" mimic Deafheaven titles like "Sunbather", "Dream House" and "The Pecan Tree". Perhaps Ghost Bath attempts to outdo their predecessors?
The odd thing is that they totally accomplished that if that is what they were going for.
Awkward word order. If that was their aim, they totally accomplished it. Add "Surprisingly," in front, or "oddly enough" between 'they' and 'totally' if it's important to you, even if you never establish why it is an odd thing.
If Woods of Desolation’s “As the Stars” hadn’t made me move on after “Sunbather”, Ghost Bath’s “Moonlover” has beaten a completely new path from which might make you ever return to Deafheaven.
You're saying that Moonlover has only beaten a new path if As the Stars hasn't made you move on. If you start a sentence with "if x hadn't caused this", the logical form form the other half of the sentence is "then y would have", not "then y has".
"From which might make you ever return" makes absolutely NO sense, either grammatically or in meaning.
Also, you're spending half a paragraph to say they're alike in musical style and form and even song titles, then name-drop another album that you feel is somehow similar (else why mention it in this context?) and yet you're saying they've beaten a completely new path?
If they plan to stay relevant for their next album, they are going to have to do something completely unexpected because if their new music they are currently working on is even a hair shy of the quality of “Moon Lover”, the album will unquestionably flop with the critics.
Is this sentence trying to win a race? No? Then let it have a break somewhere, please. Also, while this sentence is meant to praise Moon Lover, it reads as some strange mixture between praise and damnation. Normally, "plan to stay relevant" and the likes is used in the context of a well-known band starting to lose relevance. Saying a band will have to do something completely unexpected to stay relevant usually means "they won't stay relevant if they keep doing this bullshit", not "this album is so great that it'll be hard to top it".
When “Sunbather” was released in 2013, it was surprising to see it get so much praise from the media and outside musical scenes as well. Deafheaven shared a stage with Outkast and Elton John last year at Bonnaroo Festival.
I believe you've mentioned Sunbather more times than Moonlover, and Deafheaven almost as often as Ghost Bath. Since this sentence is merely used to establish a comparison with Ghost Bath's lesser publicity, it can be abbreviated a lot. See comment on next sentence
However, despite Ghost Bath’s absence from huge music festivals, their music trumps “Sunbather” on every conceivable level by never pulling any punches about whether the band was catering too much to post rock or to shoegaze.
"By never pulling any punches about whether x or y" makes little sense. Suspect you simply mean "by never pulling any punches or catering too much to either post-rock or shoegaze".
Sentence prior to this can be summed up and merged into this along the lines of "While Deafheaven's "Sunbather" received far more attention than Ghost Bath's album, "Moonlover" trumps "Sunbather" on every conceivable level by never pulling any punches or catering too much to either post-rock or shoegaze."
There is no vocal ambiguity like what you would hear on an Alcest record.
Yay, more name-drops.
Ghost Bath, in their mysteriousness and their disconnection from the music industry, are about death and isolation and they draw their stylistic lines very deep into the sands of metal.
What I think the exceptional mastering job done on this record is a good example as to why this kind of music trumps any Lifelover record they ever made.
You're missing words here, or needlessly adding them. "What I think the" makes no sense. "I think the" would work, as would "What I think is that the". "as to why" is awkward. "of why", perhaps even "of how" if you mean "in what ways" rather than "for which reasons". Sentence also reads as though Ghost Bath has made any Lifelover record, which makes little sense. "any record Lifelover ever made" or "any Lifelover record ever made".
One of the distinguishing factors about depressive black metal are its dirges delivered with throat ripping screams.
One factor is. One of the factors is. Factors of.
To even speak in such a way of performance, it becomes a kind of self-possession where you allowing yourself to be consumed by beings that lurk in the spiritual realm.
You're saying that speaking in such a way becomes a kind of self-possession. Pretty sure you meant the vocal performance becomes that, instead. Also, you are allowing, or you allow. Not you allowing.
[...]
Need to go for now. Will tackle the rest later.