Punknews.orgPunknews.org Logo
Review Navigator

BackForward

Features

 

Contests

 


Reviews



Dropsonic

Insects With Angel Wings
2005
Rowdy

Dropsonic - Insects With Angel Wings (Cover Artwork)


Review by: Anchors
See others by this writer


[staff]

Dropsonic (link)

Only registered users
can post comments


Print this Review Send this Review to a Friend

Published on December 6th 2005

In doing a bit of research and background checking on Dropsonic, one name kept popping up in everything I found.

Led Zeppelin.

What? Zeppelin are undoubtedly one of those "if you're name dropping them, you had better be bringing your 'A' game bands," and in that right, I really can't be too disappointed with the band. Channeling blues and classic rock into their sound, Dropsonic rollick and motor through fifty minutes of wild guitar solos, yearning vocals, and thick chord progressions. It's not an original venture in the slightest, but that's a lot of what makes the band's efforts so endearing. To place them alongside a contemporary band, because we all know a review's nothing minus comparison, I'd say they fit the roll of a more aggressive, more volatile Our Lady Peace. Their concise but sonically diverse assault never, for even a minute, relents. Even the final track, done acoustically, which I'll touch on later, maintains a certain level of intensity that's hard to come by without the use of electric guitars.

While some of the jagged riffing and vocal wailing can be thought of as channeling Zeppelin, largely, the songs bear no resemblance. Robert Plant's voice has always been distinct and immediately identifiable, Jimmy Page's squally guitar a beacon heard miles around, Bonham's drumming the most sturdy of anchors, but no individual member of Dropsonic has that level of gravitas. The twang at the beginning of “Rotten Luck” is the kind of thing the band needs more of. Something immediately identifiable, something to grab the listener's attention, so they know within the first two seconds of the song just what they’re listening to. “Everyone’s a Stranger” has an extremely evident attitude to it, a tried and true rock‘n’roll swagger. The one thing that ties every song together, besides that swagger, is that they’re all based on amazing rhythms. Driving, jagged rhythms that start, stutter, stop, and start again while letting the vocals coarsely slide on top. Cohesion or not, there’s a fair bit of contrast to some of the pacing in this album as well. Slow, twangy Southern rocker “My Girl” is the stark opposite of the following track, the almost 8-minute journey that is “Headless.” A low-key effort by comparison, but at no point did I lose interest. The solid tracks keep on coming though, with “When You Die” coming directly after, a song in which the singer sounds extremely unstable, and it makes for a really great band dichotomy.

“Insane,” a slow, brooding acoustic song closes the album out in fine form. While they’ve forgone the rock assault, there’s still the sound of danger and unrest in the singer's voice. Mellow as it may appear, you still get the inclination that he could fly off the handle without a moment's notice, and that really helps out the song, just making for a much more interesting trip. The slowly plucked acoustic strings give off a very morose, haunting vibe that perfectly suits the vocals and the lyrics they stem from.

This album definitely caught me by surprise, as I was expecting some K-ROQ bullshit, but found instead an album brimming with energy in the spirit of one of the greatest bands ever to play.



People who liked this also liked:
The Holy Mountain - Enemies16 Horsepower - Hoarse [reissue]Mabus - Cheers, To Doomsday GloomAmerican Distress - American DistressCasket Architects - Dance on the Death NerveCross Examination - The Hung JuryBracket - RequiemNo Thanks - Demo / Live: CBGBs [reissues]A Global Threat - Where the Sun Never SetsPolar Bear Club - The Redder, The Better



Please login or register to post comments.
What are the benefits of having a Punknews.org account?
  • Share your opinion by posting comments on the stories that interest you
  • Rate music and bands and help shape the weekly top ten
  • Let Punknews.org use your ratings to help you find bands and albums you might like
  • Customize features on the site to get the news the way you want.

    Posted by Scruffy on 2005-12-08 00:34:10

    Okay.

    Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, December 8, 2005 at 12:09 AM (EST)

    Yeah, it is too bad. If you think blast beats and funny song titles are what make The Locust special, you don't get it. They're an experimental group that got mistakenly lumped in with "grind" and "hardcore" or whatever... They are something else, completely. I see them as more of a noise rock band, albeit influenced by grind and power violence, but trying to do something completely different.

    -Will

    Posted by Scruffy on 2005-12-07 23:19:40

    Too bad I can't spell, either.

    Posted by Scruffy on 2005-12-07 23:18:37

    Okay. You win. You totally "get" the Locust, and I'm just too dumb to understand it. Man, if only I could understand what they're doing, an enormous world of enlightenment would open up to me. To bad I don't understand those blast beats and hamfisted attempts at humor they call song titles. Too bad, indeed.

    Posted by Anonymous on Wednesday, December 7, 2005 at 10:20 PM (EST)

    The Locust aren't that confusing... Not to me, at least. You should stop assuming that just because you don't personally understand a group that everyone who does is faking it for pretentious reasons.

    -Will

    Posted by Scruffy on 2005-12-07 16:52:07

    I'll concede some of that, Will, but the Locust sucks. Just because it's confusing doesn't make it genius.

    Posted by Anonymous on Wednesday, December 7, 2005 at 2:44 PM (EST)

    The Locust are better than "The Zep."

    The proof is in the fact that Led Zepellin were just Page's sellout group after The Yardbirds...

    And when it comes to the same general era of music, Black Sabbath absolutely crushed them.

    I'm sorry, but Led Zepellin really were one of the first bands to pull the fun out of rock and roll and replace it with bullshit theatrics. Their first album is decent, BUT:

    Look at British RnB/Blues rock up to then. I'm not just talking about how rough it was- The quality of the songwriting and certainly the singing were better. Anyone who claims to enjoy the sound of Robert Plant's "stabbed in the genitals" singing voice has absolutely no claim to good musical taste. And people who think Page was some sort of genius don't understand the point of the blues in the first place.

    Led Zepellin were homogenized, safe rock. The reason they suck so much is that mainstream rock wasn't bad until they came about.

    -Will

    Posted by maverick on 2005-12-07 01:17:17

    I have an older full-length of this band's, and it kills. It sounds like Radiohead meets AC/DC. This new one is in my stack of "shit I need to listen to," so maybe it'll find its way inside my stereo tomorrow.

    -Scott

    Posted by Scruffy on 2005-12-06 19:54:03

    You can hate Led Zeppelin if you want, but you cannot deny their enormous influence. They basically created Heavy Metal and anything heavy after them was either influenced by them, their descendants, or done in reaction to their descendants.
    Honestly, rock and roll began by just combinging blues and country. Punk began by taking that a speeding it up. It's not like all these huge changes to music happen in one enormous leap. It happens slowly with little changes. Who cares if they were just playing distorted blues riffs (though it was more than that)? What they did changed things, and it sounded good. All the Rolling Stones did was play straightforward blues rock, nothing that revolutionary in and of itself, but they are almost as important as the Beatles.

    That said, I tend to dislike any bands now that sound like Zeppelin. Even Zeppelin couldn't do it that well all the time, and most of these bands sound anachronistic. I didn't listen to this specific band, so I won't comment on them, though.

    Posted by Anonymous on Tuesday, December 6, 2005 at 7:42 PM (EST)

    rkl,
    This band is real good live. You're right, not much in the way of stage presence, but good banter, and tight as hell live.

    On top of that, real nice guys, friendly as hell to employees at clubs they play (and good tippers to the waitresses), and real appreciative to anyone who supports em.

    Posted by Anonymous on Tuesday, December 6, 2005 at 5:13 PM (EST)

    i dont think reviewers should ever comment back to people commenting on their reviews.
    - frankfort

    Posted by Anchors on 2005-12-06 15:33:30

    Kiddie insults?

    You said "loserdom," and something about screamo and "15 year old fat chicks.'' And I'm tossing around kiddie insults?

    Posted by rkl on 2005-12-06 14:03:42

    how is it ridiculous to say led zeppelin sucks? i gave my reasons for hating robert plant..
    as far as the rest of it, they use distorted blues riffs. big deal. play an out of shape john lee hooker record, and get the same effect.
    if you can tell me how they are one of the most influential, and not boring, bands of all time, be my guest.
    if youre just going to toss out kiddie insults, go ahead and do that too. i love actually getting what i execpt, just like xmas.

    Posted by Anchors on 2005-12-06 13:39:18

    I don't post my last FM because I don't have one. Simple as that.

    Cliche screamo bands? How many of these 15 year old fat chicks you obviously know so well are big fans of City Of Caterpillar or The Spirit Of Versailles. Not a single one. What I'm sure you're incorrectly referring to, are bands like Senses Fail that get dubbed "screamo" by magazines like Rolling Stone. I have never given a positive review to a band like that I've covered, so your statement is nothing short of idiotic.

    Led Zeppelin are one of the most influential bands of music history for a fucking reason. I don't care whether you think they're boring or not, but to say they suck is absolutely ridiculous. Stop having opinions, because yours are terrible.

    Posted by rkl on 2005-12-06 13:09:25

    speaking of losing, anchors, you gave the mars volta 5 stars, and love every cliche screamo band possible.
    now, im not trying to be judgemental here, but unless youre a 15 y/o fat chick, i think that pretty much wraps you in the coat of loserdom.

    led zeppelin sucks. boring music, and robert plant's voice sounds like a cat when you step on its tail.
    go ahead, give me shit for my last.fm. i notice you dont post yours.
    ballsy

    Posted by rkl on 2005-12-06 13:06:06
    My Score:

    this band is absolutely horrible live. no stage presence, and theyre rockstar dicks.

    Posted by Anchors on 2005-12-06 11:09:50

    You hate Led Zeppelin, and The Locust is one of your top 10 overall listens on last.fm. You lose.

    Posted by Anonymous on Tuesday, December 6, 2005 at 10:32 AM (EST)

    if you don't like Zeppelin you either have to be retarded, or just deaf.

    Posted by Sirens on 2005-12-06 10:09:04

    Need I remind anyone of Zeppelin's shark incident? Those guys lived it up.

    Posted by Anonymous on Tuesday, December 6, 2005 at 6:43 AM (EST)

    "Or maybe "bring your 'F' game" because Zeppelin is really bad. I'm not saying it from a reactionary point of view, but I actually have heard numerous albums and they suck. I hate them."

    It doesn't mean the Zeppelin sucks, it's just that your musical taste is flawed.

    Posted by TheOneTrueBill on 2005-12-06 02:43:54

    Or maybe "bring your 'F' game" because Zeppelin is really bad. I'm not saying it from a reactionary point of view, but I actually have heard numerous albums and they suck. I hate them.