as in its a bit thin/reedy. quirky sure, but not a great deal of 'body' to it. maybe its cos i compare it to the eski stuff like ice rink which is what hes apparently going for - next to that stuff, its like a skinny knock-off. maybe im just looking at it through certain prejudices which i need to let pass, but it gets more credit IMO than it deserves really - a watery eski rehash and everyones all over it.
Well fair enough, if that's your gut reaction to the sound then there's nothing much me or anyone else can do to argue you out of it, and it's not an unreasonable one anyway.
However, what I would say is that to me the original eski stuff by Wiley, Danny Weed etc
does tend to sound quite 'thin' as well, in the sense of being kind of skeletal and only using a few musical elements and also in the sense of not always having a massive ammount of bass on it (although of course some of it does).
But in this case I don't see that as a problem - with both the new and the old eski, the thinness is a big part of what makes it interesting, it gives the arrangements that sort of stark, minimalistic focus and immediacy to them. Also with both the new and old stuff I think the rhythms are usually strong enough to make up for loss of energy or drive from the sonic thinness.
Is Untold getting too much credit? Perhaps; I think part of why he gets a lot of support - and this is certainly a factor in my case - is that people are looking for dubstep-orientated stuff that isn't wobble/brostep/whatever you want to call it, but still has a high-energy, ravey kind of vibe to it, and his output fits that bill to some extent. However, I also reckon that everyone that backs him does genuinely like his work.
Oh and I think everyone looks at music through their prejudices, it's unavoidable and not always a problem, but I guess the trick is to realise when your prejudices are stopping you from giving the fullest/richest account of the data at hand.
