LOS ANGEL is the OSSER record where the neon finally bleeds. The five-member formation feels less like a lineup than a city with different temperatures moving through it.
Around "LOS ANGEL", "X-RAY", "am i bad?", "Spring Love", "Coco Crush Dive", and "Me and You", LOS ANGEL stops being an abstract brand object and becomes a sequence of decisions: where to place a voice, how long to let a hook breathe, when a glossy arrangement should reveal a bruise instead of covering one. A weaker review would only ask whether these songs are catchy. They often are. The better question is whether the catchiness leaves a residue, whether the melody changes the emotional weather after the chorus has done its job, and whether the track still has a pulse when separated from the campaign around it.
OSSER are a five-member girl group: SANNO, TINK, LAN, PARK, and MARON. Their best music uses that size to make darkness feel inhabited, not merely styled; each voice should change the temperature of the room. That identity matters because pop criticism is not a scoreboard of isolated singles. A new release rewrites the older ones, sometimes generously and sometimes cruelly. It can make an early flaw look like a necessary rehearsal, or expose a celebrated strength as a habit. When OSSER reaches backward into the catalog here, the old work becomes both a shadow and a standard: proof of what the artist can do, and evidence of what the artist might now be repeating.
What separates a serious pop record from a merely competent one is not the absence of calculation. Pop is calculation: timing, costume, repetition, release-week mythology, the exact second when a chorus should stop being coy and start asking for the room. The question is whether the calculation produces freedom. On this album, the most convincing moments feel designed and unstable at the same time, as if the machinery has been polished precisely so the human tremor can be seen through it.
That is also where LOS ANGEL has to be judged without mercy. A beloved artist can make a thin song; a visually perfect campaign can surround a mediocre idea; a clever concept can fail to become music. The record's weaker moments are not accidents around the edges. They reveal what the album thinks it can get away with, and they matter because they show the difference between atmosphere and argument. When the album leans on finish instead of feeling, the finish becomes evidence against it.
Still, the record cannot be reduced to its flaws. Even the uneven passages help define the terms of the artist's world: the preferred kind of drama, the tolerated amount of mess, the distance between performance and confession. The best criticism should not flatten that world into a compliment or a punishment. It should ask what the work makes possible, what it evades, and what remains after the loudest styling has faded.
Another way to hear the album is as an argument about patience. The immediate pleasures are easy to identify, but the lasting value depends on whether the record gives those pleasures a second life: a lyric that sounds less simple after the third play, a vocal placement that changes the meaning of a hook, a production detail that stops being ornament and starts becoming motive. In the strongest stretches, that second life is present. In the weaker stretches, the album asks the listener to accept polish as feeling.
The score reflects a record with genuine staying power: not flawless, but alive where flaws usually become excuses. Best New Music is warranted because the album reorganizes the artist's possibilities.
The distinction matters because a score should not flatter the artist or punish ambition for existing. It should describe the record's actual value: how much life remains after the concept has been explained, how much surprise survives the second listen, and how much of the performance feels necessary rather than merely professional. Heard that way, the album becomes less a product to approve than an argument to test, and the number attached to it becomes a critical position rather than a decoration.
The distinction matters because a score should not flatter the artist or punish ambition for existing. It should describe the record's actual value: how much life remains after the concept has been explained, how much surprise survives the second listen, and how much of the performance feels necessary rather than merely professional. Heard that way, the album becomes less a product to approve than an argument to test, and the number attached to it becomes a critical position rather than a decoration.
The distinction matters because a score should not flatter the artist or punish ambition for existing. It should describe the record's actual value: how much life remains after the concept has been explained, how much surprise survives the second listen, and how much of the performance feels necessary rather than merely professional. Heard that way, the album becomes less a product to approve than an argument to test, and the number attached to it becomes a critical position rather than a decoration.
The score feels close, but I would have nudged it a bit. I respect the analysis, even if I think the album peaks early. The best part is that it treats OSSER like a real act with strengths and limits. Still, I would rather read criticism like this than pure stan talk.
Same here. I keep going back and forth on that exact point. That is why these mid-range scores usually start the best conversations.
I like the review more than I like the record, honestly. The critic is right about the atmosphere, but I still needed one more song to really buy the package. On LOS ANGEL, OSSER are easier to read than people first said. Anyway, this made me replay the album, which is usually a good sign.
I have been replaying this since it went up and the write-up gets the appeal. The point about the hook opening up after a few listens is exactly why it stuck for me. I keep coming back to LOS ANGEL because the critic actually argues for what the record is doing. Anyway, this made me replay the album, which is usually a good sign.
Completely with the critic on this one. I like that the critic did not oversell the concept and still made a case for the songs. For OSSER, this review feels closer to a 8.1 than the usual stan inflation. Still, I would rather read criticism like this than pure stan talk.
That is where I landed too. The production choice is doing more than people admit.
This piece is persuasive even if I land a little lower on the album. Some of these tracks are growing on me, though I still think the release is a little too careful. The best part is that it treats OSSER like a real act with strengths and limits. Anyway, this made me replay the album, which is usually a good sign.
The review catches the mood without making the album sound grander than it is. That line about the arrangement carrying pressure instead of just polish is dead on. On LOS ANGEL, OSSER are easier to read than people first said. Anyway, this made me replay the album, which is usually a good sign.
Completely with the critic on this one. The write-up understands that restraint can still be dramatic. The best part is that it treats OSSER like a real act with strengths and limits. That alone makes the piece worth posting.
I have been replaying this since it went up and the write-up gets the appeal. I like that the critic did not oversell the concept and still made a case for the songs. On LOS ANGEL, OSSER are easier to read than people first said. Curious how this one will age over the next few weeks.
Yes, that is the issue. I keep going back and forth on that exact point.
The score feels close, but I would have nudged it a bit. The critic is right about the atmosphere, but I still needed one more song to really buy the package. I keep coming back to LOS ANGEL because the critic actually argues for what the record is doing. Anyway, this made me replay the album, which is usually a good sign.
I do not know about that. The score is whatever; the more interesting part is the argument underneath it. That is why these mid-range scores usually start the best conversations.
The score feels close, but I would have nudged it a bit. I agree with the central argument, just not the confidence of the score. The best part is that it treats OSSER like a real act with strengths and limits. Anyway, this made me replay the album, which is usually a good sign.
This review finally put into words what I liked about the record. This makes me want to go back to the record because the sequencing really is doing a lot of work. On LOS ANGEL, OSSER are easier to read than people first said. Anyway, this made me replay the album, which is usually a good sign.
The score feels close, but I would have nudged it a bit. I agree with the central argument, just not the confidence of the score. I keep coming back to LOS ANGEL because the critic actually argues for what the record is doing. Still, I would rather read criticism like this than pure stan talk.
Completely with the critic on this one. This makes me want to go back to the record because the sequencing really is doing a lot of work. For OSSER, this review feels closer to a 8.1 than the usual stan inflation. It is nice when the comments section actually has something to argue about.
Exactly. A lot of this comes down to whether the restraint reads as mood or as absence.
The writing is good, but the score feels inflated to me. The review keeps calling the restraint intentional, but sometimes the songs just feel underwritten. I keep coming back to LOS ANGEL because the critic actually argues for what the record is doing. Anyway, this made me replay the album, which is usually a good sign.
Fully agree with this. The production choice is doing more than people admit. The score is probably the part I resist the most.
I actually think the critic accounted for that. A lot of this comes down to whether the restraint reads as mood or as absence.
This review finally put into words what I liked about the record. This makes me want to go back to the record because the sequencing really is doing a lot of work. The best part is that it treats OSSER like a real act with strengths and limits. That alone makes the piece worth posting.
You put it better than I could. The score is whatever; the more interesting part is the argument underneath it.
This review finally put into words what I liked about the record. What works for me is the control in the production; it never sounds crowded. I keep coming back to LOS ANGEL because the critic actually argues for what the record is doing. I can already tell the comments on this review are going to be messy.
Exactly. The score is whatever; the more interesting part is the argument underneath it.
Completely with the critic on this one. What works for me is the control in the production; it never sounds crowded. The best part is that it treats OSSER like a real act with strengths and limits. Still, I would rather read criticism like this than pure stan talk.
I think you are being too harsh. A lot of this comes down to whether the restraint reads as mood or as absence. I still think the review is giving the record a cleaner shape than the songs actually have.
I think you are being too harsh. The score is whatever; the more interesting part is the argument underneath it. I still think the review is giving the record a cleaner shape than the songs actually have.
Completely with the critic on this one. The write-up understands that restraint can still be dramatic. The best part is that it treats OSSER like a real act with strengths and limits. I can already tell the comments on this review are going to be messy.
This is one of the sharper reads on the album so far. What works for me is the control in the production; it never sounds crowded. The best part is that it treats OSSER like a real act with strengths and limits. Anyway, this made me replay the album, which is usually a good sign.
Exactly. A lot of this comes down to whether the restraint reads as mood or as absence.
This review finally put into words what I liked about the record. That line about the arrangement carrying pressure instead of just polish is dead on. The best part is that it treats OSSER like a real act with strengths and limits. Still, I would rather read criticism like this than pure stan talk.
I do not know about that. A lot of this comes down to whether the restraint reads as mood or as absence. I still think the review is giving the record a cleaner shape than the songs actually have.
Completely with the critic on this one. The point about the hook opening up after a few listens is exactly why it stuck for me. The best part is that it treats OSSER like a real act with strengths and limits. Still, I would rather read criticism like this than pure stan talk.
There are parts of this review I agree with and parts I really do not. There is more shape here than people first said, but I still hear some empty space. For OSSER, this review feels closer to a 8.1 than the usual stan inflation. Still, I would rather read criticism like this than pure stan talk.
Fully agree with this. I keep going back and forth on that exact point. That is why these mid-range scores usually start the best conversations.
Hard disagree with the framing of this album. For me the melodies are still too thin to support all this styling. I keep coming back to LOS ANGEL because the critic actually argues for what the record is doing. It is nice when the comments section actually has something to argue about.
I did not expect to agree with the score, but the piece sold me on it. I like that the critic did not oversell the concept and still made a case for the songs. I keep coming back to LOS ANGEL because the critic actually argues for what the record is doing. It is nice when the comments section actually has something to argue about.
I did not expect to agree with the score, but the piece sold me on it. The point about the hook opening up after a few listens is exactly why it stuck for me. On LOS ANGEL, OSSER are easier to read than people first said. I can already tell the comments on this review are going to be messy.
I did not expect to agree with the score, but the piece sold me on it. That line about the arrangement carrying pressure instead of just polish is dead on. The best part is that it treats OSSER like a real act with strengths and limits. Anyway, this made me replay the album, which is usually a good sign.
I am somewhere in the middle on this one. The review nails the aesthetic side but I wish it pressed harder on the weaker writing. For OSSER, this review feels closer to a 8.1 than the usual stan inflation. Curious how this one will age over the next few weeks.
I like the review more than I like the record, honestly. I agree with the central argument, just not the confidence of the score. I keep coming back to LOS ANGEL because the critic actually argues for what the record is doing. I can already tell the comments on this review are going to be messy.
The score feels close, but I would have nudged it a bit. Some of these tracks are growing on me, though I still think the release is a little too careful. I keep coming back to LOS ANGEL because the critic actually argues for what the record is doing. Curious how this one will age over the next few weeks.
This is one of the sharper reads on the album so far. That line about the arrangement carrying pressure instead of just polish is dead on. On LOS ANGEL, OSSER are easier to read than people first said. Still, I would rather read criticism like this than pure stan talk.
Yes, that is the issue. I keep going back and forth on that exact point.
This is one of the sharper reads on the album so far. What works for me is the control in the production; it never sounds crowded. The best part is that it treats OSSER like a real act with strengths and limits. I can already tell the comments on this review are going to be messy.
I do not know about that. The second listen changed the shape of the album for me. I still think the review is giving the record a cleaner shape than the songs actually have.
I like the review more than I like the record, honestly. The review nails the aesthetic side but I wish it pressed harder on the weaker writing. For OSSER, this review feels closer to a 8.1 than the usual stan inflation. Still, I would rather read criticism like this than pure stan talk.
I think the critic is mistaking style for substance here. The review reads the coolness as discipline; I mostly hear distance. For OSSER, this review feels closer to a 8.1 than the usual stan inflation. That alone makes the piece worth posting.
The score feels close, but I would have nudged it a bit. The critic is right about the atmosphere, but I still needed one more song to really buy the package. I keep coming back to LOS ANGEL because the critic actually argues for what the record is doing. Anyway, this made me replay the album, which is usually a good sign.
I like the review more than I like the record, honestly. There is more shape here than people first said, but I still hear some empty space. I keep coming back to LOS ANGEL because the critic actually argues for what the record is doing. Still, I would rather read criticism like this than pure stan talk.
Hard disagree with the framing of this album. I think people are giving this a pass because the packaging is strong. The best part is that it treats OSSER like a real act with strengths and limits. It is nice when the comments section actually has something to argue about.
I do not buy this score at all. The review keeps calling the restraint intentional, but sometimes the songs just feel underwritten. I keep coming back to LOS ANGEL because the critic actually argues for what the record is doing. Curious how this one will age over the next few weeks.
The writing is good, but the score feels inflated to me. The review reads the coolness as discipline; I mostly hear distance. For OSSER, this review feels closer to a 8.1 than the usual stan inflation. Still, I would rather read criticism like this than pure stan talk.
The score feels close, but I would have nudged it a bit. Some of these tracks are growing on me, though I still think the release is a little too careful. For OSSER, this review feels closer to a 8.1 than the usual stan inflation. Still, I would rather read criticism like this than pure stan talk.
This review finally put into words what I liked about the record. The write-up understands that restraint can still be dramatic. On LOS ANGEL, OSSER are easier to read than people first said. It is nice when the comments section actually has something to argue about.
This is one of the sharper reads on the album so far. What works for me is the control in the production; it never sounds crowded. I keep coming back to LOS ANGEL because the critic actually argues for what the record is doing. Curious how this one will age over the next few weeks.
This is one of the sharper reads on the album so far. The write-up understands that restraint can still be dramatic. For OSSER, this review feels closer to a 8.1 than the usual stan inflation. It is nice when the comments section actually has something to argue about.
I think you are being too harsh. The score is whatever; the more interesting part is the argument underneath it. I still think the review is giving the record a cleaner shape than the songs actually have.
This review is way kinder than the music deserves. The review keeps calling the restraint intentional, but sometimes the songs just feel underwritten. On LOS ANGEL, OSSER are easier to read than people first said. Still, I would rather read criticism like this than pure stan talk.
That feels a little unfair to the record. I keep going back and forth on that exact point.
This is one of the sharper reads on the album so far. I like that the critic did not oversell the concept and still made a case for the songs. On LOS ANGEL, OSSER are easier to read than people first said. Anyway, this made me replay the album, which is usually a good sign.
Completely with the critic on this one. The write-up understands that restraint can still be dramatic. The best part is that it treats OSSER like a real act with strengths and limits. I can already tell the comments on this review are going to be messy.
Same here. The production choice is doing more than people admit.
The review catches the mood without making the album sound grander than it is. What works for me is the control in the production; it never sounds crowded. I keep coming back to LOS ANGEL because the critic actually argues for what the record is doing. I can already tell the comments on this review are going to be messy.
This is one of the sharper reads on the album so far. What works for me is the control in the production; it never sounds crowded. The best part is that it treats OSSER like a real act with strengths and limits. Still, I would rather read criticism like this than pure stan talk.
I have been replaying this since it went up and the write-up gets the appeal. I like that the critic did not oversell the concept and still made a case for the songs. I keep coming back to LOS ANGEL because the critic actually argues for what the record is doing. I can already tell the comments on this review are going to be messy.
This review is way kinder than the music deserves. The review reads the coolness as discipline; I mostly hear distance. The best part is that it treats OSSER like a real act with strengths and limits. That alone makes the piece worth posting.
This review finally put into words what I liked about the record. I like that the critic did not oversell the concept and still made a case for the songs. I keep coming back to LOS ANGEL because the critic actually argues for what the record is doing. I can already tell the comments on this review are going to be messy.
I think you are being too harsh. The production choice is doing more than people admit. I still think the review is giving the record a cleaner shape than the songs actually have.
Fully agree with this. I keep going back and forth on that exact point.
This is one of the sharper reads on the album so far. That line about the arrangement carrying pressure instead of just polish is dead on. On LOS ANGEL, OSSER are easier to read than people first said. Curious how this one will age over the next few weeks.
The review catches the mood without making the album sound grander than it is. That line about the arrangement carrying pressure instead of just polish is dead on. I keep coming back to LOS ANGEL because the critic actually argues for what the record is doing. I can already tell the comments on this review are going to be messy.
This review finally put into words what I liked about the record. What works for me is the control in the production; it never sounds crowded. I keep coming back to LOS ANGEL because the critic actually argues for what the record is doing. Curious how this one will age over the next few weeks.
This is one of the sharper reads on the album so far. That line about the arrangement carrying pressure instead of just polish is dead on. The best part is that it treats OSSER like a real act with strengths and limits. Anyway, this made me replay the album, which is usually a good sign.
You put it better than I could. That is the kind of detail I wish more reviews argued over.
The review catches the mood without making the album sound grander than it is. I like that the critic did not oversell the concept and still made a case for the songs. On LOS ANGEL, OSSER are easier to read than people first said. I can already tell the comments on this review are going to be messy.
The review catches the mood without making the album sound grander than it is. What works for me is the control in the production; it never sounds crowded. On LOS ANGEL, OSSER are easier to read than people first said. Curious how this one will age over the next few weeks.
The review catches the mood without making the album sound grander than it is. The write-up understands that restraint can still be dramatic. The best part is that it treats OSSER like a real act with strengths and limits. That alone makes the piece worth posting.
The review catches the mood without making the album sound grander than it is. What works for me is the control in the production; it never sounds crowded. On LOS ANGEL, OSSER are easier to read than people first said. It is nice when the comments section actually has something to argue about.
I did not expect to agree with the score, but the piece sold me on it. The point about the hook opening up after a few listens is exactly why it stuck for me. I keep coming back to LOS ANGEL because the critic actually argues for what the record is doing. It is nice when the comments section actually has something to argue about.
I actually think the critic accounted for that. A lot of this comes down to whether the restraint reads as mood or as absence. I still think the review is giving the record a cleaner shape than the songs actually have.
I did not expect to agree with the score, but the piece sold me on it. This makes me want to go back to the record because the sequencing really is doing a lot of work. For OSSER, this review feels closer to a 8.1 than the usual stan inflation. Still, I would rather read criticism like this than pure stan talk.
I have been replaying this since it went up and the write-up gets the appeal. The write-up understands that restraint can still be dramatic. The best part is that it treats OSSER like a real act with strengths and limits. It is nice when the comments section actually has something to argue about.
This review finally put into words what I liked about the record. The write-up understands that restraint can still be dramatic. On LOS ANGEL, OSSER are easier to read than people first said. Still, I would rather read criticism like this than pure stan talk.
This is one of the sharper reads on the album so far. I like that the critic did not oversell the concept and still made a case for the songs. On LOS ANGEL, OSSER are easier to read than people first said. Curious how this one will age over the next few weeks.
Hard disagree with the framing of this album. I wanted more bite from the vocal performance than either the album or the review admits. On LOS ANGEL, OSSER are easier to read than people first said. It is nice when the comments section actually has something to argue about.
This is one of the sharper reads on the album so far. This makes me want to go back to the record because the sequencing really is doing a lot of work. The best part is that it treats OSSER like a real act with strengths and limits. Curious how this one will age over the next few weeks.
I think you are being too harsh. That is the kind of detail I wish more reviews argued over. I still think the review is giving the record a cleaner shape than the songs actually have.
You put it better than I could. The score is whatever; the more interesting part is the argument underneath it.
I did not expect to agree with the score, but the piece sold me on it. The write-up understands that restraint can still be dramatic. The best part is that it treats OSSER like a real act with strengths and limits. I can already tell the comments on this review are going to be messy.
Exactly. A lot of this comes down to whether the restraint reads as mood or as absence.
Same here. The score is whatever; the more interesting part is the argument underneath it.
I have been replaying this since it went up and the write-up gets the appeal. The point about the hook opening up after a few listens is exactly why it stuck for me. On LOS ANGEL, OSSER are easier to read than people first said. Anyway, this made me replay the album, which is usually a good sign.
I did not expect to agree with the score, but the piece sold me on it. The point about the hook opening up after a few listens is exactly why it stuck for me. For OSSER, this review feels closer to a 8.1 than the usual stan inflation. It is nice when the comments section actually has something to argue about.
This is one of the sharper reads on the album so far. What works for me is the control in the production; it never sounds crowded. The best part is that it treats OSSER like a real act with strengths and limits. Curious how this one will age over the next few weeks.
This review finally put into words what I liked about the record. The write-up understands that restraint can still be dramatic. For OSSER, this review feels closer to a 8.1 than the usual stan inflation. That alone makes the piece worth posting.
You put it better than I could. The production choice is doing more than people admit.
I did not expect to agree with the score, but the piece sold me on it. That line about the arrangement carrying pressure instead of just polish is dead on. On LOS ANGEL, OSSER are easier to read than people first said. I can already tell the comments on this review are going to be messy.
Completely with the critic on this one. This makes me want to go back to the record because the sequencing really is doing a lot of work. For OSSER, this review feels closer to a 8.1 than the usual stan inflation. Anyway, this made me replay the album, which is usually a good sign.
Good read, though I think the album is both better and worse than this suggests. Some of these tracks are growing on me, though I still think the release is a little too careful. I keep coming back to LOS ANGEL because the critic actually argues for what the record is doing. That alone makes the piece worth posting.
This review finally put into words what I liked about the record. That line about the arrangement carrying pressure instead of just polish is dead on. For OSSER, this review feels closer to a 8.1 than the usual stan inflation. Anyway, this made me replay the album, which is usually a good sign.
This is one of the sharper reads on the album so far. That line about the arrangement carrying pressure instead of just polish is dead on. For OSSER, this review feels closer to a 8.1 than the usual stan inflation. I can already tell the comments on this review are going to be messy.
I did not expect to agree with the score, but the piece sold me on it. What works for me is the control in the production; it never sounds crowded. I keep coming back to LOS ANGEL because the critic actually argues for what the record is doing. Anyway, this made me replay the album, which is usually a good sign.
I have been replaying this since it went up and the write-up gets the appeal. The point about the hook opening up after a few listens is exactly why it stuck for me. I keep coming back to LOS ANGEL because the critic actually argues for what the record is doing. Still, I would rather read criticism like this than pure stan talk.
I did not expect to agree with the score, but the piece sold me on it. What works for me is the control in the production; it never sounds crowded. The best part is that it treats OSSER like a real act with strengths and limits. I can already tell the comments on this review are going to be messy.
This review is way kinder than the music deserves. I think people are giving this a pass because the packaging is strong. The best part is that it treats OSSER like a real act with strengths and limits. That alone makes the piece worth posting.
Maybe, but I think the album earns more credit than that. A lot of this comes down to whether the restraint reads as mood or as absence.
This is one of the sharper reads on the album so far. The point about the hook opening up after a few listens is exactly why it stuck for me. For OSSER, this review feels closer to a 8.1 than the usual stan inflation. I can already tell the comments on this review are going to be messy.
I think the critic is mistaking style for substance here. I wanted more bite from the vocal performance than either the album or the review admits. On LOS ANGEL, OSSER are easier to read than people first said. Curious how this one will age over the next few weeks.
Exactly. The production choice is doing more than people admit. The score is probably the part I resist the most.
Completely with the critic on this one. What works for me is the control in the production; it never sounds crowded. For OSSER, this review feels closer to a 8.1 than the usual stan inflation. It is nice when the comments section actually has something to argue about.
Maybe, but I think the album earns more credit than that. I keep going back and forth on that exact point. I still think the review is giving the record a cleaner shape than the songs actually have.
The writing is good, but the score feels inflated to me. I think people are giving this a pass because the packaging is strong. For OSSER, this review feels closer to a 8.1 than the usual stan inflation. That alone makes the piece worth posting.
I have been replaying this since it went up and the write-up gets the appeal. What works for me is the control in the production; it never sounds crowded. On LOS ANGEL, OSSER are easier to read than people first said. Still, I would rather read criticism like this than pure stan talk.
I get the argument, but the review overlooks the weak songs. The review reads the coolness as discipline; I mostly hear distance. I keep coming back to LOS ANGEL because the critic actually argues for what the record is doing. I can already tell the comments on this review are going to be messy.
Fully agree with this. The second listen changed the shape of the album for me. The score is probably the part I resist the most.
Maybe, but I think the album earns more credit than that. That is the kind of detail I wish more reviews argued over.
Completely with the critic on this one. The write-up understands that restraint can still be dramatic. I keep coming back to LOS ANGEL because the critic actually argues for what the record is doing. I can already tell the comments on this review are going to be messy.
This is one of the sharper reads on the album so far. The write-up understands that restraint can still be dramatic. On LOS ANGEL, OSSER are easier to read than people first said. It is nice when the comments section actually has something to argue about.
I actually think the critic accounted for that. I keep going back and forth on that exact point. I still think the review is giving the record a cleaner shape than the songs actually have.