I didn't even like their single, so I highly doubt I will enjoy this.

Slave To The Parasites is right, he isn't saying its a bad review (although I think it certainly isn't particularly great, you should focus less on the fact that its catering to the masses, and when you say that a song is 'bland' it definitely helps to justify your thinking with WHY its so bland), he's just saying that it's only featured because its a new release that only you have reviewed.

Now, I haven't heard this album yet, but I loved Sunburn (and their new stuff, but not as much as Sunburn). I've heard Gone and Wasted Time, and i really liked Gone, Wasted Time was just ok, but not in any way horrid. Love the new singer though.This Message Edited On 08.09.07

Album Rating: 4.0

I liked your review, but I didn't think you gave it a fair chance. I bought the album yesterday and I've been pretty satisfied with it. I've been a solid Fuel fan for awhile and I've been waiting for this album to come out. I really liked "Scars in the Making" and "Hangin Around" in addition to "Gone". I like Fuel's sound and I think that Toryn was a decent replacement for Brett, and since they sound similar, I think that it's good that the band has kept its unique sound.



I will agree with you that "Wasted Time" isn't that great of a song, and that most of the filler songs don't stand out either. But you do have to take into account that Fuel has replaced half their band since their last release, so I don't think it's completely fair to compare their old albums to the new one. It'll take some time before Fuel can get back to where they left off, but they'll get there. So yea, Angels & Devils isn't exactly what someone familiar with Fuel would expect, but I don't think it deserved as harsh of a review either.

Album Rating: 4.0

and your right, Natural Selection was a good album

um... let me just say... DISAGREE.
Fuel is great, and always has been. Yes, they have their ups and down just like any band or artist out there. Their albums grew in maturity as the band grew together and found themselves in their music. It's not fair to compare the band, who had to replace two of their mates, with the old Fuel. A new age, a new sound, seriosuly. Of course, even then there are flaws, no duh there. But seriously, give them the credit they deserve. Toryn Green fills in really nicely where Scallions let off. He's similar sounding but I think that's what the band wanted - yet he's unique and different enough to be fresh, putting his own velocity on it. As well as the new guitarist, he's not the same, but similar and quite up to par, in my standards too.
Of course their new album with the beautifully restructured band isn't going to be perfect, because, honestly, nothing ever is. This very much including your review =]
I'm not gonna be biased and go totally against what you're saying, because there are things that I can account and agree with, however I think there are many more strong points in there that you sadly looked over.
I think the whole album is good and well rounded, some hits some misses but all worth giving a listen to. I'm just glad to have this band back, good for them, I look forward to seeing them grow!
Who exactly determines what "radio rock" is anyway. Give me a break.
This Message Edited On 08.09.07

Look, you know as well as I do

Nickelback=Fuel

Nickelback=2000s Radio Kings
Fuel=1990/early 2000s Radio Kings

And, your band is radio rock when you've had as many successful singles as Fuel, Hemmorage (In My Hands) was the theme to the early millenium, and every freaking song on Sunburn was the theme to the middle 90s.

Fuel isn't more than a mainstream rock band. Plain and simple.

Man, whenever someone writes a negative review about a popular band, some moron makes an account just to say that your review sucked because they disagree with you. I hate those people. FUEL IZ GRATE UR REVEW WAS STINKY!!

And radio rock has a pretty obvious sound, which is generally a very bland and boring one.

Oh, I know that gets under my skin.

Look, I'm not slamming your review. I may disagree with some, or most, of it, yes. However there are points that i agree with. But also many that I disagree with, many. You fail to see both sides. I've been a fan of these guys since they started, as well as Nickelback. I'm sorry if you're too simple minded and biased to see the bounds that these bands have made to get where they are. "Radio rock" to you may be different to others, big deal. Just because they're aired on the radio does not mean they're mainstream or "bland." Maybe that happens to be your opinion!? Opinion? Yeah, look it up, 'cause this is mine. It's a shame you fail to see the potential and talent in these so called "radio rock, mainstream" bands. Boohoo for you. Writing a review in a [imo] somewhat slanderous manner means that you're likely to get people that disagree. Isn't that what writing a review is about? You're not gonna get everyone to follow your path, there are many people that won't. If youre gonna get all pissy about opposition then maybe this isn't the thing for you. Opposition is a big part of it. Get used to it =]

LEAVE THE MEMORIES ALONE

Album Rating: 2.0

LEAVE THE MEMORIES ALONE [2], though I'm not interested on the rest of this at all.

Album Rating: 1.5 | Sound Off

Garbage

Album Rating: 2.0

What the almighty fuck was Carl Bell thinking...?