August Burns Red Constellations
» Back to review

Comments:Add a Comment 
Deviant.
Staff Reviewer
December 24th 2009


32288 Comments

Album Rating: 3.6

Palace, notice that he posted earlier that he was going because it was late at night. But yet he's still here. Remind you of someone?

Emim
December 24th 2009


38525 Comments

Album Rating: 5.0

"ABR’s took the place of Underoath"

Taken*



"I don’t quite know why, seemed like only yesterday no one cared about ABR’s generic take on the Metalcore genre but somewhere along the line a hype train started for Constellations and people decided they suddenly loved August Burns Red."



I don’t quite know why, *it* seemed like only yesterday no one cared about ABR’s generic take on the Metalcore genre. Somewhere along the line *however*, a hype train started for Constellations and people decided they suddenly loved August Burns Red.*



"Yes I said it ABR’s drummer isn’t anywhere near as bad as a lot of his contemporaries."



Yes I said it; ABR’s drummer isn’t anywhere near as bad as a lot of his contemporaries.* (He is much much better. I am a drummer, and recognize his abilities.)



"In that regard*,* he’s sort of like Derek Bloom*,* being that both are far superior instrumentalists to the rest of their respective bands."



"Impressive drumming aside there*,*"



"albeit they’re more “flashy” than effective."

Personal opinion. Though you did counter balance it to a degree prior to this statement.



"Their bassist occasionally demonstrates competency but is too often drowned out by the other members and finally we have ourselves August Burns Red’s vocalist Jake Luhrs."

Major run on sentence right there, with a habitual it would seem lack of commas.



Basically, the entire review still needs a proper proofreading. The points you make, well, are all opinions anyways, and -wrong or not- they are a vital part of any review. I can go through the rest of this if you want, but for now I am too tired. Also, you have no idea if those were troll negs, or do you?

Se2ondComing
December 24th 2009


178 Comments

Album Rating: 4.5

yes, i know what i said. his arrogance drew my back.

Deviant.
Staff Reviewer
December 24th 2009


32288 Comments

Album Rating: 3.6

And secondcoming: I'm chipping in here because another opinion from someone who didn't write this is needed.



You say: "The vocals are great and your an idiot." Awesome, but that's your opinion, just as Palace has his.



You say: "All it does is force a one-sided viewpoint." Isn't that what a review is? An individual viewpoint, maybe i'm wrong there. Point is, you don't like the review because you don't think it's good? Neg it, and move on to one that you think is better. You don't understand, not everyone has the same opinion as you.

Se2ondComing
December 24th 2009


178 Comments

Album Rating: 4.5

wrong. a review does not force a one-sided viewpoint

Se2ondComing
December 24th 2009


178 Comments

Album Rating: 4.5



"Making a point on the vocals would require us to sit down and actually soak in the album, which im sure you didn't do."



Im not the reviewer, once again not my job. Want me to prove my point. OK. The vocals are great and your an idiot (who do i sound like?). Your review is biased, it doesnt leave the reader any breathing room to form there own opinion. All it does is force a one-sided viewpoint. Instead of.



Vocals in this album do not impress, they lack emotion and feel. Such and such track has the weakest vocal performance on the album. I wanted a more powerful performance, Jake didnt deliver



We got something like this.



VoCalz Suk and Sounds Lyke Vomit!





"sums up my entire outlook on every one of your points"



I proved my point, like youve been begging for.

Emim
December 24th 2009


38525 Comments

Album Rating: 5.0

And by the way, those were all taken from the current review, not the original unedited one, which had more errors in it.

Deviant.
Staff Reviewer
December 24th 2009


32288 Comments

Album Rating: 3.6

You copied and pasted, how good for you. Review didn't force anything on me, and you can tell by my rating.

Se2ondComing
December 24th 2009


178 Comments

Album Rating: 4.5

"Review didn't force anything on me, and you can tell by my rating."



Is intentional retardation even possible?



Emim
December 24th 2009


38525 Comments

Album Rating: 5.0

It's quite simple, troll neg is any neg without justification. So unless you can find the exact number of posts as there are negs and those posts must say "I negged because" it's a troll neg. In fact if I could be bothered I'd head over and ask the Meds to remove them but I can't so I won't.




The sheer amount of grammatical mistakes is enough to neg, and that was AFTER you corrected it.

Se2ondComing
December 24th 2009


178 Comments

Album Rating: 4.5

because doing so would require me to turn on my ipod, listen to the entire album, and build a solid point. See, the thing is. YOU didn't do that. Telling the reader that his vocals sound like there spoken amidst a wave of vomit doesn't PROVE your point. Its just an extension of your point.





"Vocals in this album do not impress, they lack emotion and feel. Such and such track has the weakest vocal performance on the album. I wanted a more powerful performance, Jake didnt deliver"



or...



"Jake's performance is less then impressive for many reasons. His high pitched screams lacks energy, and the songs suffer because of this. Not only do they lack energy, but they don't fit the music well and often times hurt the instrumentation. Now on to the instrumentation....



With a logical backing for your arguments your free to throw around as many insults as you want. You would of explained why you didnt like his vocals, youd have all right to insult his vocals. AFTER making a solid point.





Deviant.
Staff Reviewer
December 24th 2009


32288 Comments

Album Rating: 3.6

Do you really want to start down that path Second?

Because: "Is intentional retardation even possible?" is laughable coming from the broken record.

Emim
December 24th 2009


38525 Comments

Album Rating: 5.0

@Palace: Because it's still all an opinion, which as I said, you're entitled to. I think this is a great album, you don't. What bigger point do you want? Also, negging does not immediately mean that you must post and explain why. If this was an immaculate review, I could understand where you're coming from, but it is FAR from immaculate.



Edit: People need to stop posting before me, it's just not fair!

witchxrapist
December 24th 2009


11117 Comments

Album Rating: 3.0

Thing is, I can respect your opinion because you've demonstrated that you understand what you're talking about. Now, thing is I still disagree but I can see where you're coming from. The difference is you aren't trying to write off my opinion like a whiny fanboy and that's why you're getting a proper response.





word man, tryin to make an example

Se2ondComing
December 24th 2009


178 Comments

Album Rating: 4.5

So your gonna ignore the fact that i made your own point better then you did? I made up TWO fictional points on the vocals JUST to show you that i could respect a negative point, if presented maturely. You, my friend aren't mature, hence why i don't respect your "point".

Emim
December 24th 2009


38525 Comments

Album Rating: 5.0

Then...quit your bitch-fest about troll negs and get them removed. I however, have supplied ample reason for my own. If I offended you, my apologies. I will not apologize for my opinions however.



Now let's all have us a man hug and forget about it!

Se2ondComing
December 24th 2009


178 Comments

Album Rating: 4.5

those were rhetorical. meaning that whole rant was meaningless. for someone encouraging others to prove there point, you fail to realize that we're bashing your review because we don't feel that you made YOUR point. all your arguments tonight have been based off the assumption that you made a solid point. If this was the case, we wouldn't be here right now. Take everyone's advice, work on your writing.



"10 of 37 thought this review was well written"

You are NOT the voice of the people. (In theory about 67% thought your review sucked)

Se2ondComing
December 24th 2009


178 Comments

Album Rating: 4.5

10 of 37 thought this review was well written



bye = ]

Emim
December 24th 2009


38525 Comments

Album Rating: 5.0

You sir, are an arrogant, pompous fool. The voice of nothing but your own delusions.



As for an opinion on the album, I do not feel like writing a review, as my feelings on it have been adequately conveyed in the other positive reviews. You have presented your opinion (the review) I am simply using the comments section to comment (imagine that!) on the aforementioned review. However, since you seem to be hanging completely on to this "give me an opinion, or get the fuck out of my thread" shtick, here it is:



The production value is fine and does nothing to degrade the quality of the album. The vocals do not sound "paper thin", quite the opposite, especially when played through speakers with decent output. The guitars are (at least to my ear) quite technical and even throw in a few well done solos. The bass is as you said, usually pretty low-key, but that is the genre norm. As for the drums, one would be hard pressed to find a better Metalcore drummer than Matt. Sure many of the progressive elements come across as measured, this is their first step out of the generic box. I do not find this boring, except for perhaps the drawn out intro to Meridian.



So, that is how I feel about Constellations in a nutshell. It is -in my opinion- a very well-done album by a very talented band.



I'm still waiting for that man hug...

cirq
December 24th 2009


9366 Comments

Album Rating: 4.5

you guys are cute together



You have to be logged in to post a comment. Login | Create a Profile





STAFF & CONTRIBUTORS // CONTACT US

Bands: A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z


Site Copyright 2005-2023 Sputnikmusic.com
All Album Reviews Displayed With Permission of Authors | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy