|
Album Rating: 3.5
My Questions is fucking sweet.
| | | Album Rating: 4.0
"Eeeeeeeeeverybody's fappin all over this for some reason."
God you speak as if your opinion is law or something.
| | | Album Rating: 2.5
"he's basing the rating more off of technicality and less on songwriting."
That's not true at all. I have a whole paragraph dedicated to the lack of dynamics I found in the album, and dynamics has to do with songwriting, not technicality. Nowhere in the review did I say that the riffs weren't TECHNICAL enough. I just said they weren't GOOD enough.
"like what i basically got from the review is that you didn't like the band before, and you don't like chugs and metalcore in general."
Again, not true. I don't really know where you got that, because I love metalcore when it's good, just like I love any other genre when it's good. I gave this album a negative review because in my opinion, it's not good metalcore.
| | | Album Rating: 2.5
"the reason the review sucks is because of how over opinionated it is"
"Over opinionated"? What the fuck does that mean? Should my review be based less on my opinion? And if so, what should it be based on then? Facts? Music is subjective, bro.
"none of the things he says are very valid,"
please elaborate on this
| | | Album Rating: 3.5
"Over opinionated," means that the review is more based on opinion than an objective analysis of the music you're listening to. Obviously it has to be somewhat based on your opinion, but the majority of this is just a gross exaggerations of any flaws you could find with the album whatsoever.
| | | Album Rating: 2.5
"gross exaggerations of any flaws you could find with the album whatsoever."
Actually, THAT is a gross exaggeration. My main beefs with the album were the lack of dynamics (which is connected to the generic/uninspired riffing), and the fact that all those fun little quirks in some songs don't last long enough. Those are TWO main flaws, and I really don't see how they come across as looking like "gross exaggerations."
| | | Album Rating: 3.5
And now the under-exaggeration of the previous ridiculous exaggerations. bravo.
| | | Album Rating: 2.5
"There’s hardly a passage on the album that has any real power or emotion, because there’s no build-ups, climaxes, or calm-downs. What you see is what you get with Dead Throne; when you hear a riff at the beginning of a song, that’s as loud and powerful as it’s ever gonna get. The only song that actually layers different sounds, adding more and more until the song finally peaks, is “Chicago,” which, incidentally, is the best song on the album."
"Another negative aspect of the album is the fact that virtually all its ambition, especially in terms of musicianship, lies in short, insignificant passages. Dead Throne only has quirky, nothing truly impressive."
Those are summaries of my two main beefs with the album. Tell me exactly how those are exaggerations.
| | |
There’s hardly a passage on the album that has any real power or emotion, because there’s no build-ups, climaxes, or calm-downs.
If you really think this, you obviously haven't listened to it. That's just... bullshit. I'm sorry.
All the things the songs consist of are laid out for all to see at the very beginning, leaving no surprises, and no special treats at the end.
So... They've progressed and gotten better... yet that doesn't "surprise" you? I don't understand.
| | | Album Rating: 2.5
"If you really think this, you obviously haven't listened to it. That's just... bullshit. I'm sorry."
I don't what else to say to that other than that during the times I listened to it, I heard no noticeable build-ups, climaxes, or calm-downs (besides Chicago, and that part at the end of Constance, that that other guy pointed out to me). The songs start chugging, they keep chugging, and they end chugging.
"So... They've progressed and gotten better... yet that doesn't "surprise" you? I don't understand. "
What does that mean? First off, that sentence is talking about the structure of the songs, not the progression of the band itself. But even if I was talking about the band, I wouldn't necessarily be "surprised" by the band getting better. I mean, with their fourth album, I would hope they'd be a little better than awful.
| | | Album Rating: 3.5
"There’s hardly a passage on the album that has any real power or emotion"
Yeah dude, totally objective reviewing.
| | |
The build up to the breakdown in the middle of R.I.T. has an extremely noticeable build up. Now that I think about it.. I hear buildups to a lot of the ones on this album. You can't always have build ups. If you overdo build ups, that's when you become predictable. You obviously know what's about to happen when there's a buildup in any metalcore song.
I don't understand you though, seriously. I didn't neg this, but I just feel like I'm reading bias and dislike of the genre. I don't understand how you can say this has progressed and be generic, when honestly.. no metalcore band has been able to make an album like this as effectively as tdwp has. That's just me, but I don't hear anything similar to them out there right now. Seriously.
| | | Album Rating: 2.5
A review is the opinion of the person who wrote the review. IN MY OPINION, the album hardly has any passages that have any real power or emotion. That is what I heard, that is what I think, that is what I wrote. Just because you disagree with me does not mean that I'm not reviewing objectively.
| | |
Okay, well a lot of people obviously don't hear the same things that you do.
If I were to review a Converge album right now and say it sounds like Design The Skyline, you would call me fucking stupid, right? Well, it can't be fucking stupid if I claimed that that was exactly what I heard, by your logic... right?
| | |
I don't what else to say to that other than that during the times I listened to it, I heard no noticeable build-ups, climaxes, or calm-downs (besides Chicago, and that part at the end of Constance, that that other guy pointed out to me). The songs start chugging, they keep chugging, and they end chugging.
except you only addressed half the question
Edit: you (sort of) did in a subsequent comment, I guess
| | | Album Rating: 2.5
There's a difference between CLAIMING that you heard something and actually hearing something. In that case, you would be lying about what you heard, which would thus make that statement invalid.
| | |
You don't know that though. What I hear and what you hear may be 2 completely different things. It's technically the same thing.. because I hear a really good fucking album, hence my 4.5, and somehow you hear something average, hence your 2.5. If it's subjective, it can't be true or false by your logic. So me saying Converge sounds like Design the Skyline couldn't technically be considered false, because it's all subjective, right? Not that I actually think that by any means, I'm just making an example.
Not trying to jump all up on your dick man, but I'm just saying.. don't complain about people not liking your negative review of an album that isn't disliked, and then refuse to give valid points to back up your arguments. That's all I'm saying.
| | | Album Rating: 3.5
A review is the opinion of the person who wrote the review. IN MY OPINION, the album hardly has any passages that have any real power or emotion. That is what I heard, that is what I think, that is what I wrote. Just because you disagree with me does not mean that I'm not reviewing objectively.
lmfao yr dumb
| | | Album Rating: 2.5
Well, I guess you are right. I mean, I think the only way someone could think that Converge sounds like DTS is if they've never heard anything metal-related before, but I get what you're saying. And you're right.
I don't believe I ever complained about people not liking my review, though. All those early comments about negs and stuff were just fucking around, lol. And I also believe I've backing myself up pretty well..
| | | Album Rating: 2.5
"lmfao yr dumb"
this guy disagrees with me he's dumb guise
| | | |
|
|
