Album Rating: 2.0

I understand the appeal, but this honestly does nothing for me

Album Rating: 4.0

"Tightness" means nothing to me; nor did I mention anything about it. Reading through the comments,

you seem to be misinterpreting what some are saying("directionless vocals" for example).



You are alluding that this album has a typical pop structure. That is far from the truth.



_



And yes... rocks lol

Album Rating: 4.5

The songs seem straight forward to me. They're basically intro-verse-chorus-verse-chorus-bridge-chorus, and that's "pop format". (Though also technically most rock, too. I'll find the technical term for the format if you want, but it's the format most pop comes in, anyhow.) The vocals adhere to melodies, mostly catchy, and do not wander into offbeat scales or break their structures. So....



That's all I mean, so, if this isn't what you mean/I'm misunderstanding like you just said (hardcore likely), explain what you/some mean by directionless/meandering?

Album Rating: 2.0

They go everywhere, seeming to hit random notes.



The vocals aren't concise at all, and as for the catchiness part, I wouldn't know, I haven't got into this and likely never will.

While I really dig the vocals, I am starting to see where the meandering comments are coming from. They're strong, and the songs aren't structurally flawed, but the vocals always seem to be building to something and never really hitting that really epic moment everyone is waiting for... if that makes any sense.

Like listen to the first two second of Ninety-Nine. Literally the first few seconds make me think the song is going to be awesome... then it just falls into that same up and down vocal pattern that never really goes anywhere.

Hangin' On is definitely my highlight on this album. Could probably spend my entire 8 hour work shift listening to that song and be content.

Album Rating: 4.5

Pretty sure saying they hit "random notes" is literally inaccurate. They have melodic patterns they adhere to, they are not random.



They're not even all pentatonic like they were on their first album.



Eh, if you dislike them, I can't convince you to like them, so I don't really need to argue the science of it all. I just got confused by the statements.

Literally inaccurate

Album Rating: 2.0

Usually when I feel like the vocals are random and direction-less, I haven't gotten into them yet.



But eh don't feel like subjecting myself more to this stuff.

Album Rating: 4.5

Literally inaccurate, which is to say, on a technical level, not an "my opinion" level. (Probably still a misuse of "literally", I'm guilty of that habit.)



Yeah, it's totally fair if they're no good for you. I've felt that way about plenty of bands.

CUTMAN, you must really like this album! I sincerely apologize, but I'm with many of the other peoples comments. Keep spinning it if you're enjoying the music though.

Album Rating: 3.5

The vocalist sounds like he is singing for a radio hard rock band, even a pop-rock band, yet the

rest of the music is metalcore. I think he sounds aimless because his style doesn't MATCH UP very

well with the other instruments, but that doesn't make him not enjoyable. I actually think it is a

great way to train the mind to accept more variance from the expected.



On my second listen, I am welcoming the vocals a little bit more. It is a change from the norm with

most technical metalcore, and for that I find it interesting. Retainer Sacrifice is a perfect

example of how this mashup CAN work very well. It works in this song because the guitar progressions

are a bit more on the positive side, just as the vocals. Woe, Is Me doesn't come close to the

enjoyability it brings.

Album Rating: 4.0

They're basically intro-verse-chorus-verse-chorus-bridge-chorus



I think your giving modern pop a bit too much credit here.



This album also does some interesting things structurally. I rarely feel like I can predict the next

section because of how the band spaces out transitions. Just because something follows a verse-chorus-

bridge structure doesn't mean it's typical. There are other important aspects that culminate into

structure.

Album Rating: 3.5

I keep saying this, but Retainer Sacrifice is excellent.

Album Rating: 4.5

@Conorman11

Oh, hah, no need to apologize. I'm just a stickler for technical details, I discuss them to hell and back, I'm not trying to fight people into digging the album like I dig it or anything.



And to Nonapplicable; you make a good point, even within that structure, very non-typical things can occur.

damn didn't know everyone in this band was so FAT

Album Rating: 2.0

can't get into this

Album Rating: 3.5

*gasp!!!* you must not like fun!!

Album Rating: 2.0

fun is overrated

Album Rating: 3.5

*GASP!!*

fun rules, their first album did anyway.