Somehow I highly doubt that, but alright.

Album Rating: 2.0

And reading this review for the first time in over 24 hours, I will admit later on that my continuation of the metaphor comes off as if it's haphazardly forced in. That yes, I ramble.

Album Rating: 4.0

Let's just talk about how awesome the chorus of "Satellite" is, like holy shit those vocals are catchy.

Album Rating: 2.0

I just can't get behind them.

Album Rating: 2.0

"Frequency" is better.

Album Rating: 3.0

Frequency is better [2]

Goddamit the ratings for this are all over the place, I even see some 5s there :/

Album Rating: 4.0

Frequency is definitely better than Satellite but holy shit Satellite is still fantastic.

Album Rating: 5.0

We all agree Ricochet is hands down the best song on the album right

Album Rating: 3.0

no, it's probably the worst

I don't even think this album is that terrible - granted it's a bit by-numbers but it's produced well enough, some of the guitar work is quite reminiscent of Fightstar which is a big positive for me. Vocals aren't groundbreaking but they suit the style and I wouldn't agree that they lack character...
I totally get the Transformers referencing, even if it was a bit overdone, but I think my main criticism of the review is that when you do talk about the music I don't feel you explain what the negative aspects actually are - I think a lot of the criticisms you level at this record could be said of countless similar bands in the genre, but then I guess that ties in to how sound-a-like to their contemporaries it is!

Still a pos, because I think considering the effort that clearly went into this, you've been dealt a fair bit of shit, but I'd just try and take it on the chin rather than arguing for the sake of it.

Constructive criticism....
(top tip 1: if you write reviews on a public website where basically anyone can contribute and has an accompanying comments section for that purpose you need to be prepared for the consequences
top tip 2: arguing with people in an indignant way who don't like your review is asking for trouble)

"Ohio-based"
no hyphen needed

"it’s as if Bay commissioned the group to compose an accompanying dramatic score worthy of Hollywood’s notoriously bombastic director"
it’s as if Bay commissioned the group to compose an accompanying dramatic score worthy of his notoriously bombastic directorial style

"to that would-be end"
to that end

" effects, and "
comma before an and

"transmute it horribly right to music"
you transmute into something not 'horribly right to'

"produced by a big budget"
produced with the aid of a big budget

"Bay’s Transformers sequel Revenge of the Fallen sucked and pretty much everything else that followed"
Bay’s Transformers sequel Revenge of the Fallen sucked and so did pretty much everything else that followed

"pouts to Shia LaBeouf"
pouts to Shia LaBeouf and says

"thanks to Bay’s keen pyromaniac and voyeuristic direction."
a pyromaniac is a type of person, you can't use the word in a sentence in that way

"Paramount and Dreamworks and the film’s producers "
two ands

"never exit out the other side"
just say never emerge

"They only work great if you want"
lose the great

"He lacks the charisma and strength of a Michael Barnes, Benjamin Burnley, Jared Leto, Chino Moreno or other peers and inspirations to do so."
makes no sense

"To compensate for his relative weakness, his vocals are overly layered and auto-tuned throughout the 70-minute, 15-track run-time."
In order to compensate for his weak vocals he incorporates excessive vocal layering and uses auto-tune as a crutch throughout the album.

Gave up there.
Many of your paragraphs start illogically.
It's a very heavy read overall, not much flow.

Open up your minds and heart to something different. The messiah is never loved by his own people though. Found the album to my liking and still savoring it.

Album Rating: 2.0

@MercurytoHell



Noted. The Transformers references was intended as a way to link back and emphasize the main thesis, namely this was basically a musical equivalent to a Bay's Transformers movie. Yes, some of the references were awkwardly placed in and could have been put in more smoothly. Judging by menwati's thorough scrutiny below, there was a lot of sloppiness to fix and tightening to do throughout, much about which I'm genuinely embarrassed and humbled. His criticisms, though pedantic, make the point that I need to slow down and return to the basics of writing again.



My main line of criticism about the music was that it took a Micheal Bay-sized, Hollywood blockbuster approach to a sequel. It was bigger, louder and double-downed on its idiosyncracies, some of which I think were weaknesses to begin with, instead of trying to reign them in. Perhaps my subsequent examples, the sappy science-themed lyrics, more effects on Bates already mediocre voice and the increase of electronic atmosphere over the rock base, weren't clearly connected to that line of criticism in the review, hence your and others' confusion.



As for the arguing, that's because I have a background in philosophy -- you publish something; people criticize it; you respond to their criticisms, especially if you think they misrepresent or misunderstand your work. That's what I was trying to do. I wasn't arguing for the sake of arguing. It was an attempt at conversation. I acknowledged some of the criticism as valid, multiple times, but that was summarily ignored, and when I responded in kind in tone to someone denouncing the thing as a "chore" to read, that was treated as beyond the pale.



Do I think Sputnik is still cliquish? In general, yes. Do I think there's a lot of just drive-by criticizing, much of which isn't helpful nor constructive because they give a vague or general assessment without bothering to specifically point out in the actual text where they think you erred or elaborate on their criticism? Yep. Therefore, do I think most of this drive-by criticism is done self-indulgently and out of a sense of selfish empowerment? Most definitely. It's the Internet; it's naive to think otherwise.



All I can do is better next time. Thanks for your comment.

I saw an argument start and I stopped reading half way through. I think criticism is great (hell my first review got crushed on the first post). However, I do feel people are motivated by whether they like the record as well. Which means that there are loads of people (not everyone) who just hate your review because fuck you the album rocks. They then turn to finding anything they can wrong with the review itself and attack the reviewer. Identifying these and their uselessness, and more importantly not indulging these will go a long way.

Personally, although this review had its flaws.
It was so damn refreshing and honest.
Use the actual constructive criticism in between all the bullshit and keep it up man.

Jesus, this is horrible...

Whats with the negs in this review, its really good tbh. This album is a special kind of awful.

Album Rating: 3.0

For anyone interested, Starset released a Version 2.0 of Bringing It Down. The production of the entire song was completely enhanced, making the guitars have a clearer sound, increased orchestration, added vocal harmonies, and just an overall improvement of the song.

https://youtu.be/tcDzXDmfpXQ

I'm probably the only one interested in hearing that lol l Still think this is a great record.

Album Rating: 3.0

Glad to see someone else who likes the record. I was pleasantly surprised with the redone version of Bringing It Down because the original was my favorite from the record. They took what was already good and made it better