Album Rating: 2.0 | Sound Off

My argument is something more like, "this Sevendust album is consistent in every way with the sound Sevendust has established (the riffs, Morgan's drumming, Lajon's vocals, the melodies, etc etc.), therefore, this album delivered what should have been expected.

"omfg this thread is great"

It's been endlessly entertaining for me.

"Ah I see, you have consistency and expectations confused with quality. They are all not the same. I’ve gone to length to explain (and re-explain) that All I See Is War doesn’t meet the standards that would see them with a better score on this review. You’re either missing every point that comes up or don’t understand what the criticism means.



By all means keep shitposting, it’s only going to help those google rankings you pointed out."

I guess this will have to do. I appreciate you not just calling me an asshole and walking away. I still feel unsatisfied, but there's nowhere to go from here except in circles.

Album Rating: 2.0 | Sound Off

Lol Bloon, what’s not to love about you haha

Album Rating: 3.5 | Sound Off

Ajs723 clearly has never heard the saying “it is what it is”.

Album Rating: 4.0

Well, I think this is a great album. Most of the fans keep expecting a return to the ol' nu-metal that made them different from all the band at that time.. But they changed. Accept that. It will get a lot easier to understand their sound.



Alpha was my first Sevendust album. And I'm very glad that they managed to evolve their new sound beyond that.

Don't get me wrong, I loved the classic Sevendust. Animosity is still a great album. But I believe that if they try to come back to a genre that they're not used to anymore, they can suffer the same fate that Papa Roach. And that would be very sad to hear..

Album Rating: 2.0 | Sound Off

Accept that. It will get a lot easier to understand their sound.

Album Rating: 3.0

I agree with Dominum, not much is brought to the table. My rating is quite biased because I love Sevendust, but I'll probably lower it to 3.5.

I don't see though how accepting the "change in sound" would make this album any better than it is. The idea of change doesn't affect the quality of the sound.

Wow accounts were made to defend this record. What a thread.

Album Rating: 2.0 | Sound Off

Shots fired apparently

Ajs723 took it upon himself to write a novel itt I guess. Wonder whose alt he was

I gotta revisit cause I remember digging the single, but never jammed the full album. And I used to a big fan of them by the time of their debut. (Missed on the 10 albums that came later lol)

Album Rating: 3.0

definitely check it out, I dug this album quite a bit and it’s got a good sound for sure. If you haven’t checked out their previous work, give Animosity a shot, it’s by far my favorite from them

i dig this. lajon has a great voice

This bland

Album Rating: 3.5

I know I'm late to this "party," but I couldn't let this review go without some comments. The review is poorly written, and I disagree with its substance.



The reviewer seems to be going out of his way to bash the album. It feels as though someone really tried to get out a thesaurus to impress his readers, rather than focusing on clearly articulating something substantive.



The reviewer's first sentence describes Sevendust having been a "staple flavour," a phrase that is redundant, because "staple" describes an important or main element, whereas "flavour" describes the essence of something. The reviewer's second sentence describes the band's "somewhat unique" edge, also an oxymoron, because one is either unique or not. One cannot be somewhat unique much like one cannot be somewhat pregnant.



I could keep going, but I don't want this to devolve into a semantic exercise, so I'll keep my criticisms of the style of the review to just the first paragraph.



As for the substance: The reviewer’s main criticisms appear to be that despite its anthemic guitars, relevant lyricism, and “an emotive range that capitulated [sic]” the band’s essence, the band appears to be doing the same thing it’s been doing for years and that the album, therefore, lacks originality (described in numerous redundancies -- “recycled,” “the same, ”rehashed” “deviates … only just a little,” etc.) In addition, the album is, according to the reviewer, “monotonous” and “watered down” compared to the band's prior efforts.



I simply disagree with this assessment. I’m not a long-time Sevendust fan, but after listening to this album, I went back and listened to a few of the band’s prior singles, none of which impress me nearly as much as at least half the songs on this album. So, to me, the album doesn’t appear recycled. Instead, I think it represents a band hitting full stride in its ability to craft consistently melodious tracks. I think this album is on the cusp of greatness. All that’s missing is a few good guitar solos.

Album Rating: 2.0 | Sound Off

Seems I've not visited this thread in a while. To continue/reiterate:



"The review is poorly written, and I disagree with its substance."



Interesting take. Did you read past the first few sentences? There's detail here to be read by anyone that's (honestly) not thick in the head. I didn't go out of my way to "bash" the album - - and I've said repeatedly that I'm a fan of the band so...



"tried to get out a thesaurus to impress his readers,"



Or... the reviewer knows a couple more words other than "great, poor, pretty and poo"? You're on a review site, with words and not all of them are shorter than five characters...



You've also taken the next few parts out of context (giving you the benefit of the doubt that you actually understand what you're trying to take apart...)

Album Rating: 2.0 | Sound Off

"but I don't want this to devolve into a semantic exercise"



Sounds like a cop-out. If you want to have a proper discussion - now's the time.



"As for the substance: "



Taking pockets of information out of context and dropping them with a worldly tone into a comment thread isn't the same as criticism. You've obviously found my issues with the album (which is opinion after all) so your complaints about substance (as you put it) kind of make you sound like a jack arse.



"I’m not a long-time Sevendust fan, but after listening to this album, I went back and listened to a few of the band’s prior singles, none of which impress me nearly as much as at least half the songs on this album. So, to me, the album doesn’t appear recycled."



Sure, you just admitted you listened to this in the reverse/opposite context to which this review entails and that you're not a long time fan (which we can only assume a lack of prior knowledge) - - also, yay for opinions...

Album Rating: 3.5

I feared that, given your (Nocte) previous Trumpian responses to other posts, any criticism, however mild, would degenerate into the type of semantic discussion and personal attacks I was actually trying to avoid. I'll just respond briefly here, and for a final time, given that you largely misunderstood my previous post, though that is, at least to some extent, my fault.



"Did you read past the first few sentences?"



If you had read my actual post, which quoted from various parts of your review, you could easily deduce the correct answer here.



"There's detail here to be read by anyone that's (honestly) not thick in the head." I read the details, but they are, as I pointed out, repetitive and poorly phrased and argued.



Also, you missed my point about the thesaurus, though, admittedly, I should have been more clear on that. It's understandable that even those who aren't (honestly) thick in the head, may have missed what I was trying to say.



To be clear, when I said that the review appeared to have been written by someone who had grabbed a thesaurus, it wasn't a compliment. I was trying to point out, without being too mean about it, that you appeared to be using words without understanding their meaning. So I wasn't trying to describe you as sesquipedalian, but as a malapropist. 1/2

Album Rating: 3.5

For example, you wrote about “an emotive range that capitulated” the band’s essence. Clearly (again, for anyone not thick in the head) you did not mean "capitulated." You meant encapsulated, in the sense of "epitomized" -- not "capitulated," which means "to surrender" or "to acquiesce."



Your review is littered with such errors, as well as redundancies and logical incongruencies.



I really did not want to delve into such matters, because a post about your being a poor writer isn't very interesting (which, I fear, includes the post I'm writing currently). The more interesting part for me was simply that your review lacked an epistemological purity -- and that, as I've said, I disagreed with its substance, in the few places where substance could be found.



In addition, your replies, which consist primarily of goading, strawmanning and other pestiferous behavior, underscore that you have no interest in an actual discussion.



So let me end our exchange (though I doubt that your personality will allow this post to go unchallenged), by writing -- and please excuse my splenetic eructation -- that your obviously perfidious attitude toward me (and anyone else who dares to disagree with you) put me in a mood that can, at best, be described as atrabilious, or perhaps even lugubrious. 2/2

Dude talks about getting a thesaurus out and uses words like perfidious, pestiferous, and atrabilious lol