|
| |
|
|
|
Review Summary: Very well made album. Combines electronic and hard hitting rock well without overdoing either side. Three Days Grace has become well known for their punchy guitars, hard hitting drums, and amazing vocals from Adam Gontier. However, the problem with these kinds of bands is that they often do not experiment with their sound at all, or they experiment way more than they should. Though Korn is an amazing band, their most recent album, The Path of Totality, was a drastic change from their recognizable Nu-Metal sound.
Transit of Venus is an experimentation with the rapidly growing electronic genre, while keeping the hard hitting post-grunge sound that Three Days Grace fans are used to. These are two genres, in my opinion, that should rarely mingle together simply because of the radically different sound. It's like combining rap and metal. It can be done successfully (Rage Against the Machine) or it can be done somewhat well (Linkin Park). I would say Three Days Grace has successfully combined the two genres, without overdoing either the rock or the synths.
When Chalk Outline was release, I do admit I was a little shaky on how it would work out. I've loved Three Days Grace even when they were named Groundswell. Their change in sound is impressive. However, I was worried that, like Korn, they would overdo the electronic side and therefore change their sound completely. However, thankfully, they did not do this. Yes, their sound is different. But change is not always bad. I would rather have Three Days Grace explore new sounds and their potential as an influential Post-Grunge band than have them write 4 albums with the same 5 chords, you know?
Not everyone is going to love this album. However, I think true Three Days Grace fans will appreciate the new exploration in sound, while keeping to the similar crunchy rock that fans are used to. This probably won't win an Album of the Year award (especially since Three Days Grace, though mainstream, is still rather unknown), however it is a very well made album, and it is worthy of at least 4 stars. It's no masterpiece, but very few albums are.
| other reviews of this album |
|
Album Rating: 3.0
"(especially since Three Days Grace, though mainstream, is still rather unknown)"
Yeah they are, dude.
| | |
Though Korn is an amazing band
hahahahahhahahahahaha
| | |
Your review is good tbh. You describe the record well enough. There are some grammar errors (*punctuation*), but it is ok. Just one thing:
When Chalk Outline was release
*released.
| | | Album Rating: 1.5
Pretty bad review. Not enough description and too much generalization.
Album sucks too
| | |
dude, it is his 1st.
Album sucks too
subjectivity?
| | | Album Rating: 1.5
Well obviously the sucking part is my own opinion.
And, yeah it's his first... so what? I've seen fantastic first reviews and awful 50th reviews. I didn't neg him but this is not a good review. You glean almost nothing from this review... one paragraph (the second) gives commentary (never mind any specific songs to prove his point) for the TS and then the review continues to meander pointlessly about stuff that isn't pertinent to the album.
| | |
The word however is used a few times too many here. Also, this is also the barest of bones review. You say you think the album is good, but you don't really back up your opinions at all.
| | | Album Rating: 4.0
Guys, I'm not perfect at review writing. I'm not trying to pick apart the album one second at a time, I'm giving it a review of why I liked the album. You don't have to agree or disagree with me. This is simply my opinion. Thank you for the constructive criticism, I'll take it under consideration.
| | |
What is this I don't even. Also if you write a review instead of just posting a comment then be prepared to be attacked, even if they are "just your opinion, man"
| | |
Its cool, you are still figuring shit out. Maybe try for a little more descriptions next time. If the album does something you like, give an example or two of what it is. Same for negative stuff. You don't have to go super in depth, but you also don't really want to be too vague either.
| | | Album Rating: 1.5
'Guys, I'm not perfect at review writing.'
The rest is unnecessary. No one expects you to be perfect, and no one has told you to go jump off
the rails and never write another review ever again. Criticism is just criticism. Get used to it not
being sugar-coated. What did you want me to say? "Hey, great first review but try to be more
specific next time!" ...Are you ten? I'm not going to hold your hands, and I'm not going to be
disingenuous to help you feel better.
And for the record, when you submit a review to a public forum, you invite criticism. And when that
forum is Sputnik, you will be judged by Sputnik standards of what constitutes a good review, and be
criticized (or praised) as such. One such standard is specificity. It's too easy to write bullshit
under the pretense of just describing the overall effect---seriously, what makes me think you've
listened to the album? You just say, "they add electronics and it sounds good surprisingly." Maybe
this will fly elsewhere, but here people will generally disapprove
| | |
Damn, dude.
Harsh tones.
| | | Album Rating: 1.5
Yeah, I didn't like the guy's attitude of "I'm not perfect" and "It's just my opinion." It's a bullshit copout people use to avoid taking criticism for their work.
It was probably too harsh though and I don't like being that guy. Can we pretend this was a good cop/bad cop routine?
| | |
transit of penis
| | |
Well, when you put it that way... Sure.
| | | Album Rating: 2.0
this album needs more ratings
| | |
This band still makes albums? I thought they had their five minutes of fame already.
| | | Album Rating: 1.5
"this album needs more ratings"
Done bro.
| | |
| |
