Album Rating: 1.5 | Sound Off

--to the level of the bass guitar, to the length of the actual album (how short of an album would it have taken for you to be okay with it if you hate it that much?),--



I'll take this one in two parts:

a] These are things worth critical analysis are they not? Dependant on subjective to objective opinion on the topic at hand. I mean if they supplement why a person/reviewer may think about a certain sound/scene/track/theme or otherwise; should it be ignored either positively or (or in this case) negatively? For the same reasons we may gush about sections of music in a 4.5 or 5/5 review should we discard the same because it's at the other end of the scale?



b] Length of the album affects how much a person enjoys/doesn't enjoy an album. I offer Heaven Shall Burn's latest for an example; There are those who like what they hear, but have issues with the vast length - which, in turn effects their scoring either one way or the other. Personally, I'd shave two tracks or about ten minutes off this album - which would help prevent a lot of the 'blending' present.

Album Rating: 3.4

--Given both my scoring and reviewing criteria over the last few years especially any number of people familiar with those could have seen this coming.--

You're probably right, but I'm not too familiar with either of those so it seemed like one of those typical Sputnik "look at me while I shit on something everyone else is rating higher" kind of reviews. When you go against the grain, reviews have to be stronger than when you just say what everyone else is already thinking. No one is going to argue or look too closely when you confirm their own biases... and that goes both ways, really high and really low ratings.

Personally, I don't really care about this band. I like them when I hear them, but don't really ever play them on my own. I could hear ten songs from them and have no idea which albums they came from. It just seemed like an attention-type review, but if not, my apologies for sure.

Album Rating: 1.5 | Sound Off

--along with a lot of generalizations without really ever getting into what's actually wrong beyond a lack of innovation.--



My complaints towards this album are rather general if that makes sense? I'd rather not spend 2000 words on describing just how each particular track fits into these specifications and [more than likely] spend all that time repeating the same critical points using multiple examples to back the exact same points. Rather I'd let a reader take the gist here and apply it to a listen of the record. They may disagree; that's fine. Music is subjective after all - but (similar to questioning your 3's (another example) I'd love to hear their own justifications as to why they like album "A" or track "3".

Album Rating: 2.0

I hear what Willie is saying. When has ABR made an objectively 1.5 album, but music isn't objective is it? Also, this rating from Nocte, doesn't surprise me. It lines up with his prefs

Album Rating: 3.4

--These are things worth critical analysis are they not?--

They are, but they're buried in hyperbole like, "Guardians largely milks every generic nuance out of the metalcore genre without [ever] achieving even the same middling standards," and, "the band’s eighth studio effort milks a sour note out of a washed, generic soundscape that offers nothing to metalcore as a whole...", or especially, "Guardians is in fact a burning record; built on a foundation of collective musical hemorrhoids, prolapsing on the type of music most bands are trying to innovate, change, (or otherwise) improve on." There's a lot of grand statements but very little about the actual substance, so when you back up those kind of things by repeatedly mentioning that it's not innovative along with a line here about the bass volume and a line there about the vocals suffering the same production issue, everything kind of gets lost.



--Length of the album affects how much a person enjoys/doesn't enjoy an album. --

It doesn't really have much impact on the extreme ends of the rating spectrum. If you hate something, it will always be too long, and if you love something the length will be great -- and the rating will reflect that without it having to be said. It's in the middle where length might have an actual impact. Heaven Shall Burn's release would be a good example of where a middle-of-the-road rating would be affected by how long it is.

can we go back and recognise they peaked at leveller now

Album Rating: 1.5 | Sound Off

--It just seemed like an attention-type review, but if not, my apologies for sure.--



That wasn't my goal here. I write when things make sense to write about. Some albums are generally easy to talk about while others... not so much. I know you know this - you've been around the block once or twice.

Continuing on with this, I don't seek out 'against the grain' albums for review. I barely look at others' scoring and definitely don't read other reviews lest it unintentionally skew my rating. For this reason I feel I often avoid the 'sheep' mentality in regards to reviewing.



--There's a lot of grand statements but very little...--



I disagree. You've found my typical use of vague hyperbole (something I'm still trying to break out of my writing) but the points are all there, with (what I thought) enough physical points for a reader to reference. Judging by where this conversation is going, I'll take another look at the matter.



--If you hate something, it will always be too long, and if you love something the length will be great -- and the rating will reflect that.--



Personally, your summation over simplifies the issue here. From what I pick up our individual "how to rate an album" criteria is very different - and as far as all things considered, that's fine. For me, length does matter (I actually didn't mean to write this like that - have your chuckle). A great album may be short; but doesn't outstay it's welcome; tl;dr; the rating improves due to brevity.

Album Rating: 2.0

Great review, Noctebro. Never conform to anything, there isn't such a thing as objectivity in music taste anyways. Giving something you dislike or that bores you a low score is rational - regardless of how proficient the band is at playing their instruments, etc. And giving something you enjoy a lot a very high score is natural too - again regardless of how good the "objective musicianship" is, which is a bullshit concept in itself.

Album Rating: 3.4

Fair enough. You believe that length matters : )

Also, I didn't say a great album had to be a certain length. I said if you hate it, it will always be too long, and if you love it, the length will always be just right...



PS: I also never used the words 'objective' or 'subjective', and definitely never said you should adhere to one or the other.

“can we go back and recognise they peaked at leveller now”

That’s a weird way to spell Thrill Seeker

Album Rating: 2.5

why is it always in Nocte’s threads that musical arguments in the form of novels occur?

Album Rating: 1.5 | Sound Off

Because people get IQ tests before they're allowed to comment here.

Album Rating: 2.5

I shouldn’t be here then...

Album Rating: 2.5

“can we go back and recognise they peaked at leveller now”



Loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooool

Album Rating: 2.5

constellations is peak ABR, Leveller and Rescue to the Restore were the last two discs that were 3+



yeah I can't be fucked to listen to the same old shit by ABR. enough is enough

Not sure if I know the great albums in this genre. Name some. Ready go:

https://www.sputnikmusic.com/list.php?memberid=1034844&listid=165360

Oof...Jester...where to begin...

Album Rating: 2.0 | Sound Off

"can we go back and recognise they peaked at leveller now"

Nah

Album Rating: 3.5

all of their albums are too long.