Jump to content

Recommended Posts

F hell 64 on metacritic that went down quickly.

 

Having taken a look at the mixed reviews, I truly think that the majority of them are biased and written with an agenda. It's like they're just looking to find a reason to bash the album, from the tired gripe of the sound being oversized and the band not taking themselves seriously, to some ridiculous things like Matt's voice not being clear on Propaganda and Break It to Me, to the lyrics being confusing and stuff like that. It really irks me that it seems like hating on Muse has become a thing among these critics. And the sarcastic tone of some of these reviews, I mean, the nerve of them. Some of them have even talked about how the album will surely divide the fanbase because of all the electronic elements and so on. Oh, please, we don't need you guys to worry about us. We're fine!

Edited by Magnolia86
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Neither of those warrant calling them ‘clones’ or examples of the band repeating themselves though imo. That’s just two small moments in Blockades echoing B&H slightly and GUAF/Revolt is really only in tone, there’s not much musically similar to them to my ears.

you are right, clone is the wrong word, just a convenient shorthand at the time. More accurately would be described as a black and white xerox of a xerox of an original colour, since the ones they mimic are superior tracks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BHAR is the only Muse album to really get critical acclaim. I think Abso and Origin are looked upon a bit more favourably in retrospect, but not enough for people to really get down to legacy reviewing them.

 

I’d say Origin was their best reviewed album tbh. There was a Guardian review that was fairly infamously bad but all other outlets I’ve found gave it between 8-10/10, think the band might have mentioned how it was well received critically around the 2011 anniversary shows as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Neither of those warrant calling them ‘clones’ or examples of the band repeating themselves though imo. That’s just two small moments in Blockades echoing B&H slightly and GUAF/Revolt is really only in tone, there’s not much musically similar to them to my ears.

 

Agreed.

 

If anything Blockades bares more similarities to the Handler than Butterflies and Hurricanes - the drumming in the solo, the progression in the verses, some of the vocal phrasing - but even then they're very loose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having taken a look at the mixed reviews, I truly think that the majority of them are biased and written with an agenda. It's like they're just looking to find a reason to bash the album, from the tired gripe of the sound being oversized and the band not taking themselves seriously, to some ridiculous things like Matt's voice not being clear on Propaganda and Break It to Me, to the lyrics being confusing and stuff like that. It really irks me that it seems like hating on Muse has become a thing among these critics. And the sarcastic tone of some of these reviews, I mean, the nerve of them. Some of them have even talked about how the album will surely divide the fanbase because of all the electronic elements and so on. Oh, please, we don't need you guys to worry about us. We're fine!

 

Hahah, so ture.

Also, they are so repetitive. Every single album they're hating on the same things. I think it's just boring.

 

I wouldn't put too much value on reviews personally, it's usually a bunch of nitpickers who write them (coming from somebody who reviewed albums).

 

My thoughts exactly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I personally hear some traces of MK Ultra and Uprising in Blockades.

 

Verses have some vocal melody similarities with MK Ultra, although its perhaps a bit subtle, and the word "raze" in the chorus sounds very similar in tone to Uprisings "degrading"..

Wouldn't call it very similar overall though.

 

I wish they could've done something with the choruses though, especially the last one. Changing drum pattern or whatever. It just get slightly too repetitive and boring, you kind of wait for something to happen.

I like when a song go somewhere else further down the line -- like Dead Inside or The Handler to mention two more recent examples. Simulation Theory has a few too many cases of un-imaginative song structures, with a third more or less identical chorus at the end.

Algoritm has a very cool, tasteful and effectful structure though, that continues to build up and develop from the beginning to the end -- without repeating itself more than necessary.

 

One of the better songs overall though, for sure. It has the tone I overall miss elsewhere on the album (thankfully also present in Algoritm, my absolute favourite, as well as The Dark Side and The Void).

Edited by Dysfunco
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I actually agree largely with the Sputnik Music review. I think I like the ones they also liked more than them, but also essentially agree on their opinion. It's pretty well-written and seems to be by someone who doesn't have a bone to pick with the band.

 

https://www.sputnikmusic.com/review/78375/Muse-Simulation-Theory/

 

They don't like the Void, so they're wrong.

 

Other than that, it's a bit harsh, but largely on point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I actually agree largely with the Sputnik Music review. I think I like the ones they also liked more than them, but also essentially agree on their opinion. It's pretty well-written and seems to be by someone who doesn't have a bone to pick with the band.

 

https://www.sputnikmusic.com/review/78375/Muse-Simulation-Theory/

 

A damp, muffled thud describes this album perfectly

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...