Muse - Blackholes and Revelations

[Drew Beringer]

MUSE - Blackholes and Revelations

Since the release of their debut album, Muse has been viewed by many as Radiohead Jr. Sharing similar vocal techniques and overall sound, Muse didn’t receive very much exposure in the United States until the release of Absolution in 2003. The album received critical acclaim, yet the band was still seen as the poor man’s Radiohead. Now, with their 4th studio album, Blackholes and Revelations, Muse look to distance themselves from the Radiohead comparisons by adding a few new tricks to their huge arena rock sound. Produced by Rich Costey, (who also produced Absolution), Blackholes is an eleven track opus that balances the peaks and valleys very nicely, forming the album is a very smooth and atmospheric listening experience.

The album begins with a pulsating electric tone and a subtle bass note as Matt Bellamy’s voice starts very low and slowly rises and crescendos with the beat until that pulsating beat turns into a full-on assault of your ears. The jagged guitar riff from Bellamy along with Dominic Howard’s staggered drumming sets the pace for the rest of the track, as it continues to rise to arena rock standards. The next track, “Starlight,” takes the pace down a notch, instead incorporating a dancey synth chord with Chris Wolstenholme’s steady bass line. The song has a very new-wave feel to it. “Supermassive Black Hole” will make longtime fans do a double take upon first listen, as Muse tries out a bit of glam-rock. Bellamy’s silky falsetto carries this song. “Map Of The Problematique” changes the direction of the album, taking a turn into the industrial sound. Again, Howard’s tight drumming sets the tempo just right as Bellamy’s guitar jots up and down throughout. “Soldier’s Poem” takes the album into another valley, as this 2 minute ballad follows a simple guitar pluck and the band use group vocals in a way reminiscent to Queen. Muse keeps the pace down with the gentle “Invincible,” which features a steady marching drumbeat. After that break in rhythm, Bellamy and company finally amped it up again with the stadium-rocker, “Assassin,” as Bellamy’s guitar pierce through the thick bass of Wolstenholme, as this track is certain to get you moving. Muse again tampers into the dance craze, this time with the tango-tinged “City Of Delusion,” a track brings out the guitar and strings in full force and Bellamy’s voice balances between a commanding baritone and his shrieking tenor. The album closes with the epic “Knights Of Cydonia,” a track that darts from fuzzy guitar riffs to a galloping drum beat. This track is a great showcase of how talented this trio is at their instruments. After 2 minutes, Bellamy’s steady voice enters and the electronic effects add another dimension to this track. The second verse again channels Queen, as the backup vocals from Howard and Wolstenholme crescendo along with Bellamy’s voice, followed by a roaring guitar solo. “Knights” is one of the best songs Muse has ever written and it’s an exhilarating finish to this grandiose album.

After listening to this album, one can tell that Muse have shed the tag of being Radiohead’s little brother, as they do a fine job of incorporating different techniques and genres into their already explosive rock noise. Blackholes and Revelations is a beautiful album, as it perfectly positions the peaks and valleys of each track. They know when to bring it down a bit, as shown in “Soldier’s Poem,” as well as when to kick it up a notch, evident in “Assassin.” Muse does not dwell on one sound for very long, as they change up pitch, signatures, and tempos often. The only question that remains is, is this Muse’s best work? It’s hard to say after only a handful of listens, but I feel that Muse has raised the bar. Blackholes and Revelations is a brilliant piece of work, and should be a staple in many lists at the end of the year. Get out of your Blackhole and put this album at the top of your “must-buy” list.

Tracklisting:
1. Take A Bow
2. Starlight
3. Supermassive Black Hole
4. Map Of The Probelmatique
5. Soldier's Poem
6. Invincible
7. Assassin
8. Exo-Politics
9. City Of Delusion
10. Hoodoo
11. Knights Of Cydonia
Produced by: Rich Costey

Muse are:
Matt Bellamy - vocals/guitar
Chris Wolstenholme - bass
Dominic Howard - drums

Release Date: July 11, 2006
Record Label: Warner Brothers (http://www.warnerbrosrecords.com)

Official Website (http://www.muse.mu);Official Myspace (http://www.myspace.com/muse)

[jaimej]

Very impressive DrewB. <3

[Tony Pascarella]

and should be a staple in many lists at the end of the yearIs that a hint, Drewbie?

AOTY!

Just kidding; good review, man.

[Drew Beringer]

Is that a hint, Drewbie?

AOTY!

Just kidding; good review, man.
It's a guarantee in every review thread of mine these days, I'm used to it.

[moises_naruto]

you suck at writing reviews... enough said

[Steve Henderson]

Well-written review, but personally, this album piles it on way too thick for me. I feel like they are going so far out of their ways to mind-fuck me with all the shit going on with each track that it is almost hard to focus on the music.

Absolution >>>>>>>> Black Holes if you ask me :shrugs:

PS - Thanks for taking the review from me! I just said all I have to say about the record in that one post.

[Steve Henderson]

you suck at writing reviews... enough saidSome assholes might elaborate on a claim like that.

[underthetalking]

I need to pick this up now. Absolution and Origin of Symmetry are both fucking amazing.

[Drew Beringer]

you suck at writing reviews... enough said
hah thanks,

[unwritten]

you suck at writing reviews... enough said

Take it easy prick.

[jonbolden]

you suck at writing reviews... enough said

if you don't have any constructive conversation, please don't take up space.


An interesting review. I don't know much about the band's history and it was nice to have it wrapped up. Personally I would like to see them get away from their predictable intervals in the chord progression. Although they are catchy and very epic sounding, I sort of want to see them expand their overrall tone. I agree that they really keep stepping into their own corner, but I think it's just that-- a corner. Still a great sounding recording with monster sound. I don't mind all the extra stuff too, but I think someday they will pull it all together and really take that extra step into something truely original.

[CROMagnon]

i wholeheartedly agree, although you will probably abandon this view in a week ;)

[thexflamesxburn]

you suck at writing reviews... enough said
i thought it was good.

[unwritten]

I think this is a great album.

[dontgrabtindy]

this album is fantastic, and they are 204294204 times greated live, best live act out there

[domesticyeti]

great review.
album of the year for me so far.

and the knights of cydonia video is classic

[jonbolden]

i would love to see them live. i bet they are insane. i guess that's why everyone refers to them as arena rockers.. ha

[bradyreier]

very good review drew. i also love this album.

[Drew Beringer]

i wholeheartedly agree, although you will probably abandon this view in a week ;)
haha, nah this album is really good, it just took a while for it to grow on me, it's gonna be up on my list.

[Mitch]

Starlight is a fucking amazing song.

[hobbes2809]

im glad you gave it such a good review :thumbsup:

[FUCKDIRTYWIPES]

good review, great album.

[postpaintboy]

overrated. the pitchfork review nails this album.

[fluke182]

Love this album, which is why July 11th was Muse day for me personally. That was definitely the album I was most looking forward too. Good review, this is currently in my top 5 for the year.

[Fat Kid Running]

This album is sick.. why are other websites giving this album bad reviews?

[underthetalking]

I would fucking kill to see them live. I saw the Hullaballoo DVD and it just looks nuts. They need to tour the states.

[TheByrus]

best album of 06.

[jimboj917]

i would love to see them live. i bet they are insane. i guess that's why everyone refers to them as arena rockers.. ha

they're great live, but when i saw them there was no crowd interaction whatsoever. that's the only complaint i have though, they were otherwise amazing.

[CROMagnon]

haha, nah this album is really good, it just took a while for it to grow on me, it's gonna be up on my list.
that's good to know

good job

[trjlangdon]

I would fucking kill to see them live. I saw the Hullaballoo DVD and it just looks nuts. They need to tour the states.

They are very shortly

[perrone]

most overrated british band since oasis

[Garett Press]

score is quite generous, but i like the album a good deal

[leafsacc]

I laughed pretty hard when I saw USA Today gave it a bad review yesterday and said it was a mess of an album. Good review, I think you pretty much nailed it, I love this record.

[HoldFastHope]

score is quite generous, but i like the album a good deal

This album is 100 times better than anything Cartel has or will ever put out, so relatively it's too low. Someone needs to sit down and just decide exactly how each scale should be judged. If everything is judged against every other release, then the scores are very fucked up, but it's worse if they're simply judged in reference to their "niche". I'm just throwing in my 2 cents because I like the site, but reading some of the reviews and looking at how some reviewers go about scoring is an act in futility. A lot of times the scores are just completely skewed because someone gets too wrapped up in the band itself and the "niche" rather than looking at it objectively. I said this before, so just humor me, but if The Avalanche gets an 83 and you look at how well constructed every song is and how intricate the lyrics are, you really have to judge every other release on that basis. I know there are a bunch of different reviewers and that causes some discord, but I guess that's really the point I'm getting at; making just the scoring more formal would probably allow for more clarity. Say anything you want about how you love the band or love what they were trying to do in the actual review, but if you look at other releases and see holes in the one you're reviewing (comparatively) then you have to score accordingly. If you could care less what I'm saying or just wholeheartedly disagree, that's fine, but I figured I'd just try the constructive criticism approach rather than just some random snide remark.

[Steve Henderson]

This album is 100 times better than anything Cartel has or will ever put out, so relatively it's too low. Someone needs to sit down and just decide exactly how each scale should be judged. If everything is judged against every other release, then the scores are very fucked up, but it's worse if they're simply judged in reference to their "niche". I'm just throwing in my 2 cents because I like the site, but reading some of the reviews and looking at how some reviewers go about scoring is an act in futility. A lot of times the scores are just completely skewed because someone gets too wrapped up in the band itself and the "niche" rather than looking at it objectively. I said this before, so just humor me, but if The Avalanche gets an 83 and you look at how well constructed every song is and how intricate the lyrics are, you really have to judge every other release on that basis. I know there are a bunch of different reviewers and that causes some discord, but I guess that's really the point I'm getting at; making just the scoring more formal would probably allow for more clarity. Say anything you want about how you love the band or love what they were trying to do in the actual review, but if you look at other releases and see holes in the one you're reviewing (comparatively) then you have to score accordingly. If you could care less what I'm saying or just wholeheartedly disagree, that's fine, but I figured I'd just try the constructive criticism approach rather than just some random snide remark.
I appreciate the constructive criticism here - you articulate your view well. Let me try to explain what I think.

As a whole, I think it is almost impossible to get unity in the way that we score reviews. This is primarily due to the fact that we all have different tastes and also different demeanors. For example, a mediocre record for me might be a 70 while for someone else it might be a 50 or an 80. Nevertheless, it tends to be particular to a given reviewer, so it is best to compare reviews and scores across a given reviewer, not the site as a whole.

Also, I think the score itself is over-emphasized. More times than not, it does a TON more good to read the review and the substantiation behind the views than to put stock in a litte percentage box. For example, that score weights everything equally, but if lyrics are most important to you, then you will want to see what the reviewer has to say about lyrics. In the end, I guess you can make your own score, really.

[Garett Press]

This album is 100 times better than anything Cartel has or will ever put out, so relatively it's too low. Someone needs to sit down and just decide exactly how each scale should be judged. If everything is judged against every other release, then the scores are very fucked up, but it's worse if they're simply judged in reference to their "niche". I'm just throwing in my 2 cents because I like the site, but reading some of the reviews and looking at how some reviewers go about scoring is an act in futility. A lot of times the scores are just completely skewed because someone gets too wrapped up in the band itself and the "niche" rather than looking at it objectively. I said this before, so just humor me, but if The Avalanche gets an 83 and you look at how well constructed every song is and how intricate the lyrics are, you really have to judge every other release on that basis. I know there are a bunch of different reviewers and that causes some discord, but I guess that's really the point I'm getting at; making just the scoring more formal would probably allow for more clarity. Say anything you want about how you love the band or love what they were trying to do in the actual review, but if you look at other releases and see holes in the one you're reviewing (comparatively) then you have to score accordingly. If you could care less what I'm saying or just wholeheartedly disagree, that's fine, but I figured I'd just try the constructive criticism approach rather than just some random snide remark.
I understand your frustration but that is just impossible. How do you write a review for a Cartel record and a Mars Volta record and try to review them in the same way? Every record has a personality, and everyone interprets those personalities differently. It's not just a list of songs, where track 1 is universally an 8/10 etc. Even one reviewer couldn't do that in his own catalogue of reviews, let alone multiple reviewers.

How can you say this score is relatively too low because it's better than a Cartel record that got a high score? That's ridiculous. I feel that as a Muse record it has shortcomings, but I like it. But if I feel (and i don't) that the Cartel record is flawless, I can't give it a better score than Muse because Muse is automatically a better band?

There's no objectivity in art. A good reviewer can listen through a record, approximate a number that reflects how he or she feels about that record, and then go on to describe those feelings in some detail. No reviewer should have to go "Man, I LOVE this record, but in the scope of music, bands like Muse and Radiohead are just universally better, so I can't score this album higher than any of those bands' record."

[3 ninjas]

muse were never radiohead jr. people who thought that are idiots. its like this... Muse are virtuosos and Radiohead do a ton of drugs. Matt Bellamy was never a Thome York rip off. Radiohead are fuckin jealous, cause Muse owns their asses anyday, anyone who is smart or knows something about music knows this.

[perrone]

i think this website needs to get rid of all of the review categories and give it one number, and that's it

replayability? staying power? how in the world can you judge which records perform well in these categories when you've had it for around a week or two?

[perrone]

and artwork is just frivolous

[Steve Henderson]

i think this website needs to get rid of all of the review categories and give it one number, and that's it

replayability? staying power? how in the world can you judge which records perform well in these categories when you've had it for around a week or two?Some people already do this (Scott, myself now, Tony too I think).

As for replayability, that is short-term desire to pop it back in right after you're done. Easy enough.

Staying power is something I extrapolate from how my feelings have changed since I got the record to how I think I will feel after a few more weeks/months or whatever.

And yes, artwork should not be on there.

[Garett Press]

Agreed! One number to rule them all.

[perrone]

staying power isn't really something you can predict, though

when i first heard the new rise against, i was like oh sweet, they're good again...what if i reviewed it then?

after a week and a half i couldn't even listen to it

[Steve Henderson]

staying power isn't really something you can predict, though

when i first heard the new rise against, i was like oh sweet, they're good again...what if i reviewed it then?

after a week and a half i couldn't even listen to it
Well I know that I for one listen to an album for a week straight, nothing else before I will review it. That gives a pretty good idea.

[manican sex]

i think large magazine dont give good reviews whether its because they dont care or maybe i just cant relate to them as much as i can to you guys. whether you guys put it in terms that i get or just cuz im young like alot of you guys and i relate, i just think in general you guys do a great job with the reviews.

[HoldFastHope]

I understand your frustration but that is just impossible. How do you write a review for a Cartel record and a Mars Volta record and try to review them in the same way? Every record has a personality, and everyone interprets those personalities differently. It's not just a list of songs, where track 1 is universally an 8/10 etc. Even one reviewer couldn't do that in his own catalogue of reviews, let alone multiple reviewers.

How can you say this score is relatively too low because it's better than a Cartel record that got a high score? That's ridiculous. I feel that as a Muse record it has shortcomings, but I like it. But if I feel (and i don't) that the Cartel record is flawless, I can't give it a better score than Muse because Muse is automatically a better band?

There's no objectivity in art. A good reviewer can listen through a record, approximate a number that reflects how he or she feels about that record, and then go on to describe those feelings in some detail. No reviewer should have to go "Man, I LOVE this record, but in the scope of music, bands like Muse and Radiohead are just universally better, so I can't score this album higher than any of those bands' record."

So basically you answered my question with a question...all I'm saying is that there should be a formalized process rather than the hodgepodge there currently is.

I never said that Cartel deserves a lesser score because of the band's qualities, but I should've. There's a reason why they aren't as good: they don't create the same quality of music, they're less talented, the content is lacking, etc. I never said judge people based on one band, but rather judge the music based on its merits. If there's two pop-punk albums that are similar, but one is decidedly better, then give that the better score, but also then judge it on what the best scores have been and why (that's what I'm getting at). It's as if (with the scores) some reviewers are just throwing darts in the dark and seeing what they come up with.

"There's no objectivity in art." That's a cop-out. I don't like horror films, but I can surely break it down for its merits and tell you what it did well and what were its shortcomings. The same thing with music. Even if I don't like country music, I can at least listen and critique it without throwing in my feelings. Once again, I'm not saying give X's CD a better score because the band is just usually better than band Y. You give X the score it deserves based on a system due to its merits, which might include also reviewing the score you gave to the CD from Y. It's seems as if the system (or lack thereof) is disjointed, which leads to a lot of people getting pissed off about any given review. Sure, there will always be people who are not satisfied, but at least if you have a system, when they aren't satisfied you can point to A, B, and C to show them why you did what and how it's based. Again, I'm not a member of the staff or anything, but I visit the sit often and I constantly see people giving snide remarks and them being followed by "how about constructive criticism next time." Therefore, I felt as though I'd do so for once and give my thoughts. That's all.

[HoldFastHope]

I understand your frustration but that is just impossible. How do you write a review for a Cartel record and a Mars Volta record and try to review them in the same way? Every record has a personality, and everyone interprets those personalities differently. It's not just a list of songs, where track 1 is universally an 8/10 etc. Even one reviewer couldn't do that in his own catalogue of reviews, let alone multiple reviewers.

How can you say this score is relatively too low because it's better than a Cartel record that got a high score? That's ridiculous. I feel that as a Muse record it has shortcomings, but I like it. But if I feel (and i don't) that the Cartel record is flawless, I can't give it a better score than Muse because Muse is automatically a better band?

There's no objectivity in art. A good reviewer can listen through a record, approximate a number that reflects how he or she feels about that record, and then go on to describe those feelings in some detail. No reviewer should have to go "Man, I LOVE this record, but in the scope of music, bands like Muse and Radiohead are just universally better, so I can't score this album higher than any of those bands' record."
So basically you answered my question with a question...all I'm saying is that there should be a formalized process rather than the hodgepodge there currently is.

I never said that Cartel deserves a lesser score because of the band's qualities, but I should've. There's a reason why they aren't as good: they don't create the same quality of music, they're less talented, the content is lacking, etc. I never said judge people based on one band, but rather judge the music based on its merits. If there's two pop-punk albums that are similar, but one is decidedly better, then give that the better score, but also then judge it on what the best scores have been and why (that's what I'm getting at). It's as if (with the scores) some reviewers are just throwing darts in the dark and seeing what they come up with.

"There's no objectivity in art." That's a cop-out. I don't like horror films, but I can surely break it down for its merits and tell you what it did well and what were its shortcomings. The same thing with music. Even if I don't like country music, I can at least listen and critique it without throwing in my feelings. Once again, I'm not saying give X's CD a better score because the band is just usually better than band Y. You give X the score it deserves based on a system due to its merits, which might include also reviewing the score you gave to the CD from Y. It's seems as if the system (or lack thereof) is disjointed, which leads to a lot of people getting pissed off about any given review. Sure, there will always be people who are not satisfied, but at least if you have a system, when they aren't satisfied you can point to A, B, and C to show them why you did what and how it's based. Again, I'm not a member of the staff or anything, but I visit the site often and I constantly see people giving snide remarks and them being followed by "how about constructive criticism next time." Therefore, I felt as though I'd do so for once and give my thoughts. That's all.

[Steve Henderson]

So basically you answered my question with a question...all I'm saying is that there should be a formalized process rather than the hodgepodge there currently is.

I never said that Cartel deserves a lesser score because of the band's qualities, but I should've. There's a reason why they aren't as good: they don't create the same quality of music, they're less talented, the content is lacking, etc. I never said judge people based on one band, but rather judge the music based on its merits. If there's two pop-punk albums that are similar, but one is decidedly better, then give that the better score, but also then judge it on what the best scores have been and why (that's what I'm getting at). It's as if (with the scores) some reviewers are just throwing darts in the dark and seeing what they come up with.

"There's no objectivity in art." That's a cop-out. I don't like horror films, but I can surely break it down for its merits and tell you what it did well and what were its shortcomings. The same thing with music. Even if I don't like country music, I can at least listen and critique it without throwing in my feelings. Once again, I'm not saying give X's CD a better score because the band is just usually better than band Y. You give X the score it deserves based on a system due to its merits, which might include also reviewing the score you gave to the CD from Y. It's seems as if the system (or lack thereof) is disjointed, which leads to a lot of people getting pissed off about any given review. Sure, there will always be people who are not satisfied, but at least if you have a system, when they aren't satisfied you can point to A, B, and C to show them why you did what and how it's based. Again, I'm not a member of the staff or anything, but I visit the site often and I constantly see people giving snide remarks and them being followed by "how about constructive criticism next time." Therefore, I felt as though I'd do so for once and give my thoughts. That's all.Stop putting so much stock in the score. There is a subjective reviewer's tilt in every score given in EVERY review that exists in the world. Read the review and think for yourself - make your own score.

[HoldFastHope]

Stop putting so much stock in the score. There is a subjective reviewer's tilt in every score given in EVERY review that exists in the world. Read the review and think for yourself - make your own score.
So instead of "how about constructive criticism" you should've said, "don't comment because I'm just going to dismiss whatever is said".

If you don't want anyone putting stock in the score, then don't score it. I just assumed that each part was carefully decided and deliberated before posting, next time I'll just expect mediocrity? Why the hell should anyone read it if that's your attitude?

Those who have asked for constructive criticism should think about what that entails and whether they really want that rather than it being a convenient response to derisive commentary.

Gave it a shot.

[Steve Henderson]

So instead of "how about constructive criticism" you should've said, "don't comment because I'm just going to dismiss whatever is said".

If you don't want anyone putting stock in the score, then don't score it. I just assumed that each part was carefully decided and deliberated before posting, next time I'll just expect mediocrity? Why the hell should anyone read it if that's your attitude?

Those who have asked for constructive criticism should think about what that entails and whether they really want that rather than it being a convenient response to derisive commentary.

Gave it a shot.Most people that want to offer constructive criticism are still humble enough to do so about the review itself. You, on the other hand, try to make an entire site overhaul its review process? Don't take it so personally when we say, "no."

[HoldFastHope]

Most people that want to offer constructive criticism are still humble enough to do so about the review itself. You, on the other hand, try to make an entire site overhaul its review process? Don't take it so personally when we say, "no."

This is just laughable. Commentary about numbers you consider insignificant is equivalent to a site overhaul...right.

[Steve Henderson]

This is just laughable. Commentary about numbers you consider insignificant is equivalent to a site overhaul...right.
So tell me then how ALL albums and ALL reviews are supposed to be judged on an equal playing field. For example, no shit Cartel is never going to shred on their guitars like the Mars Volta or whatever. But in the context of what Cartel is trying to do within their genre and as a group, their guitar work can be evaluated in that context.

As for commonality in the scores, you are nuts if you think I should be comparing my scores to those of every reviewer here and all their albums covered. When I review, I score relative to MY scores given to other albums and my thoughts on the current album. If you have a better suggestion on how to implement this without bogging down the time of a bunch of unpaid reviewers, I am all ears. In the meantime, stop complaining about the problem without making an effort towards a solution.

[HoldFastHope]

So tell me then how ALL albums and ALL reviews are supposed to be judged on an equal playing field. For example, no shit Cartel is never going to shred on their guitars like the Mars Volta or whatever. But in the context of what Cartel is trying to do within their genre and as a group, their guitar work can be evaluated in that context.

As for commonality in the scores, you are nuts if you think I should be comparing my scores to those of every reviewer here and all their albums covered. When I review, I score relative to MY scores given to other albums and my thoughts on the current album. If you have a better suggestion on how to implement this without bogging down the time of a bunch of unpaid reviewers, I am all ears. In the meantime, stop complaining about the problem without making an effort towards a solution.

The first thing I said was "how do you structure it, is the score based on how they perform within the genre or what". I did offer a suggestion you dolt. The entire fucking point was that I was trying to suggest a new fashion of going about scores, so your last statement makes no sense. Maybe if you weren't so busy defending yourself you would actually read what the hell I was saying, rather than jumping to conclusions. So first I'm suggesting a site overhaul, and now I'm just complaining and not making any suggestions...sounds a bit contrary, no?

[Steve Henderson]

The first thing I said was "how do you structure it, is the score based on how they perform within the genre or what". I did offer a suggestion you dolt. The entire fucking point was that I was trying to suggest a new fashion of going about scores, so your last statement makes no sense. Maybe if you weren't so busy defending yourself you would actually read what the hell I was saying, rather than jumping to conclusions. So first I'm suggesting a site overhaul, and now I'm just complaining and not making any suggestions...sounds a bit contrary, no?Okay, so what questions of yours remain unanswered? Any?

And you know as well as I do that people are going to bitch about scores regardless of the system. Pitchfork is always too low, we are always too high, Rolling Stone gives everything a 3, etc.

Also, I have been reading what you are saying, or else I would not be wasting my time responding. You are one of the few people on here who have taken the time to construct a literate argument, so I give that weight. However, you are losing perspective of the bigger picture in lieu of trying to cater to your own personal preferences on a scoring structure.

For the time being, the fact of the matter is that we spend a few hours writing a review, and about 30 seconds coming up with that score. And it should be read as such.

[HoldFastHope]

Okay, so what questions of yours remain unanswered? Any?

And you know as well as I do that people are going to bitch about scores regardless of the system. Pitchfork is always too low, we are always too high, Rolling Stone gives everything a 3, etc.

Also, I have been reading what you are saying, or else I would not be wasting my time responding. You are one of the few people on here who have taken the time to construct a literate argument, so I give that weight. However, you are losing perspective of the bigger picture in lieu of trying to cater to your own personal preferences on a scoring structure.

For the time being, the fact of the matter is that we spend a few hours writing a review, and about 30 seconds coming up with that score. And it should be read as such.

That should've just been said to begin with, but when people bitch about scores just realize they don't know this.

[Steve Henderson]

That should've just been said to begin with, but when people bitch about scores just realize they don't know this.
I still do not understand why anyone would even bother bitching about the score. Reviewers write 1-2 pages substantiating their view on a record. I have yet to see a user exhibit the same completeness when trying to present a counterpoint.

[HoldFastHope]

I still do not understand why anyone would even bother bitching about the score. Reviewers write 1-2 pages substantiating their view on a record. I have yet to see a user exhibit the same completeness when trying to present a counterpoint.
You asked another member to do so in a certain format like: "You could've improve by doing ____, etc." He did it that way, and I don't remember it being received well.

[punkerz2003]

I bet listening to this high would be awesome.

[FrankMareno]

favorite album of the year

[James Hale]

I like the review but I agree with Steve. This cd just blows my mind wayyyyyyyyy to much.

[K-a-t89]

This is an amazing album.

[cereal4life]

Well-written review, but personally, this album piles it on way too thick for me. I feel like they are going so far out of their ways to mind-fuck me with all the shit going on with each track that it is almost hard to focus on the music.

Absolution >>>>>>>> Black Holes if you ask me :shrugs:

PS - Thanks for taking the review from me! I just said all I have to say about the record in that one post.

That's what I'm talking about! I completely agree. Can't wait to see muse in November. I watched clips of them when they headlined Glastonbury in 2004. Completely insane!

[bummm]

I love Muse.

[Shin Akuma]

great album, great review .. GREATEST BAND EVER!!!

[cereal4life]

Meep

[cereal4life]

That's what I'm talking about! I completely agree. Can't wait to see muse in November. I watched clips of them when they headlined Glastonbury in 2004. Completely insane!

Meep

Crazy! I just realised that these two posts are exactly two years apart.

[ToxicBadger]

Good review, really summed it up well.

[xidon]

First muse album i listened to. Good album, but not the best.

[Gabe Khan]

I'm a Muse fan, and have been for a while. I thought Absolution was great. I thought Origins of Symmetry was fantastic. But when I listened to this album, I didn't that that Muse could get any better.** The originality was still existent, but this time the record captured a wider audience with varying tastes. With straight-up headbangers like Assassin, to songs that can only be described as "classic Muse" such as Map of the Problematique. Whether you're looking for something new, or if you're looking for more of the good ol' Muse, then please don't let me deter you from this album.

**Unfortunately this is not entirely true. As soon as Resistance was released, I almost laughed myself into a coma. Muse went from getting hits, to complete misses in Resistance.