
My review of “My Arms, Your Hearse”
Yep, it’s this album’s turn this week on my prog metal review blog. Pretty damn solid album.

Yep, it’s this album’s turn this week on my prog metal review blog. Pretty damn solid album.
This week, we got Dream Theater’s fourth album.
So, a couple weeks ago, I made a post in here about my unpopular opinion on both a beloved episode and a hated episode of TLH. I said at the time that I love talking about unpopular opinions, so I decided to come on here with some more. Keep in mind that my journey with the show ended at around the midpoint of season 5, so more modern TLH-related things aren't included in here. Anyway, here are some more hot takes:
So yeah, those are some that come from the top of my head. Do you agree with any of my unpopular opinions? And what are some of yours? Like I said, I love discussions like this, so feel free to let me know!
The album where Queensrÿche go grunge (?). Is it any good? Let's find out.
So, I'm not here to compare the two albums, because the overwhelming majority of us RA fans would very likely agree that between the two, Nowhere Generation is significantly better. However, between the albums' respective title tracks, I actually have to give the edge to "Ricochet." Don't get me wrong, I like the song "Nowhere Generation," and I'm glad it was a hit for the band, but for as great as the album as a whole is, it kind of is one of the weakest links by comparison. Ricochet, meanwhile, is quite a disappointing album, even if I think it's overall not bad, but the title track is an otherwise bright spot on it in my opinion. In fact, it's probably one of only three tracks on the album I can safely say are really good.
I don't know, that's just something random I thought of. What are your thoughts?
Over the past few years (maybe even longer, but this is when I really started paying attention to it), a big divide among candidates running against each other in Dem primaries has been whether or not they take corporate money (e.g. money from corporate PACs/lobbyists, or if billionaires are spending big to support them). I would hope all of us can agree money in politics is a big problem, but I’m just wondering if you guys base how you vote in Dem primaries on this issue if there is a clear difference between the candidates.
So, this idea just popped into my head right now, and here it is, something unique about every Linkin Park album:
• Hybrid Theory - the only album not to feature Dave Farrell.
• Meteora - the only album whose title is one word.
• Minutes to Midnight - the only album with a song title more than five words (“The Little Things Give You Away”)
• A Thousand Suns - the only album to say its title in a (non-title track) song (“The Catalyst”)
• Living Things - the only album to have all its song titles in all caps on digital music platforms.
• The Hunting Party - the only album not to produce a hit on the Billboard Hot 100, and to not chart in the top two of the Billboard 200.
• One More Light - the only album to have a title track (not counting interludes, intros, etc.).
• From Zero - the only album to open with its lead single (“The Emptiness Machine”) (same stipulation as above applies).
So yeah, that’s what I got for each album. Do you know any other unique facts about them? Let me know!
So, as the title states, I’m reviewing a new progressive metal album every Sunday. Specifically, I’m doing every album by the Big Four of prog metal (Queensrÿche, Dream Theater, Opeth, and Between the Buried and Me), and this week’s album, it was the turn of “Morningrise” to be reviewed! I overall really enjoyed this album, so I wanted to share my thoughts with you all.
So, during my time with The Loud House (late 2017 to early 2021), I found myself having a lot of opinions that differed from what felt like those of the majority of fans. I really enjoy discussing unpopular opinions, so I figured I'd share one episode that fans love that I dislike, and one fans hate that I like. And I figured I'd ask the same question to you all. But for now, here are my picks:
Beloved Episode I Dislike: "A Tattler's Tale"
Man, when you think of Loud House episodes with the best reception, this is high up there. But I disagree. I think it's actually pretty bad. For starters, the part with Lola blackmailing her siblings is a typical media cliche that this episode really did nothing interesting with, so I wasn't a fan of that. But then it kind of abandons that with the scene where Lincoln is going through Lola's diary, which I will admit is actually funny, and one of the few parts of this episode I genuinely liked. But the ending, look, I know it's supposed to be sweet and all, and to show character development for Lola, but it just doesn't make much sense to me. Her taking the blame for her siblings' actions just comes out of nowhere, and I get that's the point of it, but I still can't wrap my head around it. It just feels unnecessary and forced in my opinion. Like, I get she wanted to make it up to her siblings, but I feel like that was a bit over the top. And her saying she blackmailed them because, "It was the only way I could get you to hang out with me," just rubs me the wrong way. I mean, she clearly knew the reason her siblings wouldn't let her in the club, so it's hard for me to really empathize with her here. Overall, this episode was just very clunky to me, constantly introducing new motivations and plot points that didn't feel natural, and the ending just didn't do it for me like it did for others. I actually do think Lola has a lot of great moments in the show (well, at least until halfway through Season 5, which is when I stopped watching the show), and there are plenty of other episodes out there that I could point to that portray her better than this one. It's not horrendous, but I definitely do think it's overpraised, and I've never really understood the love for it.
Hated Episode I Like: "Ruthless People"
I remember when this episode came out in June 2018, I was away without internet, so I couldn't see it until later. But when I came back from my trip, I went on TLH Fandom and saw that people absolutely hated this episode. Reading some of their thoughts on it, I was worried. But I knew I had to give it a chance, and I actually think it's pretty good. Maybe the fact that I'd lowered the bar so much after seeing the negative reception to it poisoned the well for me, but there's a lot I like about this episode. For starters, I think the buildup and progression of the episode is very solid. The beginning with the family playing football together is nice, and the concept of Lynn Sr.'s group trying to get out of going to Ruth's was an interesting one. And I know people hate this episode because they kept getting the short end of the stick, but honestly, I think it was karmically justified. I mean, they deliberately tried to get the other group into a crappy situation, and they paid the price by getting stuck in an even worse one themselves. I mean, I know they were offering to do favors to swap places, but still, they were trying to get the others to suffer. And it goes to show that sometimes, when you're stuck in a less-than-ideal situation, you've gotta just push through the pain and stick to it instead of trying to get out of it. If they did that, they would've been able to actually enjoy themselves. That's the risk you take when you try to take the easy way out, so I'm not really all that bothered by them constantly getting the short end of the stick, because in many ways, it's their own faults. But of course, the elephant in the room is Lana making the problem worse by bringing the termites to Ruth's house. Yeah, I can understand this criticism, but honestly, I see it as kind of in character for her, what with her love of animals. Somebody did point out to me that it's kind of hypocritical of her to do so, given how she has eaten bugs before in past episodes, but she's only 6 here, so I can't say I expect her to have the greatest understanding of moral consistency and whatnot. It doesn't excuse her actions, and it definitely is a big strike against the episode, but I can at least understand it. Overall, I genuinely liked this episode, and believe it to be by far the most over-hated of (at least the first four-and-a-half seasons of) The Loud House. While not amazing by any means, it's certainly gotten a lot of flak that I don't think is very much deserved, but I would hope that a lot of the people who went all in on some of the most hated TLH episodes back in the day have matured and realized that it really wasn't all worth it, even if an episode is genuinely bad.
So yeah, those are my picks. What are yours? I think this is an interesting discussion topic that I'm interested to see responses to!
This week, I’m reviewing Opeth’s debut!
So, with this whole redistricting war that started last summer with Texas, and was exacerbated this spring by the VRA ruling, one of the GOP's main arguments is that it's meant to level the playing field, pointing to blue states like MA or CT that have all Dem representation as examples of why it's necessary for them to redistrict themselves. However, according to a recent Axios analysis, Dems would need to win the generic congressional ballot by about 3.5 points (five points over Harris's margin in 2024, FTR) to win a majority in this year's election. Given this is the case - how even in a perfectly neutral national environment, the GOP would have significantly more seats - how could one possibly argue that these maps level the playing field for the GOP?
So, Graham Platner is a name that I’m sure most of us are aware of by now. He’s been involved in countless controversies, yet has continued to weather all of those storms. Seemingly until this past week, which culminated in today’s revelations of, to say the least, accusations of mistreating women.
At this point, it’s abundantly clear that he will be the Democratic nominee, and if Democrats want to have any realistic chance of flipping the Senate, they need to win Maine. But when adding all of his controversies up, you have a lot of people questioning whether control of the Senate is even worth it if it means lowering our standards by tolerating everything we know (and don’t know) about him.
Now I know most of us don’t live in Maine, so our opinions don’t really matter in the grand scheme of things. But I think it does speak to a broader question of how much of a candidate’s personal flaws you’re willing to overlook for the sake of getting them elected because them getting elected is essential to stop the Republicans. Because look at who’s currently president; it’s abundantly clear they don’t have standards. I’m all for fighting fire with fire, and if that means electing morally questionable people to deprive Republicans of power, I may not feel good about it, but it’s something that must be done. That said, everybody has their red lines, and I’m not trying to give my overall opinion on Platner and his controversies for the sake of not poisoning the well, so I’m wondering just how far you all would take this. Not just in this race, but in general.
My weekly prog metal review is up!
Time for a new review on my Prog Metal Weekly blog!
So I know that question sounds kind of vague, so let me try to explain what I mean by it in this context. When it comes to disagreeing, especially with the right, on politics, often times, you’ll hear left-of-center people say that these issues go beyond disagreements. And in most cases, I can understand what those issues are (e.g. protecting queer people, treating immigrants with dignity, etc.). But I feel like some people on the left go a little bit beyond that when it comes to what issues they view as beyond disagreements. So I ask you, what are some issues that you can’t just agree to disagree on?
So, it’s clear that things in America are pretty horrible right now. And we’re gonna be dealing with the consequences of this administration for a really long time. Knowing that, it’s easy to become a doomer about the future. But how do you stop yourself from fully going down that road?
So, between fall 2017 and spring 2021, I was a huge fan of The Loud House. I started watching it when I was 15, and I always wondered why I was so drawn to it. I mean, I was significantly outside the age range of the target audience after all. But recently, I’ve had a massive, random burst of nostalgia for the show, and it’s made me realize why it resonated with me so much.
I was a sophomore in high school when I started watching TLH. I’d seen clips before, but one night, I just randomly opened up a compilation of episodes and was instantly hooked. At the time, I thought it was just a goofy cartoon to enjoy from time to time. But as I watched more and more episodes, I began to realize it was more than that. It was a show that could tell a great story, take risks and evolve, and develop characters incredibly to make them more and more relatable. But at its heart, it truly was a comfort show.
I did not have the easiest high school experience (I know, I know, I’m so unique). It wasn’t bad by any standards, but constantly trying to prepare for the real world and the rest of my life sounded so daunting to me. And TLH was able to help make me feel like a kid again. It helped me get through the more stressful times when I thought I’d collapse under pressure. It showed a family that was utterly crazy and out of control at times, but that would always come back for each other no matter what. And it always felt real, which was part of its appeal to me.
I’m now in my mid-20s and in a much different place. I stopped keeping up partway through season 5 partially because I felt it was time to move on, but also because it was getting worse. But all those memories of seasons 2-4 (season 1 was good, but not great IMO) coming back to me lately has helped me realize why I loved it so much.
So, I now turn it over to you: what about TLH resonates with you? What’s its appeal to you? What kept you coming back?
So, we’ve all heard varying takes on how the Democratic Party needs to change. Some people argue that the problem is their style, particularly with how much they suck at messaging, and how they come across as out of touch to a lot of voters. Others argue that they don’t actually stand for anything (I know I’ll get a ton of comments saying this is not true, but this is what a lot of people believe, so that’s why I’m saying this), and that they need a clear policy agenda to define themselves (and whether that’s more moderate or more progressive is a debate in and of itself).
Which side of the argument do you fall under? Do you think their problem is mainly their messaging, or do they need a new (or at least updated) set of policy ideas altogether?
I found this in a Facebook fan group. What would your album look like? Here’s mine: