Falling In Reverse’s willingness to pack wildly different musical ideas into a single track immediately becomes the center of the reaction. Rather than treating the constant shifts as inherently excessive, the reviewer connects them to his existing enthusiasm for chaotic, technically demanding metal and makes clear why the song’s unpredictability works for him. That personal frame is useful because he acknowledges that listeners who prefer tighter, more conventional structures may respond very differently.
The commentary becomes most informative when it moves beyond general excitement and identifies what is driving that response. The riffs, unusually heavy breakdowns, drumming, rapid structural changes, opera section, and featured vocals all receive attention, while the technical musicianship emerges as the biggest surprise. References to Marc Okubo and Luke Holland also help explain why the instrumental side impresses him so much rather than leaving the praise at “this sounds heavy.”
Corey Taylor’s appearance earns especially strong approval, while the other featured section is praised for bringing a pronounced System of a Down-like character. The reviewer sees those stylistic collisions as strengths rather than distractions, arguing that essentially every major section lands despite the track jumping between ideas. His comparison to “Ronald” also provides useful context for his expectations, framing the new release as an extension of the exaggerated heaviness and spectacle he already enjoyed.
The accompanying visuals generate nearly as much enthusiasm as the music. A plane crash, fire, theatrical imagery, and the overall blockbuster scale reinforce his view of Falling In Reverse as a band willing to make its releases deliberately enormous and ridiculous. He does not attempt a detailed interpretation of the imagery, which is probably appropriate for an immediate reaction, but viewers looking for analysis of what the visual narrative means will find relatively little beyond observations about its scale and presentation.
One weakness is that the discussion of Ronnie Radke’s polarizing reputation occupies substantial attention before and after the song. The reviewer repeatedly anticipates accusations that people will dislike the track simply because of who made it, even suggesting some detractors would enjoy the same music from another band. That may reflect arguments surrounding Falling In Reverse, but it is speculative and distracts from the more convincing parts of the review, where specific musical choices are allowed to justify the enthusiasm directly.
The reaction is also unmistakably a first-listen response. The reviewer openly says the complexity probably requires additional listens and immediately wants to hear the track again, yet still assigns an 8.6 rating while the initial excitement is fresh. That spontaneity gives the segment considerable energy, and his musical preferences are disclosed clearly enough for viewers to understand the perspective behind the score, but a more measured second listen might have produced deeper criticism of the composition rather than an almost uninterrupted stream of praise.
Pros
- Specific discussion of riffs, breakdowns, drumming, structural changes, featured vocals, and the opera section gives the enthusiasm concrete musical foundations.
- The reviewer clearly explains his preference for chaotic, technically demanding metal, helping viewers understand the perspective behind his reaction.
- The enormous, theatrical music-video production receives appropriate attention alongside the music rather than being treated as incidental.
- Acknowledging that the fragmented structure may require multiple listens adds some useful qualification to an overwhelmingly positive response.
Cons
- Repeated speculation that Ronnie Radke’s detractors will dislike the song because of its creator takes attention away from evaluating the music itself.
- The visual storytelling is admired primarily for spectacle without much exploration of its possible narrative or thematic purpose.
- The immediate 8.6 rating arrives before the additional listens the reviewer himself suggests such a complicated composition deserves.
- Relentless enthusiasm leaves relatively little examination of whether any of the numerous musical sections clash or weaken the overall structure.
An energetic and musically specific reaction captures the thrill of an intentionally excessive track, with its technical instrumentation, abrupt stylistic changes, heavyweight features, and cinematic visuals providing plenty to discuss. The commentary would be stronger with less anticipation of fan-versus-hater arguments and more critical examination of the composition after another listen, but the reviewer communicates exactly why this brand of controlled chaos excites him.
