That should be in the reviewing guide/FAQ: "It is not good to attack an extremely well-liked album or (try to) justify a classic rating when you are a newbie.
.This Message Edited On 03.25.09
|
| |
True, but what do you expect. This album is such a masterpiece and this man is defiling it, with his horrible opinion. Probably wasn't the smartest choice for his first review.
|
| |
Album Rating: 4.0
He can rate the album what he likes, as long as he backs it up. Criticize the review, not the rating.
|
| |
Album Rating: 2.5
I'll admit I haven't read the review, but its nice to see some lower ratings to give balance (although if the review is just trashing it with no reasons then boo, sir, boo.)
|
| |
Album Rating: 4.5
consistantly
*Consistently
repititious
*Repetitive
Tracks such as the 'unknown guest' are laughable at best once the mechanical chanting is introduced which sounds like something reminiscent of an incantation, which definitely does not belong, it fits awkwardly and ruins the overall atmosphere of the song which could have been a somewhat decent song
Massive grammar failure.
My god this review is awful, not only from a punctuation perspective but also from a quality point of view. This needs a serious overhaul.
|
| |
massive grammar fail? how do you figure? and even if i did spell some words wrong, it's quite sad that you can't look at the overall review. instead you need to nit pick about typo's.
|
| |
Album Rating: 4.0
They should be a bit nicer because it's your first review. However, probably not the best album to start with before you are an established reviewer.
|
| |
and i said he sounds airy, this doesn't give the overall feel of the album and air theme, or mean that they were trying to make a concept album based on the element of air. to hey143
|
| |
it wasn't poorly written though, was it mx? i know it's my first review, but i tried. i think people are bombing it simply due to their bias.
|
| |
Yes, it was.
|
| |
Album Rating: 4.0
massive grammar fail? how do you figure?
The paragraph should probably read like so:
"Tracks such as 'The Unknown Guest' are laughable at best once the mechanical chanting is introduced--they are reminiscent of an incantation and fit awkwardly into the songs in which they are present, ruining the overall atmosphere of what could have been decent cuts."
...or something like that.This Message Edited On 03.25.09
|
| |
Album Rating: 4.5
For the record I did read the whole review and didn't think it was all that great. I was trying to be constructive, you need to re-read and spellcheck your work before uploading it.
Thanks Masochist I was just about to do that myself.This Message Edited On 03.25.09
|
| |
granted this wouldn't matter if it were something that we all had a consesus on. grammas doesn't seem to matter if others already hate it.
|
| |
Album Rating: 4.0
I think grammar is generally pretty important to backing up opinions here. No reason that it can't improve in the future though.
|
| |
Album Rating: 4.5
123 mx
|
| |
Album Rating: 4.0
Unfortunately, you have to expect that people will scrutinize your review, and do so more harshly if you have a decidedly, ahh...unpopular opinion about the album you're reviewing. I don't mind that you didn't like the album, but other people probably did, and they'll look harder to discredit the review.
Grammar would matter either way, but it matters more here because you have a negative review of a popular album, which means you have to bring your absolute best. I'll give you props though, negative reviews are harder to do in any case. I still have yet to try it myself. Now you know what is expected if you ever choose to do another one.
By the way...the "This Message Edited..." thing isn't shrunk down like it was before. I can't get rid of that---->This Message Edited On 03.25.09
|
| |
well so far i've had two grammar errors pointed out to me... i guess that was the reason that it was so bad. my overall approach and thoughts towards the album seem irrelevant.
|
| |
Album Rating: 5.0 | Sound Off
You should use MS Word next time, and it you don't have it, use Open Office, which is free:
http://www.openoffice.org/
|
| |
Album Rating: 4.5
Definitely not a bad first review. It lacks detail in certain key areas (about the songwriting and how the parts accumulate as a whole) but addresses a fair few issues about the album. It's by no means worthy of a neg. Just one key point:
What ever happened to that raw feeling that metal and rock had?
It evolved. Never attack something just for changing, that shows that you haven't given it a fair chance. If you were to explain why that's a disadvantage in this situation, that would be one thing (although a don't think this album would sound nearly as good without the production it has), but to simply attack it for changing doesn't qualify as a fair criticism.
|
| |
fair enough, i know i didn't put too much information into it... i just thought i'd write it after spinning the album once... it's my first review, but i know now not to pick one that's held so high up. people are looking completely passed everything i wrote to look for typo's, which i find kind of funny.
|
| |
|
|
