Album Rating: 4.0
Yeah more like the whole review. This and the new soundoff bring the lolz.
|
| |
Album Rating: 2.0
lol sure ok since cute is a pop boy band you say "well the lyrics dosn't matter" sure lol. that was a dumb way to back yourself up
Alright, and I'm promising right now that this is the last time I'm going to say this in this thread because I know it's going to come up over and over again. CIWWAF are obviously not exactly Shakespearean in their lyrics. Then again, they don't try to be. They write some completely non-pretentious rhymes that are fun and catchy. This band clearly thinks they are some kind of intellectual group. Problem is, the underlying concepts are actually just as retarded as anything you will hear in music today. Basically, they're fake. And to me, when someone tries to make great, awe-inspiring, literary lyrics when they're actually just stupid, that's way worse than CIWWAF making intentionally "easy" lyrics.
More times than not, this review seems pushed out for controversy and for the contest, but their also really good parts to this review (like when you actually describe the riffs).
So that = neggable?
|
| |
In the view of a person who doesn't know about this band, this review wouldn't be too helpful, and it would be an obnoxious, irritating read, with some sprinkles of goodness in between.
And my god, I bet you would have never done this until Nick Greer posted that sound off.This Message Edited On 07.02.08
|
| |
Album Rating: 2.0
^It was when he posted his contest for negative reviews, for the last time. I had this review all but finished since about a week after coming to this site back in April.
As for the review being "helpful," I don't write consumer reviews, and I find people who do write them to be kind of grating tbh.
|
| |
Album Rating: 4.5
In the literal sense, it's well written. But I agree, I don't find this review nearly as helpful as some of the other ones that have been posted.
Plus that first paragraph annoys the living hell out of me and is one of the gayest things I've read in a long time.
|
| |
Album Rating: 2.0
Plus that first paragraph annoys the living hell out of me and is one of the gayest things I've read in a long time.
Gayest? Seriously?
|
| |
Album Rating: 3.5
If the review was a part of a contest, fine, you met the criteria, but if this was supposed to be a professional review, which is what this site is for, then no, this isn't a 'good' review.
It's dissappointing, because you can write wellThis Message Edited On 07.02.08
|
| |
As for the review being "helpful," I don't write consumer reviews, and I find people who do write them to be kind of grating tbh.
Their many aspects to reviews, and a review being helpful is just an aspect you can include to make the review more pleasant to read.
This really wasn't a pleasant read.
Plus that first paragraph annoys the living hell out of me and is one of the gayest things I've read in a long time.
this.
|
| |
Album Rating: 2.0
I guess in the future I will make sure to add paragraphs of pure detailed description to ensure that the reader falls asleep before he even reaches my opinion, which is the point of an opinionated review rather than a consumer review. If someone wants a description of the album I think it won't be too hard to find on the band's website/Myspace/Facebook/press release/catalogue descriptions/Wikipedia page/clips on Allmusic.This Message Edited On 07.02.08
|
| |
Album Rating: 3.5
I guess in the future I will make sure to add paragraphs of pure detailed description to ensure that the reader falls asleep before he even reaches my opinion, which is the point of an opinionated review rather than a consumer review. I think you're taking it in too black and white of a way. You can give your opinion and include the descriptions to reinforce your opinion; they don't have to be totally seperate from each other.
|
| |
That wasn't the point I was trying to get at... you know what, fuck it... you're not going to get it, you never try to either.
|
| |
Album Rating: 3.0
This really wasn't a pleasant read
lol it was if you don't much care for this album.
Singer is most definitely annoying.
|
| |
Album Rating: 2.0
You can give your opinion and include the descriptions to reinforce your opinion; they don't have to be totally seperate from each other.
This is true, but honestly I think I describe a lot in this review about details without, you know "giving it all away" or suffocating it with technical jargon. I think people are just looking for more specificity and I don't think that's always necessary.
That wasn't the point I was trying to get at... you know what, fuck it... you're not going to get it, you never try to either.
At the risk of sounding mean, you probably aren't the first person I'm going to come to for review advice given the nature of your own reviewing at this point.
|
| |
Album Rating: 4.0 | Sound Off
i stopped reading after the first paragraph
|
| |
Album Rating: 2.0
^It will also serve as the opening paragraph to your autobiography one day.
|
| |
Album Rating: 3.5
This is true, but honestly I think I describe a lot in this review about details without, you know "giving it all away" or suffocating it with technical jargon. I agree with you. It just sounded like you thought they had to be one or the other in your other post.
I do think that you'd do better without the first paragraph, because if I read a review that bashes a band or makes general statements about its fans, it kind of loses credibility.
|
| |
At the risk of sounding mean, you probably aren't the first person I'm going to come to for review advice given the nature of your own reviewing at this point
Any advice is good, and if your too high and mighty to take any advice, then fine.
|
| |
Album Rating: 2.5 | Sound Off
You write well and always have a firm stance on stuff, yet you always fail to make a strong point in your reviews unless it's being sledgehammered.
The first paragraph is a good example of "fucking stupid introductions," though.
|
| |
Album Rating: 2.5
pos'd. well written review, only fan-boys will neg it. ok, I don't agree with everything, but you made your point and got it across clearly.
After the surprise-factor of the first few listens is gone, this album becomes weak pretty fast. Most of the songs have their great moments, but the problem is that somehow with all the sudden changes and breaks there comes an unsuspected monotony. A monotony of changes, if you want so. and yes, that metal-cliches annoy me as well.
however, when I've been listening to it for a few times lately, it's growing again. this is one of the albums where I can enjoy technical wanking (unlike most of Dream Theater's releases, to bring that stupid comparison up again). It has quite a lot of awesome hooks and some amazing melody lines. I realise it's hard to pinpoint what exactly I like about it, but it is an album I can really enjoy listening to. but I also can see how somebody dislikes it. What I can't understand is why someone would praise it as an everlasting classic.
|
| |
Album Rating: 4.0
If you had reviewed Kezia, comparing Walker to Chiodos would be understandable, but not here. Especially since his vast improvement goes unmentioned in this.
You won’t remember a single melody on this album the second it’s over.
Yeah not really.
This would have been huge in the 1980’s.
Well, not because of the era. This band would likely be adored anytime after 1975 or so.
|
| |
|
|
