Album Rating: 4.5

Seriously, in order to give a great album a mediocre score and be legit, you need to make good points. Every single negative comment in your review is subjective. Basically your review consists of describing each song and then saying whether you liked it. A 10-year-old could do that. And your comment that Revolver from the Beatles isn't good also proves you know nothing about music. And to say this is boring (another subjective comment) doesn't mean anything - I guess you were wanting Greenwood to shred some solos and have some double-bass pedal action to make things fast and exciting?

Album Rating: 2.5

almost everything about a review is subjective because it comes from a (are you ready for this) HUMAN. You say I need to make good points to be legit, but anyone with this rated a 5 doesnt look for legitimacy they look for any flaw they can and then exaggerate it over 6 pages of useless arguing.

Basically your review consists of describing each song and then saying whether you liked it. A 10-year-old could do that.

And your comment that Revolver from the Beatles isn't good also proves you know nothing about music.

I guess you were wanting Greenwood to shred some solos and have some double-bass pedal action to make things fast and exciting?

I wouldn't rate this album a five.
Only 4 or 5 tracks that keep me interested. Why people get their panties in a bunch cuz someone doesn't think this is, "OMFG the greatest album ever!!!," still amuses me.

Album Rating: 4.5

I don't think you understand. It's ok if you don't like an album. But you didn't give any good reasons in your review and I just read it again. You even said one of the best songs was fitter happier when that isn't even a song, which makes me believe you don't really even understand what they were trying to do with the album. Basically it was a poorly written review that consisted of: This song has guitars and Thom sings in a way I don't like. It was a decent song. The next song is heavier and has a solo. It was ok. blah blah blah. Rather than backing yourself up again to me and getting defensive, explain what Radiohead did wrong with the album. There has got to be something they do very right with the ablum for so many people, including pretty much every critic who have been analyzing music for far more than 4 years, to hold it in such high regard.

was gonna see if reviewer had any ground to stand on but review is pretty lolbad and doesnt make solid (or any) arguments for the rating, so yeah

Wow someone gave OK Computer a low yet still above average rating, let's run this into the ground for 6 pages 4 months after it was originally written.

thanks for contributingThis Message Edited On 12.31.08

here is my review of ok computer:

people used to tell me i looked funny and it made me hurt and upset inside. then i listened to this record by radiohead - ok computer and it totally changed my way of thinking. now when people say i look funny i retort 'have you looked in the mirror recently'
sadly after 2 plays it dawned on me that actually the album was very boring and overrated and i decided to be gay with john hanson. we hold hands and everything while we jizz on ourselves and channing freeman who joins in sometimes omfg!

to conclude - this album is layered like onions

Album Rating: 4.0

???

Album Rating: 5.0

objectivity is dead guys get a clue

Album Rating: 2.5

ok I'll write a new one right now



ok computer, while praised by many for its "introspective" qualities, merely has songs that don't go anywhere, but rather just go. When giving the album repeated listens you realize that not only can the song structures themselves be oredictable but the layout of the tracks' emotional flow repeats itself with 1-6 and 8-12. tom's voice isn't my favorite, and while it fits the band it reminds me so much of the dude from glasvegas who thinks he's a preacher.

I never utimately feel anything switching up in terms of a song that catches me off guard or does anything that I want to pay attention to aside from Fitter Happier and Electioneering, and if you dont think Fitter Happier is a song, regardless that it has music behind it the whole time, then you shouldn't even rate this album at all. Overall, radiohead have started a new direction with this record that they perfected with Kid A, but it just comes out rather void of anything interesting here. They only wrote songs that try to have a voice but get lost in within the experimentation and the album doesnt come across as an album (save the lyrics) but rather a handful of songs that pave no ground whatsoever

Album Rating: 5.0

Its Thom not Tom, and how does Paranoid Android not "go" anywhere, its about three songs in one and it all works perfectly.This Message Edited On 12.31.08

wtf mine was better fireaboveThis Message Edited On 12.31.08

Album Rating: 2.5

....everyone here is so thick-headed it's astonishing, did you just stop reading when I spelt your savior's name wrong? Paranoid Android sounds like an improvised jam that has no purpose, that's how I feelThis Message Edited On 12.31.08

wtf mine was better fireabove

Album Rating: 5.0

does music have to have a specific purpose to be good or enjoyable

Album Rating: 2.5

no it doesn't but this isn't that kind of music where it's enjoyable to go on tangents, and even if you think it is I feel there's bands that do it better, and I'm not turning this into a band vs. band thing so don't even start that

Album Rating: 4.5

The legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time is a pretty sweet game.

Album Rating: 2.5

finally some common ground!