Iceage You're Nothing
» Back to review

Comments:Add a Comment 
Trebor.
Contributing Reviewer
February 16th 2013


50502 Comments


Adam Emeritus Thomas wrote reviews this short and they were wag .
Me too


fish.
Contributing Reviewer
February 16th 2013


22004 Comments


I'll keep it in mind. Never really struck me that those words would be considered complicated

Digging: Miguel - Kaleidoscope Dream

Iluvatar
Staff Reviewer
February 16th 2013


16089 Comments


its not complicated, but you could use with a simplification of your language in general if you're going to go for shorter reviews. the general rule of journalism is to make it so a 4th grader can read your piece and at the very least generally understand it.

Trebor.
Contributing Reviewer
February 16th 2013


50502 Comments


A 4th grader tried to read a Klap review and he died

fish.
Contributing Reviewer
February 16th 2013


22004 Comments


Writing shorter reviews is just as much about not writing more than you have to (i.e. repeating yourself) as it is about making it read better though

Trebor.
Contributing Reviewer
February 16th 2013


50502 Comments


I'm gonna ask my english teacher about this on monday, I'll get back to you

RiffOClock
February 16th 2013


1051 Comments

Album Rating: 3.0

if u were to compare ur writing skills to slipknot







im waitin

Iluvatar
Staff Reviewer
February 16th 2013


16089 Comments


there is nothing wrong with repeating yourself within reason.


Trebor.
Contributing Reviewer
February 16th 2013


50502 Comments


It's ok to repeat things for emphasis...EMPHASIS

fish.
Contributing Reviewer
February 16th 2013


22004 Comments


I'm just saying it's not like writing shorter reviews is pointless if you don't use simpler language

Iluvatar
Staff Reviewer
February 16th 2013


16089 Comments


well i mean also realize that all of your writing flourishes serve to artificially inflate a review whether intentional or not, and when writing a short review that means your review has even less content than you realize. thats generally applicable to any review, not this one in particular

fish.
Contributing Reviewer
February 16th 2013


22004 Comments


More content doesn't necessarily make it better, it's often unnecessary. I guess it depends on what you look for in reading the review

And this one focuses solely on the music

Iluvatar
Staff Reviewer
February 16th 2013


16089 Comments


but i learned almost nothing besides how to use superfluous language in describing something that doesnt need it

fish.
Contributing Reviewer
February 16th 2013


22004 Comments


ok then

Iluvatar
Staff Reviewer
February 16th 2013


16089 Comments


i mean im honestly trying to give you feedback you dont have to keep defending yourself im not trying to troll you like everyone else here. just think about, and read your future reviews over again and if it strikes you to consider my advice, do so.

fish.
Contributing Reviewer
February 16th 2013


22004 Comments


I am considering it, I only reply back cos I'm trying to understand your perspective on it

thanks

RiffOClock
February 16th 2013


1051 Comments

Album Rating: 3.0

iluvatar will u give feedback to 1 ov my rvws too plz

RiffOClock
February 16th 2013


1051 Comments

Album Rating: 3.0

like real HARD feedback u no

jefflebowski
February 16th 2013


8253 Comments

Album Rating: 3.0

everything in my musical side tells me i should like this.

why don't i like this?

RiffOClock
February 16th 2013


1051 Comments

Album Rating: 3.0

props for giving it a 'good' rating then



You have to be logged in to post a comment. Login | Create a Profile





FAQ // STAFF & CONTRIBUTORS // SITE FORUM // CONTACT US

Bands: A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z


Site Copyright 2005-2014 Sputnikmusic.com
All Album Reviews Displayed With Permission of Authors | Privacy Policy