I hate double posting but does anyone else notice the use of the same arpeggios in the majority of leads and solos.

Fair enough, all arpeggios sound pretty much t same, but it seems to me that all of the ones used in this album are the same...

Album Rating: 3.5

Shut up...Synyster Gates is the best guitarist of the centuryzorz.



















How was my fanboyism there?This Message Edited On 01.20.08

Perfect?

Depends if you were serious.

Album Rating: 3.5

Of course i know what pretentious means: An old, old wooden ship. duh.



And he didn't back up his reasoning with anymore than the fact that he hates this band, pretentious. I always look at the worst rated reviews of albums i like because they might point out flaws that i would have otherwise missed, pretentious. This did not, pretentious. All it seems like to me, pretentious, is an attempt to slam a band he hates as early as possible, pretentious.



Is that the most intelligent paragraph you've ever read, or what??

WTF????^^

Am I missing something or is this guy just a really big moron????

^^^
TBH, I'm really not sure.

Album Rating: 3.5

you missed something.



but then again giving this album a decent rating probably makes me a moron on this site anyway.

probably. =P to each his own i say... but this definitely is not for me... i can't stand this album.

Album Rating: 2.5

um. what?

[quote=hegster90]Of course i know what pretentious means: An old, old wooden ship. duh.
And he didn't back up his reasoning with anymore than the fact that he hates this band, pretentious. I always look at the worst rated reviews of albums i like because they might point out flaws that i would have otherwise missed, pretentious. This did not, pretentious. All it seems like to me, pretentious, is an attempt to slam a band he hates as early as possible, pretentious.
Is that the most intelligent paragraph you've ever read, or what?? [/quote]
You fail at being funny. You also fail at finding a fault with the review, other than the fact your opinion is different from the reviewers.

[quote=Me]Am I missing something or is this guy just a really big moron????[/quote]
So it was the 2nd one then? ^^

Album Rating: 3.5

Please, what people call "good reviews" on here is a joke. And i'm not saying i'm a great writer either, but it's hard to find a review that doesn't have "nice review!" within the first page of comments.



I don't care that he rated it lower than i did (although i think it is a tad better than "awful" at the very least). I know there's a lot of problems with this album, but he failed to point any of them out. John A. Hanson and thesystemisdown also gave it poor ratings, and i actually didn't have any problems with them besides my own disagreements.



I guess this is the response i should expect from going against general consensus though.





This Message Edited On 01.22.08This Message Edited On 01.22.08

Album Rating: 3.5

But then again you could be right.

Maybe i just have problems with people who rate "Doggystyle" above "Sgt. Pepper".

Oh well.

Album Rating: 1.0

Watch out Scream, we may be dealing with a larger moron than we had anticipated.



By the way hamster90, which I'm going to call you because it's easier to remember, everyone has different taste, and it may be that to someone, Doggystyle is better than Sgt. Pepper. Cultures are different, and with those cultures, music tastes differ as well. So instead of bashing the reviewer for having a different opinion, bash yourself for being dense.

Jacktiger has the right idea.
Don't think that you're in some higher echelon because more people listen to the music you like, popularity has nothing to do with how good a band is. Just because a lot of people like one certain album doesn't make that album 'better' than another album. Opinion, especially musical opinion, is completely subjective. You may think a lot of us are 'elitist', or needlessly critical, but that's because of the opinions we have about certain bands/genres of music. I like Sgt. Pepper, and I'm sure many other people do also. This doesn't make the album or band better than something else, lets say The Rolling Stones, who I dislike very much. It's all subjective.
Also, don't criticise the review anymore. It's just gotten to the point where you sound stupid. If you aren't good at writing, you have no grounds upon which to tell someone who is that their writing is no good.

[quote=hegster90]but it's hard to find a review that doesn't have "nice review!" within the first page of comments.[/quote]
That's called being polite, which in it of itself, is the reason I think you find such a concept difficult to digest.

Album Rating: 3.5

There was no sarcasm in my last comment.

I just realize that my tastes differ alot from his, and that i probably was just looking at the review the wrong way.

Way to shoot me down for admitting a mistake though.



And A LOT of people on here ARE elitists. I don't think Dave's one of them but i usually do get flamed just for stating an opinion that goes against most comments or reviews. This is a different case because i was actually rude first, but rudness doesn't cancel out rudeness.



And reznor, your last comment makes no sense at all. By saying Dave's a good writer, you are claiming that you, yourself are a great writer and thusly deserve the privilege to critique others. Whilst someone who admits flaws in their writing is not allowed to cast judgement on others because they do so. I have every right to say my opinion about an article as much as you do, regardless of how stupid you think it is. This Message Edited On 01.22.08

It actually makes heaps of sense. You can't be critical of anything unless you know something about it. You didn't say you had flaws, everyone has flaws, you said you weren't a good writer. This implies that you're a bad writer, and therefore don't know too much about writing. It's illogical to say how little you know about something, and then judge other people over the same thing. For all I know, you may actually be a good writer, but you definitely haven't said you are.
And yes, I do think that I'm a reasonable writer, I've got no problem with saying that. Thus, it makes sense for me to criticise someone who has written badly, unlike your case in which you openly say you are a bad writer, and then going on to and criticise someone who obviously isn't.

damn it, you snuck your comment in before mine. Now it makes me look like a stubborn douche. Oh well, I'm not far from it.

You contribute your beauty and intelligence.