thanks CP, really glad we cleared that up... just a simple and understandable misunderstanding for the most part. I think a lot of the gripes here can be attributed to things like that, I just hope everyone else is as reasonable as you in sorting it out.
|
| |
6 negs, eh
|
| |
sup SeaAnemone, buddy. It's me, Jethro the frenchman =]
|
| |
"it's just not good because I don't like it or I don't get it" argument i would ignore people who say this. sometimes it is true, but most of the time it is the last line of defense for someone who doesnt like your opinion
|
| |
agreed, Fade, even though I feel it's given off accidentally sometimes.
and sup, Jethro, how's France? : )
|
| |
oh que non!...Je suis du Québec, cher ami =]
|
| |
Most of the people speak french, but most of us speak english as well.
|
| |
Album Rating: 3.5
Yeah Music Addiction, that Nazi logo you posted in the original TMF thread was so cool and edgy.
|
| |
sup Hans, buddy
|
| |
Album Rating: 5.0
not a single comment on the music.
i said something about your christianity point. also emim said:
I at least gave a fairly (or so I think) clear picture of the album. I couldn't even try to guess what this sounds like.
which might provide you some explanation as to why you feel the criticisms aren't addressing the right things. idk though...
|
| |
who's in the tmf mob. i missed this.
|
| |
didn't see your christianity thing academy, i'll look for it...
oh are you talking about the comment where you just said
"yeeeaaaa didn't pick up on this"
what'd you mean?
and yeah, honestly that's a good point. I did talk about the music for a decent amount of time though, not just the nature
of the album or its effects, etc.
the whole ugly blending, unnatural aspect of it is one of the main points that I spent a while on.
|
| |
Album Rating: 3.5
.
who's in the tmf mob. i missed this
^ Me, Inveigh, Buckfutter, Deviant, Balls to the Wall, MJ, Consider Phlebas, Satelitte, Academy, etc.
|
| |
Album Rating: 3.5
Sup Jethro.
|
| |
academy I know you had a lot of criticisms of the review... if you don't want to it's fine but I'd really appreciate if you kinda summarized your gripes that are unanswered or things you still think are contentious for me to try and explain. If not, it's cool, just if you have a few minutes.
|
| |
writing right now for ProgJect. I'ts almost finished. I need to finalize yes. Well I spent the week end with my 13 old son =]
|
| |
Bitch is like 10 years old though
|
| |
My issues with this review double back on what others have said that post-hardcore is no longer in the “glory days” that your favorite bands came from. Honestly isn’t it unfair to compare Emery’s album in 2010 to bands of 90’s? Not only is it unfair but useless as they really don’t resemble those bands anymore. Who put Emery into this post-hardcore niche? The members of sputnik who are overcritical of everything and obsess to fit everything into a nice genre box? It’s not like Emery are citing those bands you listed as their main influences.
You speak like they are pissing on the graves of these bands that paved the road that is post-hardcore. While that may be your opinion is that justification for a low rating? The rating should represent the quality of the artists work.
You keep defending your review and the name dropping by saying that’s your point. I understand that point but personally consider it to be a weak argument against Emery. If you are going to give as low a rating as 1.5 I would like to see more musical references and critiques. I personally love the dual vocals that layer throughout the album, that’s what really sets Emery apart from other bands to me. The guitars are nothing mind-blowing but certainly not three power chords strummed over and over.
Basically In summary if you don’t consider Emery to be post-hardcore then your review lost 90% of its argument. While it was well written I disagree with your approach.
|
| |
skitz: thanks for the critique...
even if you don't consider Emery post-hardcore, that's fine... I realize how 'different' it is from its predecessors. My point is, no matter WHAT genre it is (ugh fucking genres), it's still a dumbed-down, derivative, watered-down version of those bands. I agree they sound little alike, but I'm not just saying 'Emery is worse than them so they're bad,' I'm saying Emery is a derivative version of these bands that took this sound and basically made it horrible. And I'm well-aware my name-dropping is the most contentious part of the review, but I'd like people to pay a little more attention to the part I do talk about the music, too.
I understand where you're coming from, but I hope this clears things up. Please reply if you have a chance.
|
| |
Album Rating: 5.0 | Sound Off
Emim: I explained most of the misunderstanding in Jewel's answer, and I re-read your review too. Honestly, I still feel like the whole '"it's just not good because I don't like it or I don't get it" argument doesn't really cut it, which is evident in your review but not Jewel's. We already went through this through shoutboxes, and I feel we were at an understanding. By calling my name-dropping 'elitist,' it tells me that you probably didn't pick up on one of my main points, which I feel I backed up pretty well in the review.
If I were an Emery newb...
well, this review wasn't written as a way for people to find out about Emery. It was written as a response to the unwarranted hype that surrounds this band while bands like Hawthorne Heights get berated endlessly. It was written as an alternative to the other reviews, which I feel, for the most part, aren't very fair.
The problem with that is that you are reviewing an album, not making a review as a reply to another review. You could have used the comments section of Davey's review for that. Also, that Red Jumpsuit comparison was laughable.
|
| |
|
|
