worst album never
|
| |
see the problem here is people are taking chan seriously
lol'd
|
| |
hey freeman get real
|
| |
Album Rating: 3.5 | Sound Off
Kane more like GAYne
|
| |
Album Rating: 3.0 | Sound Off
guys the thing that u aren't getting is that this review is a statement against the people who just look at a rating instead of actually reading tha review so HA GOT U
I get it ratings and reviews shouldn't be related, good statement!
|
| |
Album Rating: 3.5
arguing with chan is stupider than trying to argue with majeziksea or however you spell his name
|
| |
Album Rating: 3.0
stupider
|
| |
Album Rating: 3.5
you're just impossible to reason with
|
| |
Album Rating: 3.0
that is why i am the best entertainer on this site i fixed it for u
|
| |
Hell hath no fury
|
| |
Album Rating: 3.5
ummm so chan:
if you're supposedly the best arguer on this site...why can't you make a good argument for your rating?
|
| |
Album Rating: 3.5
lol avoiding the question much?
|
| |
its called lol'ing stan
|
| |
In terms of how New Again fits into their discography, it's not as good as their first two albums, but it is more consistent than Louder Now. However, Louder Now's best songs seem stronger than anything on New Again, or they were at least more immediately gripping. so logically they all get 5's
|
| |
wasn't that guy banned?
|
| |
Album Rating: 3.5
wait what the fuck is going on!!!
|
| |
Album Rating: 3.5
so Chan you're saying that album ratings aren't necessarily supposed to be taken seriously?
just in case you hadn't noticed, ppl kinda like INFORMATIVE ratings. ratings that actually reflect how good an album is. joke ratings are just amateurish, and defeat the purpose of rating albums at all.
|
| |
Album Rating: 4.0
Chan is serious business
|
| |
ugh
|
| |
Hahahahahaha, this CD is a CLASSIC according to Sputnik.
C'mon guys, are you serious? This is average, if it's not worse.
|
| |
|
|
