Professionalism for the sake of professionalism (i.e. writing formally and dispassionately) is stupid at the best of times and in discussing something like music it's particularly empty as a supposed requisite to communicating with your reader.

@japandroid,
Don't forget that a reasonable amount of people are not necessarily "tapping [him] on the back." At least, in my case, I just think you're being an idiot; arguing with you and your points does not mean that we're necessary praising the reviewer.

Album Rating: 4.5

I'm not used to talk about music like "GOOD REVIEW! GOD, BEST REVIEW EVER, YOU SLAYED THE ALBUM! POS!".



I like to talk about music. That's clearly isn't the case here. It's funny how reviewers here have bigger egoes than the artists they review. Without not even 1% of their talent, may I add.

Album Rating: 5.0 | Sound Off

comma after "i.e."

You could review this objectively, but you didn't.

he's asking for specific criticism regarding the review and all you can say is that its a "childish rant" repeatedly. either explain better or fuck off.

actually, just fuck off.

Album Rating: 1.5

actually im noting a lot of the critique from chan and theacademy about concision, as if there's one thing im not totally satisfied with, it's that this review might be more effective if it were shorter. I'm not listening to your crap because you're not actually making any critiques, just going THIS REVIEW IS UNPROFESSIONAL TOO MUCH HATE.

I'm done criticizing this, I have better things to do.

Album Rating: 2.0

"he's asking for specific criticism regarding the review and all you can say is that its a "childish rant" repeatedly. either explain better or fuck off."



This.

Not in British English acad

Album Rating: 4.5

I have explained already. There's nothing to explain anymore. I went far more deeply about what I think of this review, but this is a waste of time. I'm done with this.

Album Rating: 2.0

Good.

Professionalism for the sake of professionalism (i.e. writing formally and dispassionately) is stupid at the best of times.

---
Interesting point, but I think by professionalism and passion (in writing) are not mutually exclusive, and perhaps therein lies the challenge of writing reviews?

I've read objective reviews that are also passionate in the material about which they write (hell, your reviews do that, and I try to do that when I write). They're usually the positive ones, though, especially the 5 reviews. I think when you're writing a negative review, it's easier to lose your focus and tirade on the album instead of maintaining a sort of analytical approach.

well then nobody understood you =) cya xxxxxx

Album Rating: 3.0

He was such a good sport in the jack's mannequin thread though. Maybe he's only a douche when he disagrees with you.

People expect news journalism to be professional and obviously it helps to maintain a level head when you're writing for a certain audience even about music (a criticism you could perhaps level at this were Sputnik's audience not what it is).

I don't really agree with you about the difference between attempting to be positively objective and negatively objective. I just think people are more prone to a) passing over positive descriptions without really considering what they mean and b) assuming that others see in something what they don't, as opposed to the reverse.

how many more times are you going to say you're "done with this" before you actually are?

Album Rating: 2.0

"how many more times are you going to say you're "done with this" before you actually are?"



Until we agree with him, guess we're going to have to deal with this forever.

no, now that I've said that he won't post again, just to prove me wrong.

OR WILL HE TRY TO PROVE THIS POST WRONG?????????

your move, shithead

Well, to the extent of staff reviews, Sputnik's audience (arguably) isn't just the Sputnik community, because ratings often go on Metacritic, Wikipedia, etc. Which is to say, while I suppose a normal user can avoid criticism based on Sputnik's audience, staff writers should keep in mind their reviews are marked as professional. And just as I'm sure people of this community go to this website to check whether to listen to the newest album by whichever band, many non-Sputnikers go to Wikipedia to check reviews. So it actually makes a difference.

And it's just an observation, that may or may not be accurate for all of Sputnik. And I feel when people 5 on an album, they pass over the same amount of negatives as the positives they ignore when they 1 an album. I guess the point is irrelevant to the thread though, so who really cares?

Album Rating: 1.5

read pitchfork's review of the eminem show and talk to me about how much professionalism actually matters in internet music criticism