Well the review's 'narrative voice' needs some punctuation.
|
| |
Album Rating: 3.0
Tough crowd...
|
| |
Dumb crowd
|
| |
I still haven't listened to a single track off of this, don't think I'll ever will
|
| |
Album Rating: 3.0
Definitely dumb...
|
| |
I don't agree with your opinion and therefore you're a moron.
See, rest of this topic.
|
| |
I am sure this album is horrendous. But that was a badly written review. You need to edit more. The fourth paragraph appears to be one sentence.
Good spotting!
The bad news for you is that single sentence paragraphs are perfectly legit
|
| |
Album Rating: 1.0
Hey just picked up on the fact that this is Dev's review. What's with the users comments though? You would think Dev knows what he's doing right?
Good one Dev, good to know there's no reason to pick this album up.
|
| |
The music itself isn't that horrendous, what is horrendous is Jonathan Davis' vocals, his lyrics, and the fact that Korn shamelessly jumps on any bandwagon that happens to be popular at the time.
Fags.
|
| |
i dont like being rude on the internet, but how the fuck is someone on staff giving out a .5 for this cd. you have to try
to like what a band is doing not judge them from your high fucking horse. maybe show this cd to some people who are
working out and ask them if its a .5
like its not great IMO. but thsi cd has energy, its heavy, and cool/innovative. that counts for something. if i wanted to
hear someone shit on a cd, i would just shit on it physically myself. give some unbiased insight or analysis not just what
you are annoyed about
|
| |
i dont like being rude on the internet, but how the fuck is someone on staff giving out a .5 for this cd.
i don't like being rude on the internet but how is it that someone doesn't have the same fucking opinion as me!
you have to try to like what a band is doing not judge them from your high fucking horse.
You seem to be under the impression that I had my mind made up prior to hearing this. Granted I assumed it was going to be bad, but I still gave it the benefit of the doubt.
maybe show this cd to some people who are working out and ask them if its a .5
What? Hey guys, this is good exercise music - 5/5
|
| |
Album Rating: 1.5 | Sound Off
That doesn't count for shit, go away
|
| |
Album Rating: 1.0
Again, what's with the newbie users attacking staffers and contrib's?
|
| |
like its not great IMO. but thsi cd has energy, its heavy, and cool/innovative. that counts for something. if i wanted to
hear someone shit on a cd, i would just shit on it physically myself. give some unbiased insight or analysis not just what
you are annoyed about
Being "heavy" (I disagree with this - this thing isn't heavy at all imo), "innovative (it's really not), or "energetic" don't count for shit if the music is still terrible. You think it's cool; well congrats, I don't. Deal with it
|
| |
Album Rating: 1.0
"give some unbiased insight or analysis not just what
you are annoyed about"
Wait a second... When you're reviewing something harshly, aren't you pointing out all the "things you're annoyed about" (AKA perceived flaws) in the music?
|
| |
Again, what's with the newbie users attacking staffers and contrib's?
It happens all the time a "popular" band's new album gets blasted. See Jared's Sum 41 review for similar results
The thing is; I'm convinced that had I given this a more neutral rating and simply changed a few descriptions to fit that (but without actually changing the review itself) there wouldn't be any problems. It's a testament to this album's fanbase when the hate that gets posted here consists of:
i dont like being rude on the internet, but how the fuck is someone on staff giving out a .5 for this cd. you have to try
to like what a band is doing not judge them from your high fucking horse. maybe show this cd to some people who are
working out and ask them if its a .5
The maturity here is staggering
|
| |
Album Rating: 1.0
I just don't get it, Sputnik's ranking system is made so this shouldn't happen (isn't that why the Staffers get attention on other rating sites; i.e.Metacritic) And it's not like a certain staffer would write a scathing review if he/she couldn't back it up.
i dont like being rude on the internet, but how the fuck is someone on staff giving out a .5 for this cd. you have to try
Just from my time on Sputnik, (remembering that I spent a great deal of time reading Staff/Contrib reviews - Deviant being one of them) they don't just decide on the spot whether something is complete garbage. It's not like Dev heard one song and decided to write the review based off that small impression.
Just as a small side note though: It's rude to swear at people that are obviously superior.
|
| |
I'm all for some good dubstep, but I think I'll pass this up. When I heard Twisted Transistor time ago, I already knew that this band is going to the dogs.
|
| |
you wouldn't have to defend your rating if you atleast mentioned something positive in your review, which could have been the smallest thing. your electronic music elitism is well known and shines right through this review
|
| |
But why would he mention something positive in the review if he can't find anything positive to speak of?
|
| |
|
|
