Album Rating: 2.0

He isn't talentless but I don't think that he's great. He has some great songs and then some awful ones. Good review!

Album Rating: 1.5

His musical background doesn't make a difference when it comes to my thoughts on his music.



IMO, He's talentless.

Album Rating: 4.5

well, what makes him "talentless"? is it the music? the lyrics? the production?



what's your definition of "talent"?

Album Rating: 1.5

I define talent as,



lyrics

guitar work

how the music sounds as a whole



heres a few ppl I consider talented,

Jimmy hendrix

Jim morrison

Alexi Laiho

Kirk Hamlett (pre st anger)

dave mustaine

Thats more all time greats list.

Album Rating: 4.5

so:



1) you're definition of talent is very narrow, I mean guitar work? so the fuck what! In the grand scheme one music, guitar is but one simple instrument. What about production? Melody? Rhythm? Timbre? Originality? Arrangement? Harmony? These are far more important aspects to "talent" as they transcend all genres of music and thus, can be recognized more thoroughly as a proper criteria for judging quality of music.



2) the list of those "talented" is a very obvious and mainstream list, and if not questionable. This thus reinforces that very narrow scope of talent you suggest. Maybe when you suggest more daring figures of musical innovation (John Coltrane, Frank Zappa, The Clash, Public Enemy, Jeff Buckley, etc.) can "talent" be better understood.



Therefore, I've yet to receive a more acceptable argument as to why exactly Andrew W.K. is "talentless" (which I'm pretty sure isn't even a word). As far as I'm concerned Andrew W.K. has a phenomenal sense of the what has been mentioned above. As for lyrics and guitar work, they are certainly not spectacular but they suit the mood and style of the music perfectly and it doesn't need anything more intensive.

Album Rating: 1.5

Originallity is definity very important,

Melody (Children of bodom is my fav band)



You yourself admit his guitar work and lyrics are NOT spectacular.

Album Rating: 4.5

yeah, sure he's no dylan and the guitars are super-technical riffage, but they suit the structure of the songs perfectly. If it were anything else it would sound pretentious and horrible.



This is just simply fun, catchy and loud music and Andrew W.K. has got it refined to perfection.

I totally agree with rory on this one.

This is a pretty good album, too. Extremely fun.

Album Rating: 3.5

I agree with pretty much all of the track-by-track. This is an amazingly fun recording and a very good review.

Album Rating: 3.5

This is really just ment to be a fun album. It wasnt susposed to be like an "Appetite Of Destruction" or "Slippery When Wet (lol)"



I Get Wet is one great song... "I get wet, with out even trying"



Rad.

Album Rating: 4.5

I might re-write this, I forgot how much this album kicks ass.

Album Rating: 3.5

[quote=zesty]I forgot how much this album kicks ass[/quote]

But it does.

I haven't heard the CD but I have a song by him from masters of horror. Too poppy. There doesn't need to be three keyboards and three guitars. Meatlof had a similiar gig and he didn't need that many people. This Message Edited On 08.26.06

Album Rating: 4.5

There doesn't need to be three keyboards and three guitars.

I read somewhere that for the album cover he smashed cement block in his own face and broke his nose. Is this true?

Andrew W.K. rules.

Hard.

Yeah this cd is cool, love that intro riff to She is Beautiful

Album Rating: 4.0

This is such a rocking & fun album.

Album Rating: 3.5

I wish the parties I went to were like the ones this dude hosts.

This is one of the funniest rock albums I've ever heard. And its actually okay tooThis Message Edited On 12.22.08