ah it's cool man. i wasn't offended, it just read funny and immediately blows your cover for your reader, not just me, if that makes sense. Like uhhkris knew immediately why you wrote the review, for instance, and stopped reading just because of that part you put in there. I mean, I'm no master of subtlety, obviously, but if you are going to react to anything make it at least appear like it's just the album and how the band sounds on it, history, influences, etc. Not other writers. Us on staff sometimes offer counter arguments to other staff reviews that some of us disagree with -- like Tyler fisher's Arcade Fire's The Suburbs review, for instance -- but we never blatantly say "there was this review i disagreed with, so i wrote this one" even though that's why the writer probably wrote it.

Album Rating: 3.0

You're a good man, I feel like a dick now...but I completely know what you're saying...by the way I should thank you, because I hadn't been on here or written anything in ages and seeing your review sparked me to start writing my own again. I hope you liked the new Strokes album better than this one haha

when did sum 41 become the new emery around here?

Album Rating: 2.0

The way this reads right now, in my opinion, you really don't deserve all the hate your getting for this. The review

still seems a little too conversational, and although it might be because I only read it after I read the comments, you

still seem pretty biased. You never want to announce yourself as a fan in a review. Even if you are a die-hard fan,

you gain a lot more credibility if you write neutral. As you can see here, any respect you initially have is lost when

you come out of the sum 41 closet. solid review overall, just needs improvement in some areas.



Edit: Upon re-reading it; The only really stick-out moment of bias is when you announce that infection is a

masterpiece. I mean, you might think that, but 90% of the musical community probably doesn't. And when you make

that statement in first paragraph, that still equals instant judgement. You might just want to edit that to just proclaim

that it's the bands best instead of their masterpiece.

Album Rating: 3.0

Yeah I see what you're saying, I probably will change that. Thank you for not completely ripping me apart. I just don't think this album's as bad as some people think it is. andcas, I am a fan, but I was also just trying to give this album credt where credit's due. btw "Devil & God" is a fucking incredible work of art, love Brand New too.

Album Rating: 2.0

While, I'm at it. The easiest way to tone down the conversational aspect of a review is to just get rid of all the "I"

statements. Anything that begins with "I think that" or "I believe" needs to be reworded. Treat everything you say as

if it's solid undeniable fact...even if it isn't.



"But enough background,let’s press play shall we?"...also statements like this aren't needed. it's a tacky sentence

which generally just makes people groan. Your review isn't a tour guide, nor is it interactive, you don't need to pull

us along like a herd. And again, that sentence is treating your review like a conversation, which this isn't.



So yeah, fix this review up a bit, and I'll give ya a POS. Hope I'm not sounding to harsh.

Album Rating: 3.5 | Sound Off

i know you said this is the beginning of the brown tom era, but legit he didn't record anything whatsoever for this record. he co-wrote the title track (which was a gob leftover btw), but deryck recorded all the guitars himself. so idk if mentioning brown tom as the new lead guitarist ir really relevant.

Album Rating: 3.0

@sublimefan: Yeah I know that, but I figure it was still noteworthy considering even though he technically didn't record anything for the album, he's been touring with them for it, I saw them a few weeks ago in Toronto and when you actually see them play live, you can see that he brings alot to the table whether it be backing vocals or guitar solos, so I just thought I'd give him props because he's basically taken on those roles even if it's not him on the record. (btw they are actually an incredible live band, one of the few remaining popular/mainstream kind of bands who remember that the show's about the fans) Nice to see a positive review of this album though, I think everyone's just hating on Sum 41 cuz it's the popular thing to do right now.



@fishing: naw not too harsh at all man, I 'preciate that, and honestly I was on the fence about that line myself, I was a little unsure of how to transition from the background discussion to actually talking about the tracks, so I guess did I slack job their haha, but I took it out and fixed it up a bit.

Album Rating: 3.0

Thanks to everyone for their comments, even the people who were blatantly chirping me. A couple hours ago I'd be telling you to go fuck yourselves, but based on the fact that this has sparked sum debate, has made me feel like I've done something, even if it's not the best review on this site. If you don't like it that's cool, but I did and I wanted to write a review focusing on the positives of the album rather than tearing it apart and calling it a "Chuck" remake or w.eva (but "Chuck" IS a great album)



This was my first review I've written in like a year (I've been real busy) so I might've forgot some important rules, mainly letting my emotions sneak in where they shouldn't have. I'll try to block them out for the next one.

Album Rating: 3.5 | Sound Off

yea i've actually seen them live w/ thacker as the guitarist and they were hella energetic.

stfu sublimefan

but qwe...HELLA

Album Rating: 3.5

record is much better than I thought. dunno if I should give it a 3 or a 3.5.

the last time I listened to this band was when their erstwhile single "still waiting" was on air at the local radio stations. odd.

Album Rating: 3.0

Haha yeah man! It is alot better than some people have given it credit for. But if you notice, most of the ppl who've been bashing it are all fuckin metalheads. Most of the metalheads I know just love to hate Sum*41 because they think they're pissing on their tree by dabbling with a heavier sound. And as we all know, Metalheads don't like it when you piss on their tree.



These guys grew up listening to Iron Maiden and Metallica so obviously they're gunna try to incorporate that into their sound. "S.B.M" could've been alot better tho if they'd just spent a little more time on the heavier songs and less time on the ballady shit...



But thank you for not ripping it apart. I think a 3 is fair. It's good, but their previous 3 are still much better.

Album Rating: 3.0

Let it be known I have no qualms with metal. I went through a metal phase in high school, but then I discovered indie rock. It's just not my thing anymore.

It is alot better than some people have given it credit for[...]

Album Rating: 3.0

Wow. Since when did everyone on Sputnik get so fucking touchy. I guess you have to use: "I think" or "I feel" before everything

you say on here, otherwise you're a biggot. So "I feel" you're kind of being a douchebag by painting me as such, and "I

think" you obviously think you're better than me just because you've got a "Contributer" tag underneath your name.

Nawh I "think" that rationalising that the reason people dislike this album is because they are metalheads who got irritated that a formerly pop-punk band is "pissing on their tree" instead of because they don't think it's a very good album makes you a knob.

Which when you think about it I would definitely still be saying if I wasn't a contributor.

So yeah.

Album Rating: 3.0

Haha true enough, I'll agree to disagree. I'm just calling it as I see it.

Good review. This isn't as bad an album as everybody says it is.