Album Rating: 4.0

He asked me to clarify. I spelled it out as bluntly as possible. I thought my initial comment was pretty clear, but apparently it wasn't.



Just because someone calls out the flaws of something in the first paragraph of a review doesn't suddenly make it balanced. What are the flaws? If it has flaws why is the writer not describing them after bringing them up. Nothing is brought up, just "the pits of despair" and "concentrated severity".



Please, it's not a review and I never said his credibility was at stake, I just said the review wasn't a review and I don't like it.



How hard is this to understand?

Album Rating: 5.0

cause you're fucking stupid

Album Rating: 4.0

I didn't realize cunts could talk. Thank for the illuminating insight Chesse13.



Edit: Make that type.

It's a 5 review. How would he bring up blemishes of the album when there aren't any to him?

At this point you dislike his review solely because he didn't spell out what he didn't like. If I'm misunderstanding, please enlighten me.

Album Rating: 4.0

You're right I don't like the review because he doesn't spell out what he alludes to in the first paragraph. If you aren't

going to bring up a subject in the body don't allude to it in the opening paragraph. That is a pretty basic rule of writing

a

critical piece I think.



I think you may find enlightenment in my last post which says what I just reiterated but with more sarcasm (which is

unwarranted I grant you).



edit:Not the post to Chesse hehehe. That is not for you.



EDIT Edit: The more I look at it the more I think I'm just being an over analytical prick. Hahahhahaha Sorry Mr. Denby.



:D

Aww, Jruined you seem to be a sweetie after all.

Album Rating: 4.0

seriously, how can you say this band is a shit? daryl palumbo is a lyrical genius, end of discussion haha. great album, definite classic.

high-5 foxxxy!

Album Rating: 5.0

Jruined, thanks for the critique. Yeah, I can see how you might prefer a more descriptive piece, I was trying to review in the more general concept of "feel" instead of breaking it down to individual contributions and components. I would usually, but this album's personal significance made me want to address the emotional aspects primarily.



Also:

Alright I'll get it, then.

Album Rating: 5.0

Starting to prefer this over the other one.

Album Rating: 4.0

Well I thought this was a well-written review.

If a review is to be aesthetically relevant to an album, you sound like someone who's looking back and going "No, that was me, that happened, it changed me, and there's no way I can deny it." You make that point very clearly.

Sure there can be more details in the review, like it's not all-encompassing, but most reviews aren't, they're just one person's subjective understanding. Talking about personal investment and purpose, i.m.o., is much more engaging than using interchangeable sonic descriptors like your name's Fantano.