Album Rating: 5.0

Yeah, there are nearly no stupid fanboys on this site who neg on anybody who dislikes thier favorite band.

Album Rating: 4.5

Aha that's funny.

Love the album, hate the rating, but it's a good review, I must admit. Good work.

Album Rating: 2.0

talentless (heh).



i think TMV is alot different in their approach than Tool.



granted, FTM probably doesn't deserve a 5.



They both rip off old bands, but I think TMV adds more punk and latin ideas into their music, plus the are constantly progressing their songs, where as tool likes long build ups.



i dunno.



bad argument

Album Rating: 5.0

fair enough.

Album Rating: 4.5

I don't really know how I feel about this album. Sometimes I'll put it on and enjoy it, other times I'll have no idea why I bought it or why anyone else likes it.

This Message Edited On 05.24.06

Album Rating: 3.5

You're rating doesn't agree with what you're saying.

Album Rating: 4.5

I just put it on.. I'm enjoying it. I see no contradiction.

Album Rating: 4.5

Not a very good review by any means.



The first paragraph is a solid introduction, while the second paragraph is a history lesson.



The third paragraph was utterly worthless. To deny Tool's music of originality is laughable. Don't get me wrong, its approach to songwriting may be similar or even identical to other artists, but the music itself is more original than not. Also, it's wonderful that the delayed guitar creates one of the most beautiful moments of modern rock you've heard, but why? An essentially useless comment without reason.

Album Rating: 4.5

The fourth paragraph wasn't much better. You previously stated something about people who rely solely on the radio for a source of music and how unfortunate their circumstances are, followed by the following comment: "if you were one of those kids listening to bubble-gum pop and shitty modern rock, of course “Lateralus” would cause your mouth to drop to the floor". You then state the following: "“Schism” was the single, so like most bands Tool placed it in the middle. This makes the listener have to at least give the beginning of the album of a chance". Again, useless, considering the songs leading up to Schism would be just as intriguing for a "bubble-gum pop" listening kiddie, the one who had heard the single in the first place. Regardless, you follow it up by saying that this album doesn't click with you. Wonderful, but how does that help the reader? "Clicking" is essentially subjective, and in being so, useless to the reader. It's nice to know that The Grudge progress into interesting parts, but WHY? You then delve deeper into a hole of idiocy when you bring up the ALTERNATRE (note: not actual) tracklisting. The alternate tracklisting serves solely as an ALTERNATE way of listening to the album; it serves as another perspective. You somehow tie this into Tool being pretentious and "full of themselves". A bold assertion, but unfortunately without any factual reason. Again, nothing more than fan generated myths, something inherently not musical. Also, how "The Patient" sounds similar to "The Grudge" is beyond me. You follow that up by saying something about making five "Schism" like songs. Does that make sense? Unless you strictly meant in quality, which you could've, no.



The fifth paragraph was certainly an improvement. Still, errors are apparent. You mention a reference to "dark growl and light singing" here. What dark growling and light singing? You mean, like, Necrophagist growling? Or wait- light singing... like Pinback? Wait- did I say this paragraph was an improvement? Well, it was, up until you called Lateralus filler, and even more laughable, a rip-off of "The Grudge". Your main problem is that, since this album is so diverse in dynamics and style, as soon as two remotely similar tracks appear, you somehow tie some kind of negative connotation to it.

Album Rating: 4.5

Your sixth paragraph was solid. Not much to say. The seventh paragraph, however, is absolutely ridiculous. Calling Maynard a sub par lyricist is a bold statement, and when compared to most modern lyricists I must disagree. And about the "spiral out" part, the Fibonacci Sequence is a mathematical sequence that forms a spiral. On the song "Lateralus", the syllables are pronounced using this sequence, and hence the "spiral out" part. It's much more thought out and complex than that, but I won't get into it. Luckily you ended the paragraph well.



Next is your conclusion, although you don't have much to conclude. In actuality, all you told us was that you don't like the album, they're pretentious, and a few of their songs sound the same. You rarely talked about the music itself.

Album Rating: 3.5

Iluvatar knows where it's at :cool:

Album Rating: 4.5

Wow, an attempt at a witty comment. How exciting and uninteresting to read.



Correct me if I'm wrong, but the entire purpose of this community is to discuss music, review music, and achieve new levels of reviewing. I provided a somewhat in depth criticism of his review, in hopes that it may help him in the future.

Album Rating: 2.0

Well thanks Neurotoxin.



Although, half the criticism does tend to lend itself to the fact that I didn't like the album.This Message Edited On 05.24.06This Message Edited On 05.24.06

Album Rating: 4.5

To Iluvatar:



What? Comprehension classes will benefit you. The problem wasn't that we disagreed, it was that his review accomplished almost nothing. I rarely voiced my opinion on the music itself.This Message Edited On 05.24.06

Album Rating: 2.0

Also, you kind of answered most of the compliants you had in your review of my review (heh.)



# 1. I implied that most of the things Tool was messing around with had been done before. They take a large amount of their influence on this album off of bands like King Crimson and Pink Floyd. (this is obvious). I didn't imply they weren't original, just that they aren't that unique really. Just a modern rock band tinkering around in the progressive realm.



# 2. Yes, I meant five schism like songs in quality.



# 3. I guess you could precieve that I was just saying I didn't like the album. Which I was, but I did give reasons. # 1. The album is overblown in it's method of delivery, Tool thinks they are alot better than Tool acutally is. # 2. The nature of how all the tracks are very similar, in both structure and content is grating. # 3. Maynard's lyrics aren't good. I guess that isn't the greatest argument but oh well.

This Message Edited On 05.24.06

Album Rating: 2.0

# 4. I was using a different analogy for Maynard's "scream". Sorry if I confused you with Death Metal by saying growl. But whatever. It seems like you are just looking for things to complain about in this paragraph really, where the others were somewhat grounded.



# 5. I said Maynard used allusion. I just said he didn't do it well or in an interesting way. Then I concluded as I concluded this, it's probably a really strong preference since my main thing in a band is lyrical content.



# 6. Okay.

Album Rating: 5.0

Good review, a nice take on a highly controversial album.



The only thing that kinda got to me was how you said that it was "an overblown, pretentious progressive rock album". All that stuf about the fibonacci sequence wasn't exactly flaunted by the band and waved in front of their fans' faces. Some Tool fanboy with no life probably discovered that between sessions of Everquest.



The same goes for all of that BS about alternate track orders. Someone from the band ( i forget who) dismised that theory as just that: BS.



but whatever, good review. I'm just another fanboy. But i don't play everquest :P

Album Rating: 5.0

Neurotoxin is a deranged fanboy, Pixiesfanyo. Don't even pay attention to him. You're review was good. Hey Neurotoxin? We're not professional writers, okay? Like you could do any better.

Album Rating: 4.0

The next time you go to a restaurant, I don't want you complaining if they give you low-quality grub. It's not like you can do any better.



And if you drive a car with not-so-great steering, no complaining there, either. After all, you can't build a better car.



In the words of a lost MX-er, "I don't have to be a chef to say that something tastes bad."This Message Edited On 05.24.06

Album Rating: 5.0

I'm not going to back down from what I said.

I can't make good food because I'm not a cook.

I can't make good car brakes because I'm not a car designer.

But Neurotoxin and Pixiesfanyo are both (I presume) non-professional reviewers on this site. They both do the same exact thing. If Neurotoxin thinks this review is terrible, he should write a better one.