Bon Iver 22, A Million
» Back to review

Comments:Add a Comment 
Lord(e)Po)))ts
October 1st 2016


70256 Comments


dude incendiary nonsense aside deliberately posted just because you're a dick i would legitimately like to read a fleshed out review that carries on that first paragraph instead of just kind of.... dying

Lord(e)Po)))ts
October 1st 2016


70256 Comments


like yeah you could explain why it isn't unlike other bon iver albums but like you could also talk about the album a bit which you dont do at all

iloveyouall
October 1st 2016


6312 Comments


my thoughts are worthwhile sometimes

Lord(e)Po)))ts
October 1st 2016


70256 Comments


nice tbh i was expecting a flame war as per usual but since you're being a bro right now for some reason i'll subside and EAGERLY ANTICIPATE your edit

TheCrocodile
October 1st 2016


2925 Comments


this was going to be pitchfork best new music before even existing

theBoneyKing
October 1st 2016


24890 Comments

Album Rating: 3.0

And water is wet

trackbytrackreviews
October 1st 2016


3469 Comments


Hopefully in your edit you delete those first two paragraphs

Conmaniac
October 1st 2016


27771 Comments

Album Rating: 4.0

listening to this now. pretty crazy tbh

furyroad97
October 1st 2016


552 Comments

Album Rating: 4.5

This kinda reminds me of Sufjan's The Age Of Adz for some reason

JS19
October 1st 2016


7777 Comments

Album Rating: 4.0

cringing at pots taking a review on a review site way too seriously ugh

ABond
October 1st 2016


339 Comments

Album Rating: 5.0

Is there a place to take reviews more seriously than a review site?

JS19
October 1st 2016


7777 Comments

Album Rating: 4.0

A review site that isn't sputnikmusic.com

theBoneyKing
October 1st 2016


24890 Comments

Album Rating: 3.0

To be fair Arcade is contributor which means there is a certain level of quality expected of him. And staff reviewers are theoretically professional-grade reviewers so really why should we take sputnik reviews at that level any less seriously than other professional review sites?

ABond
October 1st 2016


339 Comments

Album Rating: 5.0

"To be fair Arcade is contributor which means there is a certain level of quality expected of him. And staff reviewers are theoretically professional-grade reviewers so really why should we take sputnik reviews at that level any less seriously than other professional review sites?" [2]

Conmaniac
October 1st 2016


27771 Comments

Album Rating: 4.0

review doesnt explain a lot but it's well written I guess

TheSpaceMan
October 1st 2016


13614 Comments

Album Rating: 3.0

"taking a review on a review site way too seriously ugh"



are you retarded? i honestly thought this was sarcastic to prove a point but the benefit of ambiguity was lost when you continued to defend it

psandy
October 1st 2016


280 Comments


Shit, man. Good write up. I admire your brevity. Spun this about five times on a road trip, and after the initial shock, I must agree with your point that it's certainly still a folk record.

juiceviaorange
October 1st 2016


1128 Comments

Album Rating: 5.0

Very difficult to wrap my head around this record. I'm diggin what I'm hearing I'm just not sure what it is I'm hearing

AsleepInTheBack
Emeritus
October 1st 2016


10745 Comments

Album Rating: 3.5 | Sound Off

I mean the second half is fairly easy to comprehend, straight up 'For Emma'-esk folk. The first half is a little odd ball though I do agree.

FullOfSounds
October 1st 2016


15821 Comments

Album Rating: 3.0

I keep wanting to come back to this.



You have to be logged in to post a comment. Login | Create a Profile





STAFF & CONTRIBUTORS // CONTACT US

Bands: A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z


Site Copyright 2005-2023 Sputnikmusic.com
All Album Reviews Displayed With Permission of Authors | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy