Album Rating: 4.0

i think you're being a little pedantic tbh. yeah when you put it that way I guess you're right but you know what I mean,



it's been a recurring commentary that there's a clear split between the lighter, more acoustic tracks and the heavier, bassier, danker more "PBR&B" (ugh) tracks and it's pretty obvious if you've heard the record

Album Rating: 3.5

you definitely have a good point about production being a lazy-ass description of itself but since the

conversation involved ppl who heard the record I thought what fish said didn't need further xplanation

given the context of the album



edit: gg fish thnx for the ninja

Album Rating: 3.5

"More production" and "more prominent production" are different things though

I assume what fish is trying to say is he likes the songs where the production is more prominent in the music as opposed to the vocals

that's not necessarily saying that those songs were payed more attention than the other songs just that she chose to emphasise the instrumental side rather than the vocals

Album Rating: 4.0

exactly. although there aren't many times where the instrumental aspects are emphasised more. the strongest

songs balance them quite evenly, whereas the more vocal-based tracks feel a little more bland in comparison



"edit: gg fish thnx for the ninja"



your comment literally appeared as soon as I made my post so it must've been within a second lol

Album Rating: 3.5

I agree mostly but I'm still head over heels for You Should Know

Album Rating: 4.0

it's good to see that there's a real range in which ones are people's favourites



always a sign of a properly talented songwriter

Album Rating: 3.5

I am being pedantic probably but I think I have a point. It's a lazy way for reviewers to get around actually saying something substantial and I've been thinking about it a lot lately. Not trying to be inflammatory or anything like that, I know that my tone is kind of that way, it's just a point of conversation really. If I'm reading a review and I see the reviewer use the word in that way, I immediately stop reading. Just something I think we should move away from.



love youuuuu gonna go listen to this album and smoke weed on the beach. if I don't love it after that then I'm 3.5-ing the shit out of it. One more chance to kick my ass Banks. WHATCHA GOT.

generally yes in this case no

Album Rating: 3.0

tfw a 3.5/5 doesn't mean rly good

Album Rating: 4.0

if it were a review i'd be less lazy with my description but it's a comment and it's 5.30am and i'm lazy



ciao ciao n gnight, gonna have a cig and go to bed

Album Rating: 4.0

tree stop being the worst plz you can be better than this

?

Album Rating: 4.0

are you questioning the fact that that comment was the worst or that you can be better :/

Album Rating: 3.5

fish is right on both accounts

what's the problem with my comment?
i agree with him in general that the term is over- and misused but his concerns don't apply in this specific case because it was perfectly valid usage

GTFO of here with that 2.

Album Rating: 4.0

oh i thought you were referring to my last comment on the previous page



my bad

why don't you ~get the fuck out of here~ and take a long hard look at your 5s before making another post on this website

Album Rating: 3.5

lmao tree ARE YOU NEW HERE?

yes wanna show me around?