|
Album Rating: 1.5
When the only major grammatical errors are improper commas and a run on sentence here and there, I
think you should be smart enough to comprehend what is being said. This is a music review website
where people ranging from 14-30 are writing amateur reviews. We're not writing dissertations for a
Ph.D in English.
This review is not, in fact, well written, nor well supported, especially as copypasta
definitions do NOT equal being "informed" (ironically enough as prejudgment is discussed using this
method). The review's body does not match the rating given and so we are left with a poorly
justified argument that is crawling with siege-mentality bias. Again, the irony is not lost on how
an attempt to counter ill-informed naysayers led to a review of defensive, unsubstantiated over-
rating.
This is pretentious response.
It's not unjustifiable to find flaws and point them out. That's called constructive
criticism.
There is a big difference from finding flaws and pointing them out compared to looking at every
single flaw, which is not completely important
| | |
People are focusing too much on whether the review justifies the 5 or not and using that as a base to measure the quality of the review. Would be better to concentrate on the actual content of the review since the rating is, frankly, arbitrary.
That being said, lol 5.
| | |
This review is not, in fact, well written, nor well supported, especially as copypasta definitions do NOT equal being "informed" (ironically enough as prejudgment is discussed using this method). The review's body does not match the rating given and so we are left with a poorly justified argument that is crawling with siege-mentality bias. Again, the irony is not lost on how an attempt to counter ill-informed naysayers led to a review of defensive, unsubstantiated over-rating.
Roads to hell are paved with good intentions. I can see what the reviewer is trying to do, and I respect the will to go against the tides of morons who do not even listen to records before slandering them. However, this alone does not equal a good review.
NAYSAYERS
| | |
Ok I've actually read this and the whole review can basically be summed up as "you guys are being mean. I like this for reasons I can't support objectively"
| | |
Poet. If the body of a piece of writing does not justify the summaries, it is a bad piece of
writing. Lack of consistency within your OWN ARGUMENT is just awful on so many levels.
That is even without considering a handful of cringeworthy no-no things, e.g. the classic starting a
sentence with "And". It reads like shit and makes it hard for anyone who is not a cretin to take it
seriously. Even with those things aside, the justifications are poor and based on reactionary
emotion rather than actual, you know, logical reason. Of course, there is a level of subjectivity
involved in everything, especially music taste, however most of the reasoning in this review amounts
to "because I think this" rather than "this is WHY I think this".
A spade is a spade and trash is trash.
| | |
If the body of a piece of writing does not justify the summaries, it is a bad piece of writing.
Why?
Agree with the other stuff you said.
| | |
Well fish., it makes it a bad piece of writing because it no longer makes sense. If for example I said
"A7x is a terrible band". I then explain why I think A7x are terrible, only what I say comes across as
actually thinking A7x are nowhere near as bad as I first claimed them to be. What I will have just
done, is gave you an opinion, then failed to show you why I even believe my own opinion. If the
writing does not even read as if I believe in my own conclusions, what the hell would I be on about,
and why should I even be listened to?
| | |
"When the only major grammatical errors are improper commas and a run on sentence here and there, I think you should be smart enough to comprehend what is being said"
Just because it's comprehensible (barely) doesn't mean it's a well-written, or good, review. What does the question at the bottom of the review ask? "Was this Review Well Written? Yes | No"
"This is a music review website where people ranging from 14-30 are writing amateur reviews."
In this case, a shitty amateur review.
"This review is by no means a masterpiece, but the negative response it's gotten is a little out of proportion to whatever misnomers it contains."
Well, apparently 23 of 38 people thought this review was well written, so it hasn't gotten an overwhelmingly negative response. However, it deserves one, because it's an absolutely terrible review.
"People are focusing too much on whether the review justifies the 5 or not and using that as a base to measure the quality of the review. Would be better to concentrate on the actual content of the review since the rating is, frankly, arbitrary."
Justifying your rating is a fairly important part of a review. But, even beyond that, this is an absolutely horrendous review. The "actual content" sucks, for reasons I've already explained.
"Ok I've actually read this and the whole review can basically be summed up as "you guys are being mean. I like this for reasons I can't support objectively""
^ Exactly. In other words, it's a horrible, horrible review.
| | |
Well fish., it makes it a bad piece of writing because it no longer makes sense. If for
example I said
"A7x is a terrible band". I then explain why I think A7x are terrible, only what I say comes across
as
actually thinking A7x are nowhere near as bad as I first claimed them to be. What I will have just
done, is gave you an opinion, then failed to show you why I even believe my own opinion. If the
writing does not even read as if I believe in my own conclusions, what the hell would I be on about,
and why should I even be listened to?
The only summary like that he's made is by scoring it a 5. Like I said, the rating is arbitrary; it
can be ignored and it doesn't affect the argument. Even though the argument itself is poor anyway.
This is the exact reason why some people have suggested scrapping review scores altogether.
| | |
Scrapping review scores would not be a good idea in the grand scheme of things, as albums like this that get tides of reviews would need to be a ballache to read about.
I stand by what I said about the score however. It matters, as it has an impact on many readers before they have even got into the meat of the review. It should, in fact, have an impact on us. Anyone writing a review, who aspires to write something at least decent, should expect to be held to their word and judgments. While I often find the scores are disagreeable, when you get a 5 for this album, scepticism comes crawling out of the woodwork. As humans, prejudgment is part of our condition, regardless of how much we try to deny and/or control such urges. Whether review scores should or should not be scrapped is a moot point, as they do exist and continue to have an impact.
| | |
Crimson Day is the only song that I like so far.... still.
| | | |
|
|
