of course

people get far too hung up on ratings. it's not a universal scale spread across the entirety of music, it's an arbitrary score that's supposed to complement the tone of the review

Album Rating: 4.5

If the album is well recorded and the musicians are very good, I think I could give it a 4 out of 10. So what albums that you've listened to would you give a 1.7 out of 10, and why?



Essentially Brent gives Lateralus a 1.7 because people who like Tool are Sophomoric and don't really don't understand what makes "good" music "good". Brent believes Undertow opened the door to Limp Bizkit, (to some extent.)



http://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/8104-lateralus/



It's a fascinating review, but not for the reasons Brent thinks so. Brent really doesn't talk about the music on this album so much as Progressive Rock, people with over trained chops, and how much he doesn't like the common filth who thought this was a good record.

Brent is a conceited douchebag, but like choccy said, there's no minimum rating you're allowed to give
an album as long as it fulfils certain conditions of recording and performance. i'd probably give
10000 days about a 3 for the very simple reason i find it really fucking dull - there's really no
method to my rating, it should be a gut reaction otherwise you're getting into all sorts of
algorithmic shit

Album Rating: 4.5

This is Brent,



http://squareonechicity.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/299-music-giftguide-portrait-brent.jpg



See how fucking cool he is?



He gave Kid A a 10/10 http://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/6656-kid-a/



Which is pretty endearing....because it's Krautrock record, so I understand where Brent is coming from.....Kid A is a true progressive rock record in that it pushes the envelope, and Lateralus and De-Loused, while charming, and entertaining (to me), don't push the envelope.

Album Rating: 2.5 | Sound Off

Cos that's also opinion. It's like raw lo-fi tapes are still critically acclaimed in the black metal world and no one fussed about the production or quality there.there's no point saying something that's well recorded automatically gets a 4/10, because if the sound of me scratching my leg was well recorded in high def, well produced and released, doesn't mean that warrants a 4/10 either. Simply put, if we don't like what we hear, we don't like it. If it Gets to a point where it's dissatisfying or painful to listen to, then we hate it and that deserves a 1 in my book, regardless of quality or musicianship. I don't normally rate things that are that bad cos I don't see a point in documenting something I hate and won't listen to ever again. If you really want a bad album, I hated the Royal Blood album. Sure, the musicianship was there but it just frustrated and angered me and I got pretty sick of it. It was worse than boring basically and that should be cool cos it's just how I perceive that piece of music anyway

dat argyle jumper though

to be fair his description of lateralus as 'wanking sludge' is pretty much on the money for me

Album Rating: 2.5 | Sound Off

Walls and walls of text...

Album Rating: 4.5

Fair enough, very good points.

i don't know what got into me, this is sputnik

better do 200 posts consisting of any combination of smae/tbh/ahrd/smh/yea/5'd/pos to redress the balance

Album Rating: 4.0

Stuck a lot better and faster than Heritage did

Album Rating: 2.5 | Sound Off

nah, that page is OURS



One last thing, the only time i'd ever disregard someones opinion is if they backed it up with absurd reasons. It's fair enough that you don't like an album, but not liking it cos it's popular or trendy to like/dislike it?!?



fook off m8

not liking music for any reasons that are non-musical is generally a dick move

i concur with george takei: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_QDGdbg-QQ

Album Rating: 4.0

ugh I hate this album cuz lots of people like it, too mainstream for me 1/5

Album Rating: 3.0

In response to what I posted earlier and the comments that followed that:



''"Album Rating: 4.5 | Sound Off



Well, I can't take Pitchfork seriously when they rate albums like Lateralus a 1.9 out of 10. I

simply disregard their reviews."



Yeah, this comment is pretty worthless''



It is worthless, because I used a fallacy, but it still does not entirely invalidate my point that

their reviews are shit. Ofcourse everyone is entitled to their opinion, but then making such a

review is beyond stupid, in my opinion.



Oh well, I think I've said all I wanted to say on this matter, perhaps we should stick to the review

and album now.



Edit: Failed to get my other point across, so I removed it, because it had no value

Album Rating: 3.0

''"You simply don't base your entire review around your own opinion"



Uh.. yes you do?''



I never agreed on that, so that's just another opinion.

if you're saying a review isn't an opinion then you're fucking daft

Album Rating: 3.0

It is a opinion, but there are parts that aren't, but the vast majority is a opinion ofcourse.





I just wanted to say that.

so then surely it is ok to base your review round an opinion then?

i'm confused

Album Rating: 3.0

I failed to try to get my point across, excuse me, but English is not my first language, so this sometimes happens.

someone link this dude the objective reviews of pth or gaga