Album Rating: 0.5

I had to write a replacement review in under 40 minutes so it...worked out alright

Album Rating: 2.5

haha good effort under the timeframe

[2] I wouldn't have guessed

Album Rating: 0.5

I've edited here and there since...but it was largely finished in that time frame yeah

Album Rating: 1.0

How many reviews must I approve before I unlock the secret 0.5 rating?

Album Rating: 0.5

You got a way to go

Before I listen to a piece of music or an album, for me anyways, it's a 2.5. Positive things will add to that score, negative things will take away. For me 0 is for something that has such an overwhelming mass of negative qualities and no redeeming factors. Because with your method, things that do nothing good and nothing bad and just exist as a bland piece of music, will be rated the same as stuff that has an onslaught of negative factors. 2.5 is the middle for a reason, to differentiate between awful and bland and truly astonishing. I dish out 5's a bit freer than most because I think that a 4.75 qualifies as a 5. Where as most do 5's for 100% perfect. So I understand rating differently. But on the website 2.5 is literally labelled average, that's how most people vote. All you're doing is fuckin' with averages.

How Did We Get So Dark?

Album Rating: 0.5

thomas - we disagree.



I believe for a band to get a mainstream release most of the stuff that would score 0 has been weeded away, people get paid to sign artists, etc.



I then don't rate 'is this competent music that could potentially have ANY audience?' I rate 'what value does it have within the realms of competent music?'. I'm not signing the band. On your scale nothing should get a 0.5 that gets a record deal.



This is as bad as it gets; the vocals are amateurish (maybe heading towards a 0 score), the lyrics are terrible (definitely a 0 score), the songs are dull (dull in music is a 'bad' quality not an 'average' quality surely?), the song writing approach is old hat, so many other bands within this genre are crushing the material presented here, there isn't a great song on the album - not one, the album is a marked step down from an average at best debut.



If I've listened to about 200 albums this year and I'm using a 0.5-5 scale then why is this being in the bottom 2% of those releases in terms of quality not worthy of a 0.5 rating? So I've got to bump a hundred average albums to a 3.5 rating because of these dullards? No.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBkjcvNztKQ

Attila got signed, music is subjective but this barely ever gets worst than bland. A bands popularity (which leads to signing) doesn't usually hold any guarantee of quality.

Look at Angelic 2 Tha Core. How the hell did that come out. I just don't see how you can argue this reaches that level of appalling.

Album Rating: 0.5

This could be a zero someguest

Album Rating: 0.5

thomas - I find the lack of inspiration on the album criminal, the debut I found a little tedious hence a 2/5 rating...this is a far, far inferior album.



I'm that f'cker who'd have 300 albums rated 0.5 on the site, I do hold my hands up to that, but give me a 0.5-5 scale and I'll use it.

Album Rating: 0.5

'Angelic to the Core' is a 0.5 album, possibly a 0.00001 album who knows. It holds more fascination in terms of being totally ridiculous, so in a way it is more entertaining

I gave up assigning single digits to sonic media eons ago, but whatever floats your objectivity score.

Album Rating: 0.5

I like rules, I like games, but i don't take rating sonic media tooooo seriously - tbh the objectivity score proves that more than anything else

Album Rating: 3.5

Doofus auditioned for Royal Blood between their first album and this and got turned down, that's obviously why he's so sour on this.

He actually got the job. It was a promoter position. He knows reverse psychology works wonders on Sputnikmusic.

Album Rating: 1.0

doof you are on the money with this one



so bland and lifeless