|
Album Rating: 4.5
Look at it this way: If I'm reviewing a specific product by a manufacturer, and I spend half my review talking about the manufacturer and not the product, there's a problem. As I assumedly pointed out: Most people don't seek reviews to learn about the artist. That's what the band's page is for — Wikipedia, last.fm, ect... They seek reviews for an album's context and perspective given by someone they trust/revere. Writing a short exposition on the album's history and the artist's intention for writing music isn't necessarily bad, but to the degree you did it, it came out overwrought.
Yes but guess what? I'm not reviewing a washing machine! I'm reviewing music that has a history to it, as noted by the artist himself. It's called context, it's a simple word and I'm surprised you haven't figured it out already!
As I just mentioned, you were excessive in it. Not only that, but placing that kind of information in the beginning, rather than the end, makes you come across as someone who often digresses.
yes, because talking about that AFTER talking about the music (note that the point of the beginning of this review is to provide context for said music) wouldn't be digressing from the point at all....
I find it funny how you use a double-quotation here to reference pieces in your review, and yet, in your actual review, you used single-styled quotations.
Because this isn't a review. Are you really so desperate for attention here that you thought that that should become another point of contention?
If you were to separate "music" and "a" with an em-dash, and then separate "brother" and "the" with another em-dash, the sentence would make sense, but you didn't.
No it wouldn't make sense at all, unless you somehow possess the rare ability to bend the english language to your will. You're not strangerofsorts are you? I've already pointed out what that sentence represents, and by that admission (and that knowledge), the sentence is grammatically correct. If you're still having difficulty I recommend seeking out some of that bubble wrap I bought up last time you thought you had a bone to chew
You separated two independent clauses with a hyphen.
They're not independent clauses, so that's your flaw. It's merely an extension of the idea presented before that I felt needed to be explained - (uh oh) it was presented separately yet still within the sentence
| | | Album Rating: 4.5
It doesn't matter if you're tying it into the other sentence. You didn't use a semi-colon, so it's not a part of it.
I know it's not a part of it, hence the "other" sentence. What are you, retarded?
Well, heh, as I mentioned, I knew what you were talking about, and anyone with the literacy of a 4 year old would, too. That said, you can make plenty of English mistakes and still be understood fine. Semantics aren't required for proper phonological understanding, but if you want your grammar to be the best it can, you're going to have follow all the rules of English.
That's probably why I did then! But by all means, continue with your semantics. It really doesn't change anything
Next please
| | | Album Rating: 4.5
I'll be honest, this is invigorating
| | | Album Rating: 4.5
"Please don't associate Dev with Australia."
Lol I've already had the "displeasure".
| | | Album Rating: 4.5
There is only Australia and nothing else
| | | Album Rating: 4.5
Because we're better at it than you motherfucker
| | | Album Rating: 5.0 | Sound Off
Of course he has snow wtf
| | | Album Rating: 4.5
better at standing around like a dork and scanning my ski pass congratulations it would appear that your people will stop at nothing to excel at bumming around
Like I said, we do it better than you!
http://www.martinhunter.co.nz/photos/MtRuapehuCraterLakeNZ.jpg
And no, we have no snow
| | |
"Yes but guess what? I'm not reviewing a washing machine! I'm reviewing music that has a history to it, as noted by the artist himself. It's called context, it's a simple word and I'm surprised you haven't figured it out already!"
The comparison I made wasn't directed towards a washer machine, but consumer products themselves. Yes, music extends further into avant-garde ground, but it's still a consumer product that's bought, distributed, and made throughout a series of chronologies. Every album has history to it, but spending the entire first half of your review dwelling on this history, rather than talking about the album, comes off as you digressing towards other things you had in mind. This is all subjective, though. It is simply my preference that when reading a review of something I spend the majority of my time reading about the product and not the history of it. History is certainly an essential element, but it's not a primary one. But again, that's just my subjective preference. Though, this is pretty much English 101. You will be panned in the professional world if you simply recite a history you can easily look on Wikipedia for.
"yes, because talking about that AFTER talking about the music (note that the point of the beginning of this review is to provide context for said music) wouldn't be digressing from the point at all...."
Depends really on how you script the review, but if you're telling me that placing the exposition at the end of the review is a digression, then you're fundamentally admitting to your own digression, as it makes no difference if you placed those two paragraphs in the beginning or end (with regards to digression). That said, if you're going to digress, I (me) think the digression would fit more appropriately after I've been given perspective on the album itself. Like I mentioned prior, when I read reviews, I'm primarily looking for a review on the product, not a recital I can get anywhere on the web. A 3rd grader can do that.
Just shortening the exposition and writing in a more direct, formal manner, however, would fix this entire problem.
"Because this isn't a review. Are you really so desperate for attention here that you thought that that should become another point of contention?"
lol, you really think I'm doing this for attention? Silentpotato attests I'm doing this out of butthurt anger and you say I'm doing this for attention. Which is it? Well, considering how revered you are on this site, and how I'm not, I never expected to be applauded for my retorting you. I just think you're arrogant (this predates to the forums) and have a bit of a God-complex in that regard.
| | |
You're never wrong, Dev, and you're very hostile towards those who disagree with you. Throughout the forum discussions, and even here (without me even having to initially respond to you), you began insulting me. I don't particularly have an issue someone throwing empty insults at me (my e-peen doesn't beg for everyone to love me). But it's the arrogance that kind of makes me turn my head. That's not to say I'm not enjoying this debacle, though. You're relentless and virulent. You never let me down. Anyways, just admit you fucked up your grammar. I've done it before. Hell, I bet my review has some pretty stark grammatical mistakes (though, I was never afforded and opportunity to edit it).
"No it wouldn't make sense at all, unless you somehow possess the rare ability to bend the english language to your will. You're not strangerofsorts are you? I've already pointed out what that sentence represents, and by that admission (and that knowledge), the sentence is grammatically correct. If you're still having difficulty I recommend seeking out some of that bubble wrap I bought up last time you thought had a bone to chew"
I noticed you never responded to the links I provided. You know, this is never going to be settled through conversation. Either prove to me through grammar rule that I'm incorrect or concede you were wrong. Hyphens are never used to separate clauses. NEVER! Those were two clauses.
I will admit that em-dashes may not have been the most appropriate choice; albeit, your sentence was made of absolute fuck and I could barely discern just wtf you were saying. You should have used a comma to separate "music" and "a." Now if you think I'm wrong, prove that to me. I feel like I've already proved my point with the Owl labs.
"They're not independent clauses, so that's your flaw. It's merely an extension of the idea presented before that I felt needed to be explained - (uh oh) it was presented separately"
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=independent+clause&sub=Search+WordNet&o2=&o0=1&o8=1&o1=1&o7=&o5=&o9=&o6=&o3=&o4=&h=
"A frenzied pursuit amongst the shadows and one that Bevan will probably attest to not having any clear end in sight."
This is a sentence.
| | |
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=hyphen&sub=Search+WordNet&o2=&o0=1&o8=1&o1=1&o7=&o5=&o9=&o6=&o3=&o4=&h=0
Also, brush up your knowledge of hyphens. They're only used to connect words.
"I know it'd not a part of it, hence the "other" sentence. What are you, retarded?"
I'm not sure if you're trolling or actually serious. Throughout this argument on grammar, you proceed to not only correct me, but insult me as well, all while grammatically fucking up ("it'd"). Oh, wait, you'll probably argue this was grammatically correct, too. After all, you're perfect ;D
"That's probably why I did then! But by all means, continue with your semantics. It really doesn't change anything"
You just admitted to making a grammatical mistake based on the premise of phonetics. You just debunked your entire argument against me XD You only write based off phonetics? Wow. Then you shouldn't be writing. Record your reviews.
| | | Album Rating: 4.5
Yes baby, round three!
| | |
Lol wow...
I (me) think the digression would fit more appropriately after I've been given perspective on the album itself.
Was the "(me)" really necessary?
| | |
Dev, I'm going to go have wet-dreams about my crushing victory over you. Not all of us live in Aussy. It's 4:30 in the morning where I am.
'Till tomorrow.
| | |
"Was the "(me)" really necessary?"
It was to signify how subjective my point of view was.
| | |
redundant.
| | |
I suppose it was. I was just trying to further highlight that my preference was subjective :/
| | | Album Rating: 4.5
The comparison I made wasn't directed towards a washer machine, but consumer products themselves.
No shit!
Every album has history to it, but spending the entire first half of your review dwelling on this history, rather than talking about the album, comes off as you digressing to other things you had in mind.
See you're missing the point (because you want to or because you're simply an idiot I don't know) because talking about the history is still talking about the album. I talk about this artist approaches his music, music that coincidentally features on this album! Besides, how could I be digressing if I open the review with that? Do you not know the meaning of the word?
Depends really on how you script the review, but if you're telling me that placing the exposition at the end of the review is a digression, then you're fundamentally admitting to your own digression, as it makes no difference if you placed those two paragraphs in the beginning or end.
Except it isn't a digression as I've explained time and time again. You need to learn to actually read things. Again, I redirect you back to the little discussion we had in the meds thread where you were unable to grasp the point of just about anything
Like I mentioned prior, when I read reviews, I'm primarily looking for a review on the product, not a recital I can get anywhere on the web. A 3rd grader can do that.
I didn't write this for you, so I don't really care what you could do
ol, you really think I'm doing this for attention? Silentpotato attests I'm doing this out of butthurt anger and you say I'm doing this for attention. Which is it?
Well I did call you stupid on a number of occasions in the hope that it would lead to this, and here we are
| | | Album Rating: 5.0 | Sound Off
Finish submitting track lists first plz
| | | Album Rating: 4.5
I just think you're arrogant (this predates to the forums) and have a bit of a God-complex in that regard.
That god complex being in no way inflated by the amount of attention you're giving me of course...
You're never wrong, Dev, and you're very hostile towards those who disagree with you.
I generally dislike anyone who is an idiot. You'll note our previous discussion where I was more than amicable with you before you turned out to be a raving idiot
Anyways, just admit you fucked up your grammar.
Lol. I've thanked numerous people in the past when they've pointed our errors, but as I've explained to you everything here makes perfect sense. And again, you're unable to grasp the point of everything I've said to you. And you wonder why I think you're an idiot...
I noticed you never responded to the links I provided. You know, this is never going to be settled through conversation. Either prove to me through grammar rule that I'm incorrect or concede you were wrong. Hyphens are never used to separate clauses. NEVER! Those were two clauses.
I will admit that em-dashes may not have been the most appropriate choice; albeit, your sentence was made of absolute fuck and I could barely discern just wtf you were saying. You should have used a comma to separate "music" and "a." Now if you think I'm wrong, prove that to me. I feel like I've already proved my point with the Owl labs.
I didn't need to respond to the links, I've already explained everything and yet you continue to go on because YOU CAN'T SEEM TO GRASP THE POINT
"They're not independent clauses, so that's your flaw. It's merely an extension of the idea presented before that I felt needed to be explained - (uh oh) it was presented separately"
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=independent+clause&sub=Search+WordNet&o2=&o0=1&o8=1&o1=1&o7=&o5=&o9=&o6=&o3=&o4=&h=
Did you miss the point where a hyphen is so when it isn't separated from the body of text? I never said they were anything of the sort, you did
| | | |
|
|
