Album Rating: 1.5
good review, band sucks
|
| |
Album Rating: 4.5 | Sound Off
Wow. Absolutely astonishing how irresponsible this website is to allow Mike to write reviews for metal records.
Saying MH sounds like Pantera or Robb Flynn sounds like Phil Anselmo is just retarded in itself.
Now that time has passed and we see how many people are giving this very high reviews and how many new fans MH is gaining with every show we can see how weak this review was. Hindsight is 20/20 so it's OK Mike, we know you want to apologize.
You fail at life.This Message Edited On 02.18.08
|
| |
Album Rating: 3.0
And you say Mike fails at life?
[quote=GodThatYouDesire's soundoff]Machine Head is at their finest and I defy any metal band to play their respective instruments as well as these guys do.[/quote]
:lol:
|
| |
Album Rating: 4.5 | Sound Off
Truth hurts I guess HAHA. Obviously MH aren't the best EVER to play their instruments, that was a biased exaggeration, but they are highly respected. Ask other bands, people who actually know about metal. Many BANDS consider MH metal gods or at least look up to them. I guess you guys know better though (rolleyes).
|
| |
This review gives a clear view of the writers lack of musical knowledge. Next to that it also a very bad review, I cant see why people even think this is a good review. Seriously, in this entire review the writer keeps bashing this album, if he thinks it is THAT BAD. Obviously that marks the true incompotence of this reviewer, which also lacks to give one good statement why this album 'sucks' in his book.
|
| |
Album Rating: 3.0
i really like this album
|
| |
Album Rating: 1.0
fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck
Many BANDS consider MH metal gods or at least look up to them. more like trend hoping gods
|
| |
Album Rating: 3.0
[quote=aadif]Obviously that marks the true incompotence of this reviewer[/quote]
Then write a better review yourself. You do, after all, have the burden of proof.
|
| |
Album Rating: 4.0
I've got to say, I didn't hate this.
|
| |
Album Rating: 1.5
lol this sucks so much.
|
| |
Truth hurts I guess HAHA. Obviously MH aren't the best EVER to play their instruments, that was a biased exaggeration, but they are highly respected. Ask other bands, people who actually know about metal. Many BANDS consider MH metal gods or at least look up to them. I guess you guys know better though (rolleyes).
:lol:This Message Edited On 02.18.08
|
| |
Album Rating: 3.5
lol this sucks so much.
I thought at one point you liked this SOH. I remember debating over the opening track on this album with you!
Masscows,
To people on Sputnikmusic, this band sounds like a joke. To many people out there who hear about bands long after they have been around, this would sound somewhat refreshing. I give this album credit because its a really fun listen. Tight riffs, really good solos etc.
|
| |
Funny how people just neg this because they don't agree with Mike's opinion. Was just reading some random comments on the first page, and the dumbarses are literally picking out totally subjective comments in the review as their reasoning to why the review was bad. Idiots.
|
| |
Album Rating: 4.0
this is a solid album, really enjoyable
|
| |
Is it purely coincidence that overpraised, popular bands like this have the most obnoxious, ignorant, idiotic fans? Every popular, trend-hopping, overrated band like this has fans that can't handle negative opinions and they always fly off the handle. "**** YOU YOUR OPINION SUCKS REVIEW SUCKS BECAUSE THIS ALBUM IS GODLY! OPEN YOUR EYES IDIOT AND SEE WHAT METAL HAMMER SAYS!"This Message Edited On 04.13.08
|
| |
Album Rating: 4.0
A little angry...have a bad evening? I personally really like this album but you are entitled to you're opinion of thinking a popular band sucks because I do think a popular band is very mediocre (Opeth)...
The reason this review sucks tho, is because, first it is way to vague. It is pretty clearly an attention whore of a review rather than an explanation of an album's sound and music which he feels did not succeed.
The second problem is that to rate an album a 1, just like to rate it a 5, means it is an absolute...
Luckily, we also get a break from Rob's ear splitting shout with some clean vocals, and while these clean vocals are not exceptionally crafted, they're far stronger than the alternative. Ultimately, the three middle tracks are just average groove tracks (meaning that they're fairly terrible), but I would definitely take nine Slanderous-es what Machine Head has offered here. They're much easier to digest and for all their shortcomings, are far more enjoyable than the likes of Wolves or Halo.
Just for this part alone the album cannot be a 1. Throughout the review he says there is some good which means this can't be an absolutely unlistenable album.
I know you can't really judge how others rate but a 5 has to be perfect and a 1 unlistenable. Saying there are multiple positives to a one is like saying there are multiple negatives to a 5. It really just can't be.
Yes there are a lot of dumb responses to this review by idiot fanboys...but the review is not good and deserves to be negged/ridiculed for not doing what a review is supposed to do...review.This Message Edited On 04.14.08
|
| |
A little angry...have a bad evening? I personally really like this album but you are entitled to you're opinion of thinking a popular band sucks because I do think a popular band is very mediocre (Opeth)...
And coicidentally Opeth has lots of idiotic, obnoxious, rabid fans. Oh I get it, you thought I would lash out at you because you mentioned a band that I liked that was popular. I don't see how I was angry. But as we talked about in my media, cultures, and society class people misinterpret emotions on the internet because there is no context.
The reason this review sucks tho, is because, first it is way to vague. It is pretty clearly an attention whore of a review rather than an explanation of an album's sound and music which he feels did not succeed.
This review does not suck. You clearly show that you hate this review simply because it disagrees with you by throwing insults at the reviewer that you would not have had the review been positive. This review gave me a definite idea of what I would be listening to. This is no different than reviews on the other end of the spectrum. Reviews don't have to go in-depth describing what every chorus or bridge in the album sounds like to give you an idea of what the album sounds like.
The second problem is that to rate an album a 1, just like to rate it a 5, means it is an absolute...
Okay... he obviously hates this album. Didn't you read the reivew?
|
| |
What Eakflanderyof said. You're just biased towards the album willfellmarsy, and it blinds your judgement in seeing what is obviously a well written review. Like I said before, all you're doing is picking at completely subjective points. Mike says exactly what he doesn't like about the album, and then he tells us why. That alone is a reason enough to give it a 1.
|
| |
Album Rating: 4.0
Eak-the opeth thing wasn't about you, it was more of a blanket statement to compare another band that has a ton of stupid die-hard fans that can't accept any criticisms of said band.
My opinion really isn't biased with this review. It's not biased because i don't love Machine Head...i just like this album.
This review is totally vague...It doesn't really explain the sound at all.
All it says is that there are a ton of riffs (some of which were good) and the singers harsh vocals are bad and his clean vocals are good. Songs are too long and the solos have good moments and bad. It's not necessarily a poorly written review as far as grammar, spelling, and is it an interesting read?
A review is supposed to describe an album fully. There is not one mention of drumming in the entire review. Not one. This really cements the fact that he wanted to hate it, said what he hated, and didn't review the album just put it down for being "popular" and "hyped".
It just really doesn't discuss the album thoroghly enough and seems like the reviewer wanted to hate it before he listened to it.
The amount of positives stated in this review does not justify a 1.
|
| |
There is not one mention of drumming in the entire review. Not one.
When was it a requirement that reviews had to mention absolutely every little thing the album contained? Mike's review is already quite long, there is no need to mention absolutely everything, such as drumming. And contrary to what you think, he does go through all relevant aspects quite thoroughly.
|
| |
|
|
